Keeping a close eye on all the world’s forests

Deforestation in the Andes

Deforestation in the Andes

Corporate commitments to protect forests are numerous. Unilever says it is “determined to drive deforestation out of our supply chains.” The giant paper company Asia Pulp and Paper promised to “eliminate all natural forest derived products” from its supply chain by 2020. Wilmar, the world’s largest palm oil trader, launched a “sustainability dashboard” to report its “No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation” policy. Cargill, McDonald’s…the list goes on.

But how can governments, NGOs and customers be assured that these promises will be kept? Just as important, how can companies make good on their promises.

An ambitious effort to track the world’s forests, called Global Forest Watch, and launched a bit more than a year ago by the World Resources Institute, will be a big help. I visited Nigel Sizer, who leads the project, at WRI’s Washington office not long ago, spoke to users of the platform and then filed this report for Guardian Sustainable Business.

Here’s how it begins:

The forestry website Mongabay recently reported that United Cacao, a London-listed company that promises to produce ethical, sustainable chocolate, had “quietly cut down more than 2,000 hectares of primary, closed-canopy rainforest” in the Peruvian Amazon. The company claimed that the land had been previously cleared, but satellite images showed otherwise.

The satellite images came from an online platform called Global Forest Watch, which provides reliable and up-to-date data on forests worldwide, along with the ability to track changes to forest cover over time.

Launched a year ago by the World Resources Institute (WRI), the platform has brought an unprecedented degree of transparency to the problem of deforestation, pointing to ways in which big data, cloud computing and crowdsourcing can help attack other tough sustainability problems.

Before Global Forest Watch came along, actionable information about forest trends was scarce. “In most places, we knew very little about what was happening to forests,” said Nigel Sizer, the global director of the forests program at WRI. “By the time you published a report, the basic data on forest cover and concessions was going to be years out of date.”

Several technology revolutions have changed that. Cheap storage of data, powerful cloud computing, internet connectivity in remote places and free access to US government satellite images have all made Global Forest Watch possible. None were widely available even a decade ago.

This last point has stuck with me. It’s the latest example, of many, of how rapid advances in technology can drive sustainability, and give us reason to be hopeful.

You can read the rest of my story here.

Nonprofit Chronicles: my new blog

IH012802-PCall me a contrarian. I read this just the other day about writing on the web:

Blogging?—? I mean, honey, don’t even say the word. No one actually blogs anymore, except maybe undergrads on their first week of study abroad.

Well, I’m starting a new blog.

The blog is called Nonprofit Chronicles, and it will explore a question that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: How are nonprofits performing?

It’s a question may have occurred to you when you donate money to charities.

It’s an important question. Nonprofit aim to alleviate poverty, save the environment, cure disease, educate people, promote social justice and protect human rights. In the US, the nonprofit sector accounts for about $2 trillion in economy activity and employs nearly 10 percent of the workforce. There are about 1.1 million nonprofits in the US, and another 80,000 foundations.

It’s also an exceptionally difficult question to answer. Measuring the impact of a nonprofit is much harder than gauging the success of a business. Happily, a lot of smart people in the world of foundations and NGOs are working hard to develop answers. I’ll going to begin my exploration by writing about some of them.

Over time, I’ll broaden the focus on Nonprofit Chronicles  to examine the best and worst nonprofits. What difference do they make? How do they set goals and measure success? How transparent are they? What have they learned from their mistakes?

Nonprofits are everybody’s business because they depend on US tax policy for their support; donations to charities are tax deductible. The Center for American Progress estimated in 2011 that the tax break would cost the US Treasury $315 billion over five years. Like tax deductions for mortgage interest and college-savings accounts, the charitable tax deduction disproportionately benefits those who are relatively wealthy–and their favorite causes.

For all these reasons, I’m certain that nonprofits deserve more journalistic attention.

I’m excited about this new venture, but I’m not quitting my day job. I’ll continue to write about the social and environmental impact of business as editor-at-large of Guardian Sustainable Business US and here at marcgunther.com. Meantime, I hope you join me at Nonprofit Chronicles.

