climate change is threatening people globally, but it also presents business opportunities through innovation and sustainability, said bea perez, global chief communications, sustainability, and strategic partnerships officer at coca-cola.

perez addressed hundreds of global influencers and upcoming mba entrepreneurs at northwestern university’s kellogg climate conference this spring. perez and other corporate leaders advocated for sustainability during the impending climate crisis linked to rising temperatures, economic instability, weather disasters and water insecurity. 

the conference drew on expertise from the energy, transportation, agriculture, food, finance and other sectors to leverage solutions, such as the generating enough electricity and parts to transition to electric fleets for corporate shipping and mass transit. 

an anticipated $1.3 trillion in investment will be needed to innovate and curb climate pain points companies have inflamed in recent years, turning the spotlight on the sustainability leaders globally. 

perez focused on coca-cola’s recent sustainability efforts and errors at the conference hosted by the kellogg school of management and northwestern’s paula m. trienens institute of sustainability and energy. 

evaluating big business’s responsibility to mitigate climate change

kellogg brought corporate leaders from companies including exxon-mobil, invenergy, and general motors under one roof to educate and prepare future business leaders to prioritize sustainability and innovation. 

there’s two things everybody should understand about climate — where do greenhouse gasses come from and how are industries and companies following through on climate mitigation goals, said meghan busse, associate professor of strategy at the kellogg school of management. 

perez combined the outlook for commercial profitability and sustainability to evaluate what roles the fortune 500 company plays in prioritizing the climate as a key strategy in decisions, not just an offshoot program. 

her theme was accountability — owning up to coca-cola’s mistakes and reimagining the company’s more recent role in mitigating climate change. some steps included changing bottle design and water conservation. 

“don’t you think we have a responsibility as a business to manage those resources [water and carbon] and do better?” perez said.

taking accountability

by reducing the amount of carbon used to produce a singular coca cola product by 25%, perez said the company found a loophole when they first tried to focus on sustainability. 

their per unit carbon usage was down, but since business was growing, it let coca-cola grow their carbon emissions in “absolute terms,” perez said. 

“we made a mistake,” perez said. “and so just as any smart business group would do… we had to reset the plan.”

in other words, coca-cola needed to establish new targets that held all aspects of their business accountable in lowering their carbon emissions – and not just their production line. 

perez also recognized the role fortune 500 companies play in restoring resources like water. 

“you can’t have a conversation about climate, unless you talk about water,” perez said.  

coca-cola established three goals hoping to restore all the water they use for production globally: using 100% regenerative water across 175 facilities facing “high water stress,” improving 60 watersheds’ health, and returning two trillion liters of water to communities. 

in 2021, coca-cola introduced regenerative water as a metric for achieving their sustainability goals. the concept includes reducing, reusing, recycling and replenishing water to communities for nature and other stakeholders to use, according to their 2021 sustainability report. 

perez’s talk put more responsibility on corporations to work on climate change mitigation, rather than falling on the consumer. 

“water is a human right… a lot of places in developed countries don’t have water regulation. if you go into emerging markets, they typically do. and so how do you make sure there’s [a] great water policy in place for people and for society?”

emphasizing community

perez said that between 2018 to 2022, there were only 18 days, on average, between every billion-dollar disaster, compared to 82 days in the 1980s. 

coca-cola shifted its value proposition from getting communities to spend money on their products to investing back into the communities where resources are acquired from.

“if you don’t have strong communities, you don’t have businesses,” perez said. 

“water still will always be number one, but it cuts in many slices… some people say, ‘we saw you met your target five years ahead of schedule, so what are you doing today?’” perez said. 

she said coca-cola is now working to replenish 100% of the water it uses. 

room for improvement

despite getting ahead of their target, coca-cola falls short compared to the company’s leading food and beverage competitor: pepsico.

pepsico used 1.4 liters of water per liter of beverage product produced, according to their water stewardship approach, which is 0.39 liters less than of coca-cola’s usage in their latest business and sustainability report. 

perez also spoke about the importance of independent auditing for environmental, social and governmental reporting. 

“imagine if it were just coca-cola saying, ‘hey, we did this,’” perez said. “do you think you would believe me? this is a little bit like a conflict of interest, right?” 

esg reporting involves publicly disclosing information about environmental, social and governmental business operations, according to the corporate governance institute. 

coca-cola made the switch to sustainability report auditing through ernst and young, a multinational professional services company, in 2015. 

coca-cola was one of the first in the pack, since only 2% of fortune 500 companies started esg reporting back then, perez said. 

perez urged audience members to look up coca-cola’s business and sustainability reports, which replaced the reports that were originally only geared towards quantifying how well the company was reaching sustainability targets.   

the transition came after coca-cola realized it was sending “unintended signals” that they had two separate reports, perez said. 

