Pedal power: Why I love bike sharing

800px-Capital_Bikeshare_DC_09_2010_505Bike sharing is said to be experiencing “the fastest growth of any mode of transport in the history of the planet.” Whether that’s true or not, it’s hard to know. But there’s little doubt that bike sharing is growing fast, particularly in the US, and that’s encouraging for a bunch of reasons–people are getting healthier, the environment is getting cleaner and cities are becoming more bike-friendly. What’s more, the economics of bike sharing are surprisingly favorable; urban systems require modest subsidies from taxpayers and in some instances they appear to be self-supporting. Despite that, bike sharing is generating a puzzling backlash from some conservatives, which we’ll get to in a moment.

I recently signed up for  Capital Bikeshare, the four-year-old bike-sharing system in Washington, D.C., My experience has turned me into an enthusiastic booster of bike sharing.If you haven’t tried bike sharing yet, and it’s offered in a city where you live, by all means, do so!

Some observations on the bike-sharing phenomenon:

The big picture: New York, of course, rolled out its bike-sharing program last month. Chicago’s program opens on June 28. [click to continue...]

My new gig

GP_SusBus-logo_RGB_gdn-colourThis week, I begin work as editor-at-large of Guardian Sustainable Business US. I’m excited. My introductory column is here.

I’ve been writing for Guardian Sustainable Business in the UK for about six months, on such topics as urban greenhouses, salmon aquaculture, Amazon’s corporate irresponsibility and self-imposed carbon taxes at Disney, Shell and Microsoft. As a result, I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Jo Confino, an executive editor of the Guardian and chair of Guardian Sustainable Business, Caroline Holtum, head of content for the site and Charlie Wilkie who leads the commercial operation.

When they asked me to take on the role of editor-at-large of a new, soon-to-be-launched US site, I readily accepted. I’ll be writing a weekly column for the site, and helping guide coverage of sustainable business in the US. (It’s not a full-time job. I will continue to contribute to FORTUNE and lead the magazine’s annual conference on business and the environment, Brainstorm Green.) The Guardian will soon hire a New York-based editor to run the editorial side, and Charlie has moved from London to New York to run the business side. [click to continue...]

LEDs: A better light bulb. Again.

Cree Non-weird Shape

So you remember CFLs, right? The curlicue bulbs? The time they took to go on? The harsh light?

imagesDespite their drawbacks, compact fluorescents have sold fairly well in the US. They save customers money. Utilities promoted and subsidized CFLs, particularly in California. Walmart pledged to sell 100 million of them. Time magazine put one on the cover. By 2012, CFLs represented 27 percent of the bulbs installed in the over 3 billion medium screw-based sockets in the United States, according to a Navigant study quoted by NRDC. Other researchers put the number lower, about 20 percent, says IMS Research.

The trouble is, no one likes CFLs very much. Some CFLs took three minutes to turn on, for goodness sake! Consumers were dissatisfied with the quality of the light, and rightfully so, as even advocates of CFLs acknowledged.

Which is why Cree, a leading manufacturer of LED bulbs, is taking direct aim at CFLs, as well as old-fashioned incandescents, as it tries to win mainstream America over to LEDs–which, by most accounts, are a superior alternative to CFLs and incandescents.

Can CREE and other leading manufacturers of LEDS—-they include Osram Sylvania, Phillips Lumilens, and GE–persuade Americans to change their lightbulbs, yet again? The stakes are high,  for consumers and for the environment.  [click to continue...]

Whole Foods: Misguided about GMOs?

sfd_ctr_02_smI’m not a scientist, and I don’t pretend to be one. But where possible, I try to be guided by science in my writing.

That’s true when it comes to climate change.

That’s true, too, when it comes to genetically-modified organisms, aka GMOs.

That’s why I’m uneasy about the path-breaking policy towards GMOs announced recently by Whole Foods Market. Whole Foods is requiring that, by 2018, all products sold in its stores must carry labels if they contain GMOs. It is also  encouraging “manufacturers and producers to create products without GMO ingredients or processes and to have them verified and labeled as such.”

But why? Just as most scientists believe that climate change is real, caused by man’s activities and a big-time worry, most scientists believe that genetically-engineered foods now on the market are safe to eat and not really a concern.