P.S. Just in case it’s true that no one reads blogs anymore, I’ll be posting my writings about nonprofits on my page at Medium. Medium is a simple and beautiful platform for story-telling on the web that was created in 2012 by Ev Williams and Biz Stone, the founders of Twitter.

Impact investing with The Nature Conservancy

B88tMs3IIAEAUpPImpact investing is said to be a growth business. Loosely defined, impact investing is the practice of putting money into a business or nonprofit, with the expectation of generating social or environmental change, along with a financial return. It’s somewhere between a purely mercenary investment and a donation.

Last week in The Guardian, I wrote about a unit of The Nature Conservancy called NatureVest that was set up last year to attract impact investments. Here’s how my story begins:

Even for the Nature Conservancy, which attracts more money than any other US environmental nonprofit – revenues were $1.1bn last year – buying 165,000 acres of land in Washington’s Cascade Mountains and Montana’s Blackfoot River Valley for $134m is, quite literally, a very big deal.

To raise the money in a timely manner and to negotiate the acquisition, which closed last week, the conservancy relied on NatureVest. Launched last spring, NatureVest is a division of the conservancy that functions much like a bank, albeit a bank whose purpose is to protect nature.

NatureVest raises money from institutions and high-net-worth individuals who care about the environment but want to get their investment back, perhaps with a modest return. It then invests that money in conservation projects – land acquisitions, sustainable ranching, green infrastructure or eco-tourism – that can generate money so it can pay back its investors.

This strikes me as a smart idea, if not a new idea. Ten years ago, I wrote Social Investing That Hits Home, a brief story for FORTUNE about community development financial institutions, including the Calvert Foundation, my neighbor in Bethesda, MD, that practice what would now be called impact investing. But there’s momentum behind the concept now. Impact Alpha, a website that tracks impact investing, run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter David Bank, has a database of more than 2,000 “impact deals.”

Impact investing should have special appeal to foundations because they should, in theory, want to align their investment portfolios with their programming goals. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for a foundation that gives environmental grants to invest in coal companies, for example.

On the other hand, isn’t all investment a form of impact investment? For better or worse, all of our investments have impact. A shareholder in, say, Apple is backing a company that delivers a great deal of social good (pleasure, efficiency, etc.) without sacrificing return.

The term “impact investing” reminds me a little of “social entrepreneur.” As opposed to what? An anti-social entrepreneur? Just asking.

You can read my story about NatureVest here.

 

A rank ‘em and spank ‘em study on packaging

A Dunkin Donuts--with throwaway cups--opens in Beijing

A Dunkin Donuts–with throwaway cups–opens in Beijing

Twenty-five years after McDonald’s, working with the Environmental Defense Fund, agreed to get rid of foam clamshells for its burger–in what is now called the first corporate environmental partnership–the problem of wasteful, polluting, throwaway packaging is, if not worse than ever, no better.

With industry leaders like McDonald’s, Starbucks, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have invested in more sustainable packaging, others have failed to follow. This is the conclusion of a thorough packaging study released last week by As You Sow and the Natural Resources Defense Council that I covered for the Guardian.

Here’s how my story begins:

Big brands, including Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, KFC, Kraft Foods and MillerCoors, are wasting billions of dollars worth of valuable materials because they sell food and drinks in subpar packaging, according to a comprehensive new report on packaging and recycling by the fast food, beverage, consumer goods and grocery industries.

The 62-page rank-‘em-and-spank-‘em study, Waste and Opportunity 2015, was published Thursday by advocacy nonprofits As You Sow and the Natural Resources Defense Council. They found that few companies have robust sustainable packaging policies or system-wide programs to recycle packages. Indeed, no company was awarded their highest rating of “best practices.”

The environmental groups did identify a number of leaders, albeit flawed ones. In the beverage industry, New Belgium Brewing, Coca-Cola, Nestlé Waters and PepsiCo won praise. Starbucks and McDonald’s are said to be a cut above their competitors in fast food and quick-serve restaurants. As for consumer goods companies and grocery stores, the report offers qualified praise for Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and Unilever.