“it would look as if it [sustainability] wasn’t important to our business,” perez said. “frankly, you saw throughout those charts how important it [sustainability] is to our business].”

a data-informed approach

coca-cola incorporates a next-generation data platform to track and manage progress against esg metrics and has abided by the sustainability accounting standards board standards since 2020, according to their 2021 reporting frameworks and sustainable development goals. 

the company focuses on water leadership, packaging, climate, sustainable agriculture and communities in their esg report, according to their 2022 business and sustainability report. 

“we integrated the data,” perez said. “we made sure that we have the same standard that we have in our financial reporting as we have in here — [the esg report].”

currently, companies are only required to report scope 1 and scope 2 criteria, which involve reporting greenhouse gas emissions from sources an organization directly owns and from indirect energy sources the company has purchased, according to the securities and exchange commission. 

scope 3, emissions that the company does not produce by itself and are not from the companies’ assets, and water consumption reporting are still not required by the sec.

navigating the future of esg reporting

currently, coca-cola’s reporting has been voluntary in the u.s., so accountability hasn’t come at a penalty cost, yet. 

but what happens when the sec enforces mandatory esg reporting?

on march 6, the sec adopted rules to “enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies,” according to the sec’s enhancement and standardization of climate-related disclosures for investors. 

while declaring water-usage was proposed as an inclusion  for the final rule, it was ultimately axed to simplify requirements and prevent putting a “topical focus” on any one climate-related disclosure, according to the disclosure. 

coca-cola has already begun anticipating the sec’s future moves towards making sustainability reporting mandatory.  

 perez said she tells her team to consider how much voluntary reporting they’re doing that could impact mandatory reporting in the future. 

“if you report work you’re really not doing, with the sec rules, you’re going to have personal fines to executives, criminal penalties potentially. so the stakes are higher,” perez said. 

because of this broad influence, google is considered a global megacorporation, as well as an internet monopoly. amazon and johnson & johnson are other examples of contemporary megacorporations. the concept, while mostly used in science fiction stories, originated in the 1600s with global trading companies such as the dutch east india company and the british east india company. in many ways these conglomerates have become untouchable, they have the power and resources to rise above liability. however in recent years the concepts of corporate responsibility and stakeholder theory have prevailed, forcing companies to be accountable to the public, in addition to shareholders. the influence of the public has implored these corporations to confront and resolve issues such as human rights violations and environmental damage.

the environmental community has learned to be wary of initiatives from large corporations. we’ve been burned before by companies like volkswagen and exxon. like many large corporations, google has made numerous claims about their environmental sustainability and mitigation efforts. in order to determine the validity of these claims, i interviewed a current google employee about this topic, as well as conducting my own research.

podcast transcript:

lily john  0:05  

i’m planet 世界杯欧洲预选赛免费直播 lily john, and recently i’ve taken interest in the issue of corporate social responsibility, specifically at google. the company is ostensibly environmentally conscious, but i wanted to take a more critical look at these claims.

as you listen, please keep in mind that i’m no expert in this field, and this is by no means an exhaustive evaluation. i should also mention that my stepmom, who i’ll be interviewing later in this podcast, has been a google employee for almost four years. she has enjoyed her time there, but found elements of the company’s practices to be in conflict with our family’s strong environmental values. 

today, we’ll be taking a deeper dive into the world of corporate sustainability by way of my research and an interview with a current google employee. to begin, let’s review google’s environmental accomplishments and sustainability goals. their website states, “by organizing information about our planet and making it actionable through technology, we help people make even more positive impact, together.” environmentalism has long been a core value at google. they were the first company to become carbon neutral in 2007, and the first to match all energy use with renewable energy in 2017. this is accomplished through carbon offsets, or investments in carbon sequestration, which help eliminate the company’s carbon legacy. their next moonshot is using 100% carbon free energy in data centers and campuses by 2030. the company has also committed to adopting a circular economy model for its physical products. this means reusing and repurposing products to eliminate waste from their supply chain. google has also committed to being water positive. that is putting more water into the environment than they import for facilities. this is done by restoring and protecting water sources. another more recent aspect of google sustainability initiative is providing tools that encourage individual action. for example, when doing a google search for flights, there will be information about the rate of carbon emissions to inform the consumer of the less impactful option. 

as part of my research, i conducted an interview with my stepmom, erin hoffman-john, who is a current google employee.

hi erin, i’m going to have you begin by introducing yourself and telling us what you’ve done in your time at google.

erin hoffman-john  2:44  

hi, my name is erin hoffman-john, and i’m a senior staff interaction designer for google working in google research now. i previously joined google in 2017. worked on google stadia.

lily john  2:54  

okay, great. thank you. i have been doing research about sustainability at google. there is a fair amount of information of course from the company. they’re pretty transparent with sustainability reports, as well as criticism and commentary from outside parties. what is your general take on sustainability at google?