Interestingly, in all of its communications around GMOs, Whole Foods makes no claims that there’s anything wrong with genetic engineering technology. It talks about transparency and consumer choice, but it can’t point to problems with GMOs…in part because products containing GMOs are everywhere in the store!

imagesThis issue became salient for me this spring when I learned about Verlasso, a salmon-farming venture co-owned by DuPont and AquaChile. [See my post, Verlasso: Farming salmon the right way.] Verlasso was explicitly developed to fix some of the environmental problems with salmon aquaculture. In particular, DuPont developed a genetically-engineered yeast, tailored to feed the salmon, which could become a substitute for the fish oil used to feed salmon on conventional farms. Catching the wild feeder fish that are ordinarily needed to supply all that oil puts pressure on marine ecosystems. Put simply, DuPont was not just trying to build a new business; it was trying to build a business that would help solve an environmental problem. But Verlasso salmon, for a variety of reasons–not just GMOs–is unlikely anytime soon to find its way into Whole Foods (which has an admirably rigorous seafood buying policy).

I’ve written a column about this that appears today in Guardian Sustainable Business. Here’s how it begins: [click to continue...]

My Greenpeace conundrum

climate-change-pol_1203588cGreenpeace USA wants me to renew my annual membership. I’m ambivalent.

A letter signed by Phil Radford, who leads Greenpeace USA, paints a dire picture of the state of the environment:

We all see polluters poisoning our air, water and land; killing innocent wildlife, destroying our forests, pillaging aquatic life, increasing global warming and endangering human health–particularly the health of our children.

This is, alas, mostly true. US air quality is improving, although 40 percent of Americans live in counties that sometimes have unhealthy levels of air pollution, according to the American Lung Association. Water quality in most American streams and river is poor, the most recent report from EPA says. The amount of forest land in the US has been more or less stable for about a century, says the USDA’s Forest Service, but just this week, it was revealed that valuable forest land is being destroyed to supply “green” wood for burning in Europe. As for global warming–yes, there’s lots to worry about, and Greenpeace’s activism around the climate issue has been one reason why I’ve supported the organization for years. [click to continue...]

EFW Partners: Investing in scarcity

Mangrove in parched land. French GuianaFor a century or two, people have argued about whether the world is running out of the things we need. So far, we’re not. (Well, unless you are a farmer in Kansas in need of water.)

Human ingenuity, new technology and market signals have increased supplies and helped us become more efficient. When the price of petroleum rises, for example, companies redouble their efforts to discover and recover oil from out-of-the-way places, like deep under the ocean or in the Arctic, for better or worse. When demand for food rises, so do commodity prices–and yields. When water is scarce, we use it more carefully.

But the fact that Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich of Population Bomb fame have been wrong — so far — does not mean that the world has an endless supply of energy, food and water.

Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs and his colleagues at EFW Partners, who manage investments for wealthy individuals and institutions, believe those resources are already becoming scarce–as evidenced by rising commodity prices. EFW Partners (the initials stand for energy, food and water) seeks to invest in a variety of companies that help the world use resources more efficiently and discover new ones, while respecting planetary limits. My latest story for Guardian Sustainable Business looks at EFW Partners.

Here’s how it begins:

Is the world running out of energy, food and water? Or not? The debate has raged since Thomas Malthus wrote “An essay on the principle of population” in 1798.

In 2011, McKinsey & Co, the esteemed consulting group, provided a modicum of support to modern-day Malthusians. It published Resource Revolution: meeting the world’s energy, materials, food and water needs, a voluminous and influential report. It acknowledged that, until recently, new technology had overcome any so-called limits to growth, but warned of big challenges ahead.

“During most of the 20th century, the prices of natural resources such as energy, food, water and materials such as steel all fell, supporting economic growth in the process,” the consultants wrote. “But that benign era appears to have come to an end.” If current trends continue, governments and companies will face high and volatile commodity prices, unpredictable climate impacts and the threat of political instability if the needs of the world’s poor are not met. “Nothing less than a resource revolution is needed,” said McKinsey, and it will not be cheap: “Meeting future demand for steel, water agricultural products and energy would require roughly $3tn (about £2tn) average capital investment per year [which is] $1tn more than spent in recent history.”

Scott Jacobs, a leader of McKinsey’s global cleantech practice, sensed an opportunity. He decided to help raise some of that capital and to help save the planet in the process. Last year, Jacobs, who is 35, left McKinsey, and joined veteran investors Tom Cain, 58, and Charlie Finnie, 54, to form EFW Partners, an investment fund that focuses on environmentally-friendly ways to produce energy, food and water, as well as opportunities to use resources more efficiently.

You can read the rest here.

Unilever’s Paul Polman: Pushing the boundaries of sustainability

Paul Polman in the store in Unilever house for the employees.More than any other big-company CEO, Paul Polman is serious about sustainability. Polman is serious about pretty much everything, actually. He’s serious about a vast array of problems facing the world, ranging from climate change to malnutrition to obesity to water scarcity to inequality to human rights to global governance, and he’s serious, of course, about his company and its long-term financial performance and especially about its ability to help solve any and all of those problems. He can, and will, pontificate about topics like the UN Millenium Development Goals, the important message of Global Handwashing Day, the social mission of brands like Dove and Lipton and Ben & Jerry’s.