Broadly, though, this study paints a discouraging picture. What progress has been made is incremental and spotty, not comprehensive. As often than not, single-use packages of food and drinks are made from virgin materials and then tossed in the trash.

As the report notes, with an overall recycling rate of 34.5% and an estimated packaging recycling rate of 51%, the United States lags behind many other developed countries. Less than 14% of plastic packaging — the fastest-growing form of packaging — is recycled. Recyclable post-consumer packaging with an estimated market value of $11.4bn is wasted annually.

The interesting question is, what have we learned from NGO and government efforts to curb packaging waste and pollution? I’m not quite ready to give up on voluntary corporate efforts–not yet, anyway. Walmart reduced packaging across its global supply chain by 5 percent between 2006 and 2013; that’s a big deal. It’s now pushing suppliers to use more recycled content.

An alternative approach is increased government regulations–deposit bills on bottles and, more recently, plastic bag bans and taxes. (New York City has just banned polystyrene packaging, joining 100 other jurisdictions, reports Mark Bittman.) But these are also halfway measures.

Bolder would be an economy-wide effort to impose Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) rules, which are in place in much of the EU. I don’t know enough about how these work and what they cost to have an informed opinion.

I did buy a set of headphones for my iPhone the other day and had the hardest time getting them out of the ridiculous plastic package. Surely a company that’s as good at design as Apple can do better. But what’s the incentive for them to do so? Saving a few pennies from a $29.95 (!) set of headphones clearly isn’t enough.

A modest proposal for big green NGOs

da9cdecb-7922-49b2-b8a2-3ff0969881e4-1020x612Here’s an idea for big environmental NGOs that work with corporate partners: Kindly recommend to those partners that they raise their voices in Washington in support of the EPA’s proposed coal plant rules.

The coal plant rules are the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s climate change policy. Yet they are being strongly opposed by mainstream Washington business lobbies like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

The big corporate partners of the green groups could make a difference. They could support the rules on their own–few have done so–and, just as important, speak up inside the halls of the chamber and NAM, asking them to halt their opposition to the rules.

No climate issue matters more, Mindy Lubber of Ceres told me, for a story posted the other day at Guardian Sustainable Business, which we’ll get to in a moment.

In a report on corporate engagement [PDF], WWF lists more than a dozen “corporate engagements with an annual budget greater than US$250,000.” Partners include Avon Products, Bank of America, The Coca-Cola Co., Domtar, Ecolab, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly-Clark, Mars, McDonald’s, Procter & Gamble, Sealed Air, Sodexo and Toyota.

The Nature Conservancy says on its website that “the private sector has an important role to play in advancing our conservation mission” and publishes a long list of partners, including 3M, Alaska Airlines, AT&T, Avon, Bank of America, BHP Billiton, Boeing, BP, Bunge, Cargill, Caterpillar, CH2MHill, Coca-Cola, CSX Transportation, Delta, Disney, Dow Chemical, EcoLab, General Mills, Goldman Sachs, Harley Davidson, IBM, JPMorgan Chase, Kimpton Hotels, Lowe’s, Macy’s, Monsanto, Mosaic, Patagonia, PepsiCo, Rio Tinto, SABMiller, Shell, Target, TDBank, Uber and Xerox.

The Environmental Defense Fund, for its part, works with AT&T, Caterpillar, DuPont,  KKR, McDonald’s, Ocean Spray, Starbucks and Walmart, among others.

I could go on but you get the point. Now contrast those lists with the challenges faced by Mindy Lubber and Ceres, as they try to line up companies to back the EPA rules. That’s why my story is about, and here is how it begins:

As the US political fight over climate change moves from Washington DC to 50 state capitals, companies that are serious about sustainability need to support theEPA’s proposed rules to curb carbon pollution from existing power plants.

So, at least, says Mindy Lubber, the president of Ceres, a nonprofit that brings together companies, investors and public-interest groups to advocate for sustainability.

“Companies have the strength and power – the footprint to make a huge difference,” Lubber told me at a lunch earlier this month. Ceres celebrates its 25th anniversary Tuesday.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the proposed power plant rules, which are the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Power plants account for nearly 40% of all US greenhouse gas emissions.