erin hoffman-john  3:19  

you know, because i come from video games, i don’t have a whole lot to compare it to. so for me, google’s commitment to sustainability seems really remarkable.

lily john  3:26  

are you aware of any criticisms about sustainability from within the company?

erin hoffman-john  3:32  

it’s a huge company. and there’s lots of people with many different perspectives. people pay attention to the external critiques that we hear. and there’s a lot of conversation about the impact of big tech on the environment. and i think it’s, it’s a really tough ethical conversation about “wow much is tech improving our ability to solve problems?” versus “how much is it creating new environmental problems?” there are definitely regular updates on, “here’s how our sustainability policies are evolving” that get, i think, quite a lot of attention. i certainly pay close attention to them.

lily john  4:06  

and do you expect that other companies will follow google’s example? because i know in silicon valley, google is pretty on top of their game in comparison with other companies tn terms of sustainability. do you see that spreading?

erin hoffman-john  4:22  

i would hope so i think to some extent it has because google is so large, it has a lot of advantages that it can push in that domain. and a lot of companies in silicon valley are very small, very scrappy, they’re not really able to do those things. so i think, especially for many rising tech companies, it’s a question of what services can google provide to take on some of that burden?

lily john  4:46 

what would you say is the most promising aspect of the sustainability initiative at google?

erin hoffman-john  4:54  

i think that there were milestones like the 100%, clean energy goals, and the most ambitious of which is definitely the carbon free by 2030, which is, i think, a pretty remarkable statement that speaks to the urgency that people feel for how quickly we need to solve these problems, if we can. i think that the design of some of the new buildings and the way that google was using its sort of real estate footprint to innovate on sustainable technologies, like the dragonscale solar, is really exciting. and i’m hoping that that also spreads.

lily john  5:34  

from your perspective, not working in the sustainability department, what are google employees’ attitudes about sustainability? and how much involvement is there?

erin hoffman-john  5:46  

yeah, i think there’s a wide range. clearly, there are people that are especially passionate about sustainability, even beyond the ones that are just working in that part of the organization, and are constantly asking questions. can we do this? can we reduce waste in the offices? and all of that kind of thing. i do think in general, although it’s a wide range, i hear a lot of concern. i have certainly never heard anybody say it’s not a big deal. and so i think, as it is, in the general population, there are people who feel like they don’t know what to do, and they don’t know what can be done, but they certainly believe that it’s important and want to do what they can. people who work at google are very passionate. it’s a value of the company to challenge the status quo. and sometimes that status quo is the people who run the company so challenging leadership, to work harder and go further.

lily john  6:35 

now that we’ve gotten the inside scoop, let’s move on to criticisms mounted from outside the company. as we all should know, by now, information presented to the public is not always accurate and trustworthy. when companies reach a certain size and value, they become somewhat immune to scrutiny and punishment, thanks to the resources available to protect their image. 

one of the criticisms of google’s sustainability claims is their relationship with total oil, one of the world’s largest oil companies. in this partnership, google provides ai software that interprets subsurface graphs and allows for the most effective extraction process, which has brought profits for the company. fortunately, google has recently committed to sever this partnership and revoke the use of their tools for the sake of the environment. 

another criticism concerns the google pixel four, one of their smartphones released in 2019. this phone includes recycled materials but cannot actually be fully reused, thus removing it from the circular economy model as it creates waste. and like most smartphones, these days, the pixel is replaced by a better model each year, thus encouraging planned obsolescence. 

google data centers also use incredible amounts of energy. surprisingly, the cloud doesn’t actually exist in the sky, but in google’s 23 massive data centers across the globe, a great deal of the energy required for these data centers has transitioned to renewable sources. however, there is still some reliance on fossil fuels. the company maintains its net zero carbon emission status by purchasing carbon offset credits. these credits count as compensation for pollution released by the company’s activities. so essentially, they are making up for their greenhouse gas emissions but not actually eliminating them. but the question remains, what environmental impacts is google or any other company for that matter responsible for fixing or remediating and to what extent? 

one of the biggest roadblocks to the much needed action on climate change is a lack of accountability and responsibility. all in all, i have to say i was pleasantly surprised by my findings. i expected to come across cover ups of environmental scandal or misrepresentation of company efforts as has become the status quo for large corporations. by my amateur evaluation, it seems that google has put a significant amount of resources towards environmental action, which will likely inspire competitors to do the same. 

that being said google is not without its faults and shortcomings in environmental issues. it is essential that corporations are held accountable for the damage they’re doing to the environment. it is becoming increasingly evident that governments cannot be relied upon to make the changes necessary to prevent catastrophic warming and other environmental disasters. i believe that our best and perhaps only option is to target the polluters themselves. they may have the government in their pocket, but not all of us.