A fun guy? Not really. A fascinating guy? Yes.

I spent time with Paul Polman, as well as other executives at Unilever–including US president Kees Kruythoff, global marketing head Keith Weed, sustainability honchos Gail Klintworth and Jonathan Atwood–while researching a story on the company for FORTUNE. It appears in the June 10 issue of the magazine, under the headline Unilever’s CEO Has A Green Thumb. (The story is behind a pay wall, for now.)

I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know Unilever, which takes a uniquely expansive view of its role in the world. Far more than IBM, GE, Walmart or any other big company, Unilever puts sustainability at the core of its business — its strategy, its operations, its R&D and its marketing. (Patagonia, a much smaller, privately held firm, strikes me as similarly driven by broad concerns.) Polman’s theory, put simply, is “to put the challenges facing society smack in the middle of the business.” So Lifebuoy soap helps prevent the spread of disease in poor countries. Dove stands for the self-esteem of women. Lipton’s sustainable supply chain will help tea growers earn a livelihood. Operations, of course, are efficient, and the global supply chain of tea, tomatoes, onions, etc. aims to become sustainable.

In Port Sunlight, a tidy little suburb of Liverpool where the company got its start back in the 19th century, I visited a research and development lab where some of the scientists are focusing on coming up with laundry soap that can clean clothes using very small amounts of water, at any temperature. Much of the R&D at Unilever, in fact, revolves around planning for what the company expects to be a resource-constrained world.

Will the strategy pay off? So far, Unilever under Polman has done very well, outperforming consumer-products giant Procter & Gamble. But whether the firm’s financial results are driven by its focus on sustainability is very much an open question; more likely, it’s a result of the fact that Unilever has a strong commitment to emerging markets, which have been growing more than the US and EU.

There is, however, one way in which I’m convinced that Polman’s determination to make Unilever a better company has paid off on the short run, and that is with its employees. People I met, as best as I could tell, come to work at Unilever with energy and a strong sense of purpose.  That’s invaluable. As Polman told me, proudly, Unilever is one of the five most searched-for employers on LinkedIn, behind Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook. That’s impressive.

Here’s how my story begins:

Paul Polman calls himself a “hard-core capitalist.” Sometimes you have to wonder. The day he became the chief executive of Unilever in 2009, Polman said the consumer products giant would stop providing earnings guidance and quarterly profit reports. “I figured that the day they hired me, they can’t fire me,” he says, “so that was probably the best moment to do that.” The stock fell and analysts grumbled. Not long after came word from the CEO that Unilever, whose brands include Dove, Lipton, Hellmann’s, and Ben & Jerry’s, was determined to tackle big social and environmental problems like climate change, disease, and poverty. “If you buy into this long-term value model, which is equitable, which is shared, which is sustainable, then come and invest with us,” Polman told investors. “If you don’t buy into this, I respect you as a human being, but don’t put your money in our company.” Shareholder return, he insists, cannot and will not trump nobler aims. “Our purpose is to have a sustainable business model that is put at the service of the greater good,” he says. “It is as simple as that.”

This sounds like the boilerplate that fills corporate responsibility reports, but Unilever, which has headquarters in London and Rotterdam, has gone beyond big U.S. Companies like GE, IBM and Wal-Mart by putting sustainability at the core of its business. In a 2010 manifesto called the Sustainable Living Plan, Unilever promised to double its sales even as it  cuts its environmental footprint in half and sources all of its agricultural products in ways that don’t degrade the earth by 2020. The company also promised to improve the well-being of 1 billion people by, for example, persuading them to wash their hands or brush their teeth, or by selling them foods with less salt or fat.

The Fortune story goes on to talk about Polman’s background (he once wanted to be a priest), the company’s paternalistic past and Unilever’s commitment to a water-purification product called Pureit that has little chance of ever making a profit. I hope you’ll find a copy of the magazine and enjoy the story.

BrightFarms: Scaling salad, locally

image_11Paul Lightfoot, the CEO of BrightFarms, pitched his company during an American Idol-like panel called Great Green Ideas at Fortune Brainstorm Green. He didn’t win the audience vote, but I think BrightFarms is a great idea, so I decided to write about the company for Guardian Sustainable Business.

BrightFarms builds hydroponic greenhouses in cities to grow lettuces, tomatoes and herbs for supermarkets. Retail chains are intrigued: They can satisfy their consumer’ appetite for local food, and be assured of a predictable supply of healthy, fresh vegetables. While hydroponic farming isn’t new, BrightFarms has developed an innovative business model that should enable the company to finance its expansion.