What Ceres has found, Mindy told me, is that it’s hard to get big companies to support  the EPA and the president, and overcome their habitual, instinctive resistance to government regulation.

Last month, as I wrote in the Guardian, Ceres released a statement supporting the rules that was signed by more than 200 companies but most were small or midsized. Big firms to sign on included Ikea, Kellogg, Levi Strauss, Mars, Nestle, Nike, Novelis, VF and Unilever. They are to be commended.

Ceres’s list would carry a lot more weight if other NGOS like WWF, The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense persuaded  most or all their corporate partners to sign on.

Until they do, conservative trade associations like the US Chamber, NAM, the National Mining Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which have joined together to oppose the EPA rules, will speak for business in Washington. I’ve never understood why so many companies that profess to care about the environment — and, in my view, actually do care about the environment — have allowed that to happen.

You can read the rest of my story here.

Sustainable business, from the bottom up

fishermen-were-supported-by-fao-in-fishing-equipemnt-and-capacity-building

For the most part, corporate sustainability programs drive change from the top down. If Apple wants to improve safety at the factories where its products are made, or Walmart wants to reduce fertilizer runoff in agriculture, or McDonald’s pledges to buy beef raised in environmentally friendly ways, those companies set targets and goals, they deploy a mix of carrots and sticks to bring their suppliers along, those suppliers push further down the chain and, if all goes well, workers, farmers and maybe the planet are all a little better off.

Whatever one thinks of this theory of change–my view is that it works quite well–it does little for the billions of people who are untouched by global supply chains. In my latest story for Guardian Sustainable Business, I write about a project called Fish Forever that is designed to help fishermen and women who work beyond the reach of global supply chains.

I heard about Fish Forever from Brett Jenks, the chief executive of a conservation group called Rare, which is based in Arlington, VA.

Interestingly, Fish Forever is a collaboration of Rare with the Environmental Defense Fund and the sustainable fisheries group at the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). It’s uncommon but welcome to see NGOs working together this way.

Here’s a bit more about the program, from my story:

Fish Forever is launching this year in five countries – Belize, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique and the Philippines. It targets fishers with a single boat or two, as well as those who fish from shore. In developing countries, these mostly poor, small-scale fishers account for half of all fish caught, the vast majority of which is consumed domestically….

Each Fish Forever partner brings expertise to the partnership. Environmental Defense has been a pioneer in rebuilding fisheries through what is often called rights-based management. Rare specializes in mobilizing communities in poor countries on behalf of conservation. And the scientists at UCSB are experts in monitoring and measuring the health of fisheries.

Here’s how the program works: with the backing of state or national governments, local fishers get exclusive fishing rights to a community fishing areas – a bay or stretch of coast. The community then has good reason to adopt conservation practices because it will reap the benefits if they work.

Typically, those practices include the establishment of a marine preserve, also known as no-take zone, located inside the community fishing area, or nearby. These no-take zones give fish in the area the opportunity to recover and regenerate themselves. Local fishers enforce the no-take zones themselves.

The idea is to create incentives for the community to think long-term about the value of their natural asset, and take steps to protect it.A sense of ownership leads to stewardship. As a wise man once said, no one washes a rental car.

Rare isn’t a high-profile NGO but it has attracted support from some big names. Michael Bloomberg, Hank and Wendy Paulson and Jeremy Grantham are all donors. Which leads me to conclude that Brett Jenks and his group must be doing something right.

You can read the rest of my story here.

Business and human rights

palaisdesnations
I’m just back from a few days in Geneva, where I moderated a panel at the 3rd annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights. I met some interesting people—Mo Ibrahim, the African telecom billionaire, who is now a prominent philanthropist, and Ambassador Keith Harper, a lawyer and advocate for Native Americans who is the US representation on the UN Human Rights Council–and learned a bit about business’s involvement with human rights issues around the world.