––

transcribed by https://otter.ai

image by geralt via pixabay.

music track is “better days” by lakey inspired.

lakey inspired:
https://www.instagram.com/lakeyinspired/
https://open.spotify.com/user/lakeyinspired
https://www.youtube.com/lakeyinspired

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
music provided by rfm: https://youtu.be/xekzwqf3bl8

united airlines offers a quick fix to neutralize your carbon emissions for a trip from chicago to los angeles and back: $4.60 in carbon offsets. 

the round-trip economy ticket costs approximately $200, and the flights emit somewhere in the range of 0.46 to 1.19 tons of carbon dioxide, as much as 20% of the carbon emitted by the average person across the globe annually and 6% for the average american, according to our world in data, an online scientific database and publication.

carbon offsets are monetary investments into global projects that reduce carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to counterbalance one’s emissions. these projects can range from a tree planting program in kenya to a landfill gas capture in ohio, according to terrapass, an offset program.

however, the offsets for the same flights could actually cost upwards of $20 with different agencies, according to estimates from other offset calculating websites such as atmosfair and myclimate. the difference could be due to the type of offset, its quality or its social impact—but it also raises questions on the consumers’ end.

yet what’s more concerning is united’s offsets are “not even real” in taking carbon directly from the flight out of the air, noted united ceo scott kirby in a capa meeting in march 2021. instead of banking on carbon offsets, united will focus on making air travel itself become carbon neutral, said united spokesperson rachael rivas. 

carbon offsets have grown in popularity, especially as a means to make up for commercial air travel, which releases more than 2.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to our world in data.

the decades-long increase in aviation carbon dioxide emissions corresponds to skyrocketing air travel. even though the total carbon dioxide emitted from aviation is growing, the relative proportion of global carbon dioxide emissions from air travel has remained steady.

improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency have allowed carbon dioxide emissions per passenger to plummet since the 1950s, when air travel began to boom. per traveler carbon emissions have fallen to half of what they were 20 years ago due to more fuel-efficient planes, according to the international air transport association (iata). the wider introduction of biofuels will allow the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger to shrink more.

“this is something that we can do to begin mitigating some of the damage that’s already been done, just to reduce some of the additional influx and emissions that we’re likely to see in the next 20, 30, 40 years and begin to start solving the problem,” said pat brewer, a senior analyst at green-e, a third-party company that checks offset certification methods. “it’s definitely not open-heart surgery [for climate change]. but i would argue it’s maybe a little bit more than a band-aid.”

carbon offset programs can be part of the compliance market or voluntary purchases.

government authorities mandate compliance programs, also known as cap-and-trade, and allow polluting companies to meet greenhouse gas emissions regulations by offsetting in another arena, said brewer. 

voluntary offset programs let individuals and companies make the choice to purchase offsets to account for their own carbon emissions, said brewer. offsets airlines sell to customers or that travelers buy independently fall into the voluntary category.

about 10% of americans have purchased carbon offsets, and more than half would consider purchasing them in the future, according to a survey of people who believe their carbon emissions affect climate change by ipsos, a global market research firm. 

carbon offsets encounter criticism from both a philosophical and a physical perspective.

philosophical objections to carbon offsets include allowing polluting companies to continue their practices while “greenwashing,” the lack of a long-term solution for polluting and the way in which offsets can serve as a “modern indulgence” for carbon-emitting consumers, according to the carbon offset guide. 

on a physical level, countless investigations have exposed the impacts of carbon offset programs. scandals range from projects displacing indigenous peoples, said sarah milne of the australian national university, to carbon certificates being awarded for projects planting non-existent trees, according to a report from the new england center for investigative reporting.

another criticism of carbon offsets is their inaccuracy, both in quantifying how much carbon one’s actions emitted and in assigning a dollar value to offset. 

differences in carbon offset prices are due to the nature of the programs. offsets such as methane capture are inherently cheaper (and are often bought in bulk by airlines) than projects such as cleaning cooking stoves in southeast asia, which have added health and social justice benefits, said brewer. despite flaws in numerical accuracy calculating carbon emissions and reduction, carbon offsets are still the best solution at the present, he said.

across the carbon emissions calculators, there was a range of potential carbon footprints on a round-trip economy ticket from o’hare international airport to los angeles international airport. the differences in estimates might be due to inaccurate aircraft types used in calculations, according to a quartz article. another explanation could be aircraft emissions are more potent in the sky than on the ground and calculators accounting for that theory differently, according to the united states general accounting office. 

the same round-trip flight yielded different results in how much one should pay in offsets, with united’s partner conservation international the lowest. some of the differences in prices are due to the conflicting estimates of carbon dioxide emitted. other price differences are due to the types of offsets themselves and their quality. carbon footprint and flygrn both provide a range for carbon offset prices, and the average price from the range is provided in the chart.

the best carbon offset projects are independently certified by companies that set their own standards. offset projects can pay a fee to join certification programs, whereby third-party auditors then assess the projects to see if they meet the program’s criteria, said robin rix, chief policy and markets officer at verra, an offset-certifying program. 

the certifiers green-e endorses are gold standard, american carbon registry, verra and climate action reserve, said brewer. green-e provides another level of protection by checking the methods those certifiers used to quantify the carbon offset projects in the first place, he said. 

in the same way a food bank doesn’t hope to operate forever, verra hopes to be out of business by 2050, said rix. a world where offsets are no longer needed is the ultimate goal, but offsets provide a necessary bridge, he said.