The result is that BrightFarms is growing (pun intended) at a nice clip. This month, it announced plans to build a greenhouse in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

Here’s how my story  begins:

Most of the organic baby greens sold in Washington DC supermarkets are not “green” at all. They’re grown in the Salinas Valley in California, which has been called the most hydrologically altered landmass on the planet. Then they are shipped in refrigerated trucks roughly 2,800 miles across America.

Paul Lightfoot thinks there’s a better way to get fresh lettuce, tomatoes and herbs into the hands of supermarket shoppers. Lightfoot is chief executive of a startup called BrightFarms, which builds and operates urban, hydroponic greenhouse farms. The company operates a greenhouse farm in Philadelphia, it’s building another on a massive rooftop in Brooklyn, and it is developing farms in St Louis, Kansas City, St Paul and Oklahoma City.

You can read the rest here.

Paul Lightfoot

Paul Lightfoot

The aptly-named Paul Lightfoot, by the way, is a marathon runner, which naturally predisposed me to like him and BrightFarms. He joins a distinguished group of “green” marathon runners including Mark Tercek of The Nature Conservancy, Paul Polman of Unilever, “Speedy” Seth Goldman of Honest Tea, Tony Hansen of Fortune Brainstorm Green, Jason Graham-Nye of gDiapers, DOE solar guru Christina Nichols, ethical sourcing expert Melissa Schweisguth, Natalie Bailey of the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group and Sheryl O’Loughlin of the Nest Collective. If I’ve forgotten anyone, by all means let me know by email or in the comments.

Seafood is having its Portlandia moment

nonflash-1

Cooking for Solutions is a delightful annual conference, fund-raiser and celebration of seafood sustainability produced every spring by the Monterey Bay Aquarium. I’m just back from the 2013 event, and there is reason to feel good about the progress the seafood industry is making.

Consumers, chefs and, most importantly, major retailers in the US and Europe are more aware than ever that the choices we make about what kinds of fish to eat–and not to eat–have an impact on the health and sustainability of global fisheries.

The result is that, in the last decade or so, virtually every major retailer and food service company in the US and EU has adopted a seafood sustainability policy. Some are stronger than others, but the issue is on the agenda and not going away.

“Large corporations may very well turn out to be our angels of salvation,” said Matt Elliott, an oceans expert at California Environmental Associates, which last year published a landmark report on global fishing practices.

You could say that seafood is having its Portlandia moment. I’m referring, of course, to the hilarious scene on the cable TV show in which a couple interrogate a waitress about the chicken on the menu. (“How much room did the chicken have to roam?”) Chefs who gathered last week in Monterey told me that they are asked by diners if their salmon is wild or farm-raised, and whether their shrimp is local or imported from Asia.

By themselves, consumers can’t drive changes in fishing practices. But when consumers make themselves heard, and emerge as part of a larger ecosystem that includes activist NGOs such as Greenpeace, business-friendly environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, certifying bodies like the flawed but important Marine Stewardship Council and brands like Whole Foods Market and Darden, change happens. Regulation of the oceans–a public commons if ever there was one–is important, but markets, too, can drive sustainability. [click to continue...]

A politician who isn’t afraid to talk about overconsumption

Business Week recently ran a good story by Joel Stein headlined How Jerry Brown Scared California Straight.

Jerry Brown, being sworn in as California governor in 1975

Jerry Brown, being sworn in as California governor in 1975

Mostly it’s about how Brown cleaned up California’s fiscal mess. I was struck by the fact that, unlike most members of Congress, and our president, who generally tell people what they want to hear, Brown is a grownup who isn’t afraid to say what he thinks. Maybe that’s what happens when you turn 75 and you have been in politics forever. You get tired of pandering. Brown was first elected governor of California in 1975, for crying out loud.

Anyway, here’s my favorite passage:

Brown believes California has been led for too long by “I want.” His office at the Capitol is empty except for two photographs, some books, a couch, a coffee table, and a thick wooden table with a monastic bench. Many of his staff offices are empty, too, since he has barely any staff; the governor doesn’t employ a chief of staff or speechwriter.

This is a man who remembers World War II ration cards with fondness. “This idea you can have ice cream every night? Ice cream was for your birthday,” he says about his childhood. “It wasn’t an austere world. In fact, it was a normal world. It’s only austere juxtaposing the indulgence, the overconsumption, the profligacy—people don’t like those words because part of our economic growth is buying all this stuff.” Brown, who took a vow of poverty and chastity and lived in near-total silence while studying for the priesthood in the late 1950s, cites the Jesuit philosophy of tantum quantum: take what you need.

The best line: “Ice cream was for your birthday.” We need more leaders like Jerry Brown. The rest is here.