Traditionally, of course, governments have been entrusted with the job of protecting human rights. But in the last decade, human rights activists have drawn business into the fray. Yahoo was excoriated for providing information about a Chinese dissident, Shi Tao, who was then sentenced to a 10-year prison term. Internet service providers have had to wrestle with censorship issues around the world. Meantime, pressures on retailers and brands to improve factory conditions in their supply chains put them in the position of enforcing labor laws in poor countries, including China, where governments failed to do that job.

Several years ago, the UN asked Harvard law professor John Ruggie to draw up a set of principles to guide businesses on human rights. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were endorsed by the UN in 2011, and this week’s forum was intended, in part, to figure out how to further advance those principles. About 2,000 people from governments, NGOs and business attended.

Alas, like many UN events, this one was stilted. CEOs and activists alike droned through prepared speeches suffused with platitudes and generalities. (One exception: Sharan Burrow, head of the International Trade Union Confederation, who was terrific.) With the support of some excellent UN staff people, I tried as a moderator to bring things down to earth and to provoke some honest conversation, but I didn’t succeed as well as I had hoped to.

But the forum stimulated my own thinking about the roles of governments and business when it comes to  human rights. The Guiding Principles are careful to define those roles—governments, it says, should “protect” human rights and business should “respect” them—and the intention is clearly to limit the role of business to those places where they have influence, notably their operations and supply chains. But discussions at the forum (and elsewhere) blurred those distinctions.

That led me to write a story for Guardian Sustainable Business suggesting that that we may be asking too much of business. Here’s how it begins:

Scan the headlines about modern day slavery in Qatar, forced labor in Uzbekistan, a ban on trade unions in Swaziland, a draconian anti-gay law in Uganda andwidespread economic and social discrimination against women – as well asmillions of children who are abused, neglected or exploited – and it is hard to argue that global corporations are being asked to do too much to protect human rights.

And yet as the number of human-rights demands placed on business – and particularly on global companies with supply chains in poor countries – continues to escalate, there’s a risk that governments will be let off the hook. After all, governments are obligated, if not always willing or able, to protect human rights.

This is one of the themes that arose at this week’s UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, an annual meeting that attracted about 2,000 people from business, government, labor groups and nonprofits to the sprawling Palais de Nations compound in Geneva. The meeting comes three years after the UN endorsed a set of guiding principles on business and human rights, which define the private sector’s responsibilities in broad terms.

One of the difficulties for companies taking on the responsibility of protecting human rights is that the definition of the term “human rights” is infinitely expandable. The UN says it includes labor rights, gender rights, children’s rights, gay rights, cultural rights, freedom of expression, the right to food and water, land rights, indigenous people’s rights, the rights of development and self-determination, all of which are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. One panel at this week’s conference pondered the question: “Does the world need a human-rights-based convention on healthy diets?”

It’s no wonder some companies duck and hide what they are doing to protect human rights.

In retrospect, I wish had noted the distinction in the guiding principles between government’s obligation to “protect” and business’s to “respect.” Still, if human rights activists and the UN hope to win broader adoption of the principles, particularly in the US, where anything having to do with the UN is met with skepticism, people need to be clear about what they are asking of business. It may be that when it comes to human rights, the most important job of business is to get governments to do their job.

You can read the rest of my story here.

Old clothes

045be76d-5287-489c-ac5f-0b33a13e6fe4-620x372Last month was one of the busiest I’ve had in a long while, with trips to Boston, Singapore, New York and Berlin over a four-week span. All for the good, but I’ve fallen behind on this blog, so I’m looking back today at a story that I wrote and posted last month on Guardian Sustainable Business.

As regular readers know, I’ve been paying attention to the circular economy, a term that describes an economy where nothing goes to waste, everything is made into something else at the end of its life, and the whole shebang is powered by clean, renewable energy. We’re a long way from there, obviously, but I see bits of the circular economy arriving in unexpected places.

One  is the textile industry, which even as it has become dominated by cheap, throwaway “fast fashion” is  simultaneously embracing recycling. That has created some unexpected tensions between old-fashioned charities like Goodwill and the Salvation Army, and newer, for-profit companies that see a business opportunity in collecting, reusing and recyling textiles.