“the reality is, if we were to get down to that level [of net-zero emissions] right now, overnight, it would be, frankly, economically destructive, disastrous. and it would be socially chaotic. we’re talking mass unemployment. we’re talking about mass disruption. it’s just not something that the world can do overnight. and so we do see offsetting as a way to enable that transition to be made in a way while preserving environmental integrity,” said rix.

at the verra-certified rimba raya biodiversity reserve, initiatives include an orangutan release site (which the pictured path leads to), fire fighting brigades and fuel-efficient cookstoves distribution. the reserve, located in central kalimantan, indonesia, is a reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (redd+) project.

at the verra-certified alto mayo protected forest in san martin and amazonas, peru, community workers rescue, cultivate and eventually sell orchids from coffee plantations. the forest is also part of a redd+ project.

voluntary market experts anticipate a boom in international carbon offset demand as countries work to achieve their goals laid out in the 2015 paris agreement and as companies work to reach their net-zero carbon promises, said brewer. 

airlines such as delta, jetblue and united have partnered with carbon offsetting organizations and make up a large sector of the voluntary market. delta has purchased more than 12 million voluntary carbon offsets since 2013, according to its website. jetblue began automatically offsetting domestic flights in july 2020, according to a press release. united is a partner with conservation international but is also investing in a broad range of strategies to limit emissions including biofuels and carbon sequestration, according to its environmental commitment. 

corsia, the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation, is the next step for the airline industry. organized by the international civil aviation organization (icao), the scheme works to prohibit international aviation emissions from exceeding its 2020 levels, leading airlines to buy offsets to negate their excess emissions, according to the european union aviation safety agency. the vast majority of countries will participate by 2027, increasing demand in the offset market, according to icao.

“there’s a role for offsets. they just need to be as strong and certified and verified as possible,” said theodore rolfvondenbaumen, a communications manager for neste, a leading producer in sustainable aviation fuel. “but at the same time, they cannot be treated as an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels.”

beyond carbon offsets, the airline industry’s long-term sustainability goals involve transitions to biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell aircraft and, ultimately, electric aircraft.

alternatives to jet fuel are in the works, with biofuels in the beginning stages of its implementation. until wider administration of these new technologies, carbon offsets remain a solution to negate emissions from traditional aviation and to prevent airlines’ net emissions from exceeding 2020 levels.

consumers must weigh the social cost versus their private benefit when deciding to fly, said mark witte, a northwestern university economics professor. “if what you end up paying for the trip included the environmental damage, you’d probably be less likely to make the trip,” said witte. “there’s a certain lack of justice in that. people really rich can be like, ‘oh, well, i don’t care.’ and, a lot of other people like, ‘well, my mother’s really ill. i’d like to see her one last time. but i can’t afford it.’”

the bottom line is aviation emits a lot of carbon despite real progress and promising technological developments in the industry. as for your planned trip to california next month, carbon offsets provide a short-term solution for unavoidable carbon emissions. but consumers need to reduce what they can and offset what they can’t, said brewer.

“i’ve never met someone who has had a zero-emissions life. everyone has some emissions in their lives, even if it’s their bicycle. that aluminum comes from somewhere. the rubber comes from somewhere,” said rix. “and so i think anything that anyone can do to neutralize or to address their sources of emissions is a good thing.

music courtesy of epidemic sound.
first track: paradigm shift by gavin luke
second track: azoic by max anson

solar panels are a common way to get renewal energy, especially in sunbelt states like arizona. but one company is using solar panels to pull water straight from the air. this technology is helping arizonans as well as people around the world.

it may sound a little wild, but author and professor robert stayton lays out all the details in his new book, “solar dividends: how solar energy can generate a basic income for everyone on earth.”

stayton, who teaches courses at the university of california, santa cruz and cabrillo college ranging from physics to solar energy, has made solar his life’s work.

and it actually was work on stayton’s last book that inspired his newest release.

“while writing my previous book ‘power shift,’ which is about how we can transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, i was trying to figure out how much renewable energy we would need,” stayton said. “that is, if we managed to transition 100% to solar and wind, how much would we need to install to run a modern civilization? 