Thus, the”clothing bin wars,” as I explained in this story in the Guardian:

Welcome to the clothing bin wars, a battle that comes complete with lawsuits alleging dirty dealing, lobbying of local and state politicians, rogue operators who put bins on other people’s property and even bizarre allegations that some big players in the clothing recycling industry are front groups for a mysterious Danish cult.

Who knew that recycling T-shirts and towels could get so complex?

This is basically a good-news story: Lots of people want your old clothes, sheets and towels because they have value. What you do with them is up to you–there is no perfect solution. (As a commenter in the story pointed out, even charities like Goodwill and the Salvation Army face questions about their conduct.) There are bins everywhere (but read the fine print before you dump your clothes in one) and, as I’ve written before, retailers including H&M take back clothes in their stores. You can even mail them at no cost to a company called Community Recycling that I wrote about in the story. So there’s no excuse for dumping textiles in a landfill.

One more thing struck me when reporting the story: People seem to want something in return when they giveaway their old clothes–a tax deduction from a charity,  a discount on future purchases (which H&M offers), the feeling that they are doing the right thing. Even though we no longer want them, giving away clothes is an emotional decision in a way that recycling plastic bottles or newspapers is not.

Was Climate Week a good week?

climate_summit_2014A reporter’s job is sometimes fun and glamorous, often not. My trip to New York for “Climate Week” was not. It was, in fact, a bit of a fiasco. I had hoped to cover a Climate Group event on Monday but was told that I had to be there by 10 a.m., without luggage, for security reasons. This was all but impossible since I was coming up from DC that morning. So I watched a live stream of the event, which froze and skipped during an interview with Apple CEO Time Cook.

Meanwhile, I twice tried to pick up my UN credentials and both times found lines winding up 45th Street, with estimated wait times of about two hours. Crazy, no? The UN knows how many credentials, roughly, it will have to give out because they all required advance approval, and still it can’t staff its desks properly. These are the people want to oversee a global regulatory scheme to manage greenhouse gas emissions. Good luck with that.

I say this not to complain–I have a great job, mostly–but to explain that my less-than-sunny mood during the week might have affected my coverage. (I hope not but we’re all human.) I wrote two stories for Guardian Sustainable Business, one pegged to Tim Cook’s interview, which eventually found its way online, and another looking at the yawning gap between the rhetoric at Climate Week events and the reality that the world is losing the battle, such as it is, to curb climate change.

Needless to say, I don’t think it’s time to give up. I’d like to do some more reporting before coming to any conclusions but it seems increasingly possible that the US and China can lead the way to global GHG reductions, outside of the UN process, with support from the EU and Japan. Getting a dozen so-called major emitters to work on the problem might prove more fruitful hat another confab of 190 countries at COP-20-something-but-who’s-counting.

Later, I was heartened to read about an agreement announced this week called the New York declaration on forests under which governments and global companies agreed to bring a halt to deforestation by 2030. Again, I need to do some more reporting on this. but the commitments from such big firms as Cargill and Asia Pulp and Paper are signs that we may actually be winning the battle to slow or stop deforestation. A big deal, if true.

In any event, here’s how my story on Tim Cook and the Climate Group event begins:

Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, possibly the world’s most innovative company and inarguably its most valuable – just ahead of fossil-fuel giant ExxonMobil. So his appearance at the opening of Climate Week 2014 on Monday lent a little celebrity buzz to a day which otherwise had a been-there-done-that feeling about it.

The climate change issue, Cook told a gathering of business and political leaders in New York, resonates with Apple’s workers and with its customers, which is why the company has moved from environmental laggard to green leader in recent years, winning plaudits even from Greenpeace.

“The long-term consequences of not addressing climate are huge,” he said. “I don’t think anyone can overstate that.”

You can read the rest here.

My broader look at Climate Week begins this way, and later references a new study on how the world is building coal plants faster than it is dismantling them:

Covering UN meetings is not a job for the faint of heart, and this week’s climate summit in New York has been no exception. Two-hour waits for credentials are common. Staffers are plentiful, polite and ineffectual. Barricades, private security forces and squadrons of New York’s finest protect the UN compound on Manhattan’s Upper East Side from unwanted incursions from the world beyond.