“i wanted to show that it was not such a ridiculous number that it would be impossible to accomplish,” he said.

finding a solution like the one stayton discusses in “solar dividends” takes a lot of hours calculating and planning, and stayton also shared just how long he spent with his calculations on coming up with a possible solution to clean energy.

“i had to take into account population growth, improvements in energy efficiency, delivering energy services to all people, and the intermittent nature of solar and wind,” he said. “i calculated that for the solar pv (photovoltaic) component of such a future energy system, we would need to install 100 terawatts of panels, that is, 100 trillion watts. such a huge number is hard to relate to, so i looked at how much that would be per person, to put it on a human scale.

“by 2070 our population is expected to be 10 billion, so dividing 100 trillion by 10 billion, i got 10,000 watts per person. so i concluded that if we installed 10 kilowatts of pv for each person on the planet, we would have enough energy to run a modern world economy, including all industry, commerce, and transportation.

“that’s when the lightbulb over my head lit up: why not just give everyone a 10 kilowatt pv system? ‘nah, that’s crazy,’ i thought,” stayton said. “but the idea stuck in my head, and i spent the next four years working out exactly how we could do that, connecting it to universal basic incomes, and the result is my new book ‘solar dividends,’” stayton added.

making a transition to a cleaner form of energy will take time no matter the type of energy that is being discussed. for example, even though every democratic presidential candidate thinks climate change is a real issue that has to be addressed they all have different ways to combat it with either what type of energy should be used or what legislation should be passed. 

“i’m the first to describe using the income from solar energy instead of taxes to pay for basic incomes,” stayton said.

however, “solar dividends” is not just about how solar will benefit people from a clean energy standpoint but an economic one as well. throughout the book, stayton describes how switching to solar energy will benefit everyone — no matter their social status — instead of a “few oil tycoons” as he describes in the book.

“unlike oil, no one owns the sun. many people have described solar as a common resource, but my book describes a specific program for how to give everyone a piece of an economy that is based on solar energy,” stayton said. 

“instead of a few oligarchs making lots of money on oil, everyone would be making a modest amount on solar,” he said. “by providing a base level of economic security for everyone and by eliminating the need for conflict over oil, we create a more peaceful and just society.”

as an intern at a federal agency for the past 4 months, i had the opportunity to contribute to an organization-wide transition toward more efficient and accountable business practices. working in the program management department responsible for implementing the transition exposed me to a variety of obstacles common to large-scale change. the issues the program management department addressed were chronic and relevant to almost every employee in the agency. the decision-making process for middle management was not only often inefficient, but also overly hierarchical and opaque to normal employees. nevertheless, there were contrasting visions of how the agency could improve its work and best serve its clients. some were too stubborn to adjust their own management methods to new standards, while others interpreted the new process as a burden to employees who already had numerous documentation requirements.

clashing perspectives and priorities were pervasive even among those in support of the program management department’s efforts. even minute details of the program management tools required many layers of review from different groups of stakeholders. my internship was relatively brief, but these fault lines within the agency were immediately apparent. however, there were passionate civil servants across these divisions who seemed genuinely dedicated to improving the agency’s work and serving the public.

the media often portrays the government as a monolith that is unresponsive to new circumstances and inflexible to change. bureaucratic impediments in government surely exist, however, i was exposed to a much more complex and optimistic reality. many government employees are aware of and enthusiastically strive to resolve systemic issues in their agencies. the process may be time-consuming, but thorough deliberation is necessary to any process that affects thousands of employees and uses public funds. being bold enough to demand radical change is just as important as understanding how both large public and private systems process transitions.

this perspective developed my own outlook as i considered the scope of work necessary to make the world more sustainable. while an organization’s “culture” of sustainability is typically judged by its environmental impact or social awareness, management-employee relations and the distribution of day-to-day decision-making power also deserves scrutiny. aside from fair compensation and benefits, organizations can empower its employees by providing structural opportunities for collaboration and meaningful contribution to the business process. distinct organizational hierarchies are often necessary as a practical matter of mitigating risk and matching competency with a proportional degree of responsibility.

however, imbalanced power dynamics in work environments can undermine the importance of collaboration and even dehumanize the individual entry-level employee. changing these dynamics is not always possible in the short-term, however, looking for opportunities to improve the way that people interact with their social and professional environments is at the core of developing innovative sustainable solutions. as more organizations begin using the language of sustainability, it is important that those in power have the tools and incentives to initiate bold conversations and ideas regardless of how difficult they are to implement.

this incredibly successful restaurant was created to give family farmers back the pride and confidence they deserve in order to overcome the corporate pressures exerted over them, while maintaining their unwavering commitment to sustainability, which is imbued into every single crumb that founding farmers serves. the restaurants are now owned by more than 47,000 family farmers, members of the ndfu, a number which is inscribed on all of the forks in the restaurants to remind guests just how much went into the meals that they are enjoying.