The summit itself consists of a series of carefully-scripted speeches from business and political leaders. They mix dire warnings with calls to action. Invariably, we are told, no country, company or NGO can solve the problem on its own; we must all work together. Partnerships are key. Climate is the defining issue of our time. The problem is urgent. The time to act is now. The future depends on us.

It is all depressingly familiar to anyone who has been to Durban, Cancun or Copenhagen for summits past.

“You can make history or be vilified by it,” says the newly appointed UN Messenger of Peace on Climate Change, as the official proceedings began on Tuesday. Why, it’s Leonardo DiCaprio of Titanic fame, who knows a disaster in the making when he sees one.

You can read the rest here.

Duck duck goose: How to stop their abuse

e38443ba-d070-4e4b-a7ed-f94ecfbcfc00-460x276I’ve worn down jackets over the years, but never given much thought to where the down came from, or how it was harvested, if that’s the right word. Down, it turns out, is a byproduct of the meat industry. Feathers from ducks and geese that are raised for meat, mostly in eastern Europe and China, are collected, cleaned and processed into down, which is then supplied to the factories that manufacture garments that are insulated with down.

Unfortunately, some of those ducks and geese are treated cruelly, practices that have been documented by animal-welfare groups such as Four Paws, PETA and the Humane Society of the United States. Some of the waterfowl are “live plucked,” meaning their feathers are pulled out when they are still alive, which is said to be very painful. Others are force-fed in order to produce foie gras.

The abuse is unnecessary. The alternative is simply to collect the feathers after the ducks or geese are killed in slaughterhouses–assuring, in the meantime, that they were not force-fed or live-plucked beforehand.

Under pressure from the animal-welfare groups, Patagonia and The North Face over the past few years have independently developed standards for responsible down production. Both companies deserve credit for doing so, but Patagonia’s standard is stronger and more comprehensive–and the people at Patagonia worry that the more lenient standard written by North Face will become the industry norm.

I took a look at the issue in a story for Guardian Sustainable Business. Here’s the lowdown on down:

For decades, The North Face and Patagonia have competed in the marketplace for outerwear, backpacks and pullovers. Now they’re engaged in a smackdown over down – specifically over which company has put forward the strongest standards to protect ducks and geese, whose feathers are made into down insulation, from cruel practices on farms and in slaughterhouses.

This month, The North Face announced that it would begin selling down next year that complies with its Responsible Down Standard (RDS), which it describes as “the broadest and most comprehensive approach to animal welfare available in the down supply chain”. Patagonia says that’s simply not so, and that its own Traceable Down Standard provides “the highest assurance of animal welfare in the apparel industry”.

Four Paws, an independent animal-welfare group that advocates for the ethical treatment of, agrees that Patagonia’s standard is superior. While The North Face standard is “a step in the right direction”, Patagonia has “a lower tolerance for a set of things that we think are important for animal welfare”, says Nina Jamal, an international farm animal campaigner for Four Paws, which is based in Vienna.

The fact that these two longtime rivals are competing over corporate responsibility should come as no surprise. Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard, a celebrated rock climber, fly fisherman, environmentalist and author, has made his company a sustainability pioneer. And after Doug Tompkins, The North Face’s founder, left the company decades ago, he went on to acquire vast amounts of wilderness for conservation in Chile and Argentina and publish a book assailing factory farms. In 1968, Chouinard and Tompkins, who were then pals, took a celebrated road trip to Patagonia.

The issue of competing standards isn’t limited to the down industry, of course. There are competing standards for forest products, Fair Trade, green buildings and sustainable tourism, just to pick a few examples. Ordinarily, competitive markets product benefits for consumers, but they may not be the case in the “market” for standards, where the risk is that a proliferation of labels will confuse consumers and permit companies to shop around for the weakest standard.

I don’t think that’s a concern here, though, because people at The North Face and at the Textile Exchange, a nonprofit that is making The North Face’s Responsible Down Standard widely available, tell me they plan to strengthen their standard. Let’s hope they deliver on that promise–there’s no need for waterfowl to suffer in order to keep people warm.