from farm to fork, founding farmers is committed to sustainability. i sat down with their very own erin chalkley, construction & development project manager and leed green associate, to discuss how they maintain their position as a leader in environmentally-responsible restauranteering.

the farm

the farmers restaurant group is committed to sourcing produce from family owned farms. erin explained to me that reason farmers restaurant group continues to source their produce directly from local farmers is to ensure that profits remain in the hands of the families, communities, and farmers themselves.

additionally, family farms are more likely to want to run sustainably. erin explained, “family farmers have the incentive to run their farm in a sustainable way because they need it, their farm is the value, the land is the value.” she continued to tell me that farms are incentivized to use much more intensive farming practices involving the use of harmful chemicals when on a corporate structure. however, a family farm would see the value in organic farming and more sustainable practices, like using cover crops — which deposit nitrogen into the soil — and other methods to avoid the use of harmful chemicals. when avoiding intensive agricultural practices, including the use of chemicals, farmers ensure that their land will retain its value and continue to thrive.

the restaurant

founding farmers is d.c.’s first leed gold certified restaurant and a member of the green restaurant association (gra) with a green restaurant certification. leed certification means the building and facility are built and run sustainably, while the gra manages operational aspects of the restaurant. both certifications are important because they tell guests that the restaurant is actually following through with its commitment to sustainability.

furthermore, being a sustainable restaurant is not as costly as people think. since day one, founding farmers built sustainability into their total operating costs, and because of this, sustainability itself has never been an issue for any of their price points or impacted the guests’ experience. their biggest cost of creating a sustainable restaurant was construction in order to acquire leed certification. however, when a restaurant is smart about its investments, it pays off in the long run, like how decreasing energy consumption will decrease energy bills.

surprisingly, when you walk into the restaurant, the lengths gone to create this sustainable experience are not obvious, despite everything in the restaurant, right down to the faucets, being carefully selected to be the most sustainable option. the subtle details which make the restaurant sustainable are tucked away so guests can have the best experience. this is partially because the restaurant knows it will get nowhere by pushing their sustainable agenda down their guests’ throats, who come in for their iconic chicken and waffles, not a lecture. erin described the choice to avoid putting sustainability at the forefront of the restaurants messaging by explaining “we really try and make it so we’ve already made the hardest decisions for our guests before they come in so that way they don’t have to make them themselves.” she continued to explain that the restaurant owners already know they are responsible and only wants to give the guests a great experience, which means not explaining every little decision. nevertheless, individuals who do care and are conscious of the sustainable choices made in the restaurant will notice the filtered water in a glass bottle that is served in glass cups without ice, they will notice when the waiter pushes their homemade scratch sodas made from freshly pureed fruit, and they will notice the upcycled decor within the restaurant.

the food

founding farmers does an unbelievable job at appealing to the masses by putting their own spin on classic, american comfort foods. with menu items ranging from skillet cornbread to homemade pastas, there is something for everyone. compared to other top-rated d.c. restaurants, you definitely get more bacon for your buck because of their all-american portions that are still modestly priced.

because the restaurant was explicitly structured from the very beginning, they actually do not accumulate much waste. as erin put it “the best impact we make is preventing the waste from coming in here in the first place, waste reduction as opposed to how do we handle the waste after the fact.” regardless, the kitchen still has ways to prevent food waste. founding farmers cooks everything from scratch, right down to the bread and dressings, which significantly reduces food waste. additionally, the restaurants run on a tightly controlled production schedule to avoid any major food waste due to spoilage. nearly eliminating waste with methods like these help the restaurant save money.

room for more?

founding farmers will continue working towards their mission of finding more ways to bring people closer to their food and farmers. at the end of our conversation, erin reflected on ways in which other restaurants could follow in their tracks in becoming more sustainable, which could translate into higher profits.she left me with this word of advice: “turn sustainability into dollar signs.” since in reality, our world runs on money, it is important to learn how to make a business case for sustainability, like how decreasing waste means saving money, to see a bigger impact overall. it is motivating for the founding farmers team that other companies see their success and try to emulate it, knowing that sustainability is part of their equation to success.

want to learn more?

https://www.wearefoundingfarmers.com/about/story/

https://www.wearefoundingfarmers.com/about/story/sustainability/

http://ndfu.org  

unless the bank makes an unprecedented shift toward renewable energy, 2.4 billion people will face climate catastrophe. bank officials acknowledged this reality but refuse to act.

most of generation z lives in countries particularly vulnerable to future droughts, floods and extreme climate events in a world 2° c warmer. a world that the bank is almost ensuring through its continued finance of oil and gas projects in these countries through intermediaries and infrastructure that directly enables extraction. 

while most of my peers come from client countries of the bank, i do not. rather my country, the u.s., is the largest bank shareholder and thus has the most influence on the global development agenda. i feel compelled to speak up as a member of sustainus, u.s. youth advancing justice and sustainability. the u.s. has a big stake in whether the bank locks in runaway climate change or limits warming to 1.5° c. with annual investments totaling $60 billion, a staff of 10,000 spread across the world, and the explicit mission to end poverty, the bank has the resources, influence, and mandate to lead the way on climate change. yet, failed to fully divest from fossil fuels or set a portfolio emissions target that aligns with the 1.5° c goal.

i thought this would change when the ipcc report came out last month. i attended the annual meetings last month in indonesia to find out.

the report warns we must cut global carbon emissions 45% by 2030 and arrive at net zero emissions by 2050. this big shift is fully achievable but requires an unprecedented level of action. two days after the report came out, i stood in front of the board of executive directors and asked if they would heed these warnings. their responses confirmed my worst fear: the world bank will ignore the needs of my generation.

time and time again the bank confirmed their apathy. at the civil society roundtable executive directors pointed to their recent commitment to end finance for upstream oil and gas as sufficient. i followed up by asking “will the bank’s recent commitment to end financing for upstream oil and gas include financial intermediaries?” the most direct response i received was from germany’s executive director, dr. jürgen karl zattler, who stated that there was “not a clear objective” for the bank to monitor whether its financial intermediaries have links to oil and gas. in replying to another question on the ipcc report, executive director otaviano canuto from brazil shared, “what we can do is to raise our voice, not much else.”

the next day when asked the same question about divesting from fossil fuels, philippe le houérou, ceo of the world bank’s international finance corporation (ifc) — the bank’s private sector investment arm — responded, “let’s see if this works with coal first” and urged us to be “pragmatic.” i followed up: “as a young person, climate change is personal to me and my generation. i am really disappointed that you are not considering ending equity in financial intermediaries linked with oil and gas. i urge you to reconsider.” without ifc divestment, there will likely be less stringent exclusions on investing in financial intermediaries that are involved in ‘upstream’ oil & gas investments when the bank phases out project lending after 2019. in response to my statement, le houérou bowed his head and said, “i urge myself.”  

the ipcc report makes it clear that investments in fossil fuels, which will perpetuate extreme heat, drought, floods, and climate induced poverty for hundreds of millions of people, is not “pragmatic.” we also can guarantee le houérou that requiring new financial intermediaries to divest from coal overtime will “work,” in the sense that it will drive investments toward clean, renewable energy sources and protect our collective future. it is worth noting that this new ‘green equity approach’ is not even comprehensive because it does not address what should happen with legacy coal investments that the ifc has funded over the past decade. this includes the highly contested 19 coal plants under construction in the philippines that 100 citizen groups filed a complaint against last october.

the world bank has the capacity to do much more than “raise their voice” on climate change. the bank can and should completely divest its portfolio from fossil fuels, an action perfectly in line with its mandate to end poverty. in divesting from fossil fuels, the bank will be forced to turn its attention to investing in affordable, renewable energy. a majority of the 1.1 billion people worldwide who still lack access to electricity live in rural areas, where renewable energy is actually more cost effective than extending the main grid with oil and gas. right now, only 1% of global finance for energy access is allocated to decentralized renewable energy.

in the urgency of this moment on climate change, we cannot let financial institutions like the world bank continue to fly under the radar of public accountability. thankfully, i am not alone. i am part of the big shift global, a campaign coordinated by organizations from the global north and south campaigning for a shift in all public finance out of dirty fossil fuels into renewable energy that will bring clean power to people all over the world.

as the world bank determines the future of 2.4 billion members of my generation, i am making a final push. i am joined by my friends at sunrise movement who recently pushed the u.s. federal government to take action on climate change. we are looking for climate leadership.

already a group of over 40 vulnerable countries have committed to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050. my question is, will the world bank support them?

if the world bank stands ready to assist counties with their low-carbon transition efforts they should consider the following recommendations for inclusion in the forthcoming post-2020 climate goals made by civil society organizations in the big shift global campaign:

• commit to developing and adopting a science-based emissions target for world bank lending and operations

• improve the quality of the bank’s climate-related investments whilst scaling up both mitigation and adaptation finance

• increased finance for clean cooking, off-grid and mini-grid renewable energy access

• develop a policy for the exclusion of coal from the ifc’s financial intermediary (fi) investments and public disclosure of the fossil fuel exposure of ifc’s fi investments

• align the world bank infrastructure lending, guarantees and assistance with low- or zero-ghg pathways, and supporting development of countries’ strategies under the paris agreement (e.g.., ndcs and 2050 pathways)

• the development of a safeguard for development policy lending that contains specific measures to prevent ‘prior actions’ (e.g., loan conditions) that directly benefit fossil fuel or extractive industries

• ensure that world bank investments do not serve as a driver of deforestation

• ensure strong implementation of the world bank group’s commitment to end upstream oil and gas finance after 2019

access the full list of recommendations here.