Bill Gates with farmers in India

The debate over biotech crops has become predictable.

In his 2012 annual letter from the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, who has a near-religious faith in technology and innovation, argues that an “extremely important revolution” in plant science, i.e., genetically-engineered crops, can help farmers in poor countries by giving them access to new varieties of crops that will better resist disease and adapt to climate change.

Days later, the Center for Food Safety, a Washington watchdog group and persistent critic of Big Ag, pushed back, saying that biotech crops had failed to deliver on their promise to alleviate hunger, and that Gates would do better to support low-cost “agroecological techniques” that don’t depend on patented, genetically-engineered seeds.

The conflicting claims and supporting data are hard to sift through. Will disease-resistant biotech cassava answer the prayers of Christina Mwinjipe, a farmer in Tanzania, whose crops are threatened by diseases, as Gates writes? Or will patented genetically engineered crops prove disastrous for the 1.4 billion farmers in  the global south who now save seeds from one season to the next, as Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the Center for Food Safety, argues?

The voices of farmers are rarely heard in these debates. (They’re probably working too hard.) But data released this week indicates  farmers, through their actions, are voting for biotech crops.

Last year, farmers planted an additional 12 million hectares of biotech crops, an increase of 8 percent over 2010, according to the annual biotech crop report of the ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications).

Most of that growth — 8.2 million hectares — came from the developing world, lead by Brazil and  India, the report says. The growth rate for biotech crops in developing countries was 11 percent, twice as fast and twice as large as industrial countries at 5 percent or 3.8 million hectares.

“Unprecedented adoption rates are testimony to overwhelming trust and confidence in biotech crops by millions of farmers worldwide,” said Clive James, the report’s author, in a statement. It must be said that James is an unabashed supporter of biotech crops but as best I can tell, his numbers haven’t been challenged.

Why do more farmers every year plant biotech crops? Critics of genetically-modified crops will say they are tricked into it by marketing or lack of knowledge or short-termism, and it’s certainly true that the popularity of a product is not a reliable indicator of its value. (ABBA sold more records than the Rolling Stones. People smoke cigarettes.) But if biotech crops didn’t make farmers more productive, or save them time or money, would they spread around the world as consistently as they have?

James writes: “There is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits.”

The top five countries that have embraced biotech crops–the US, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada–each planted more than 10 million hectares of the crops. Of the 16.7 million farmers who grew biotech crops, about 14 million were small, resource-poor farmers in China and India, most of them planting pest-resistant Bt cotton. In Africa, three countries–South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt–have commercialized biotech crops, and others, including drought-tolerant maize, are being tested.

In his letter, Gates argues that not nearly enough agricultural research is being done:

Given the central role that food plays in human welfare and national stability, it is shocking—not to mention short-sighted and potentially dangerous—how little money is spent on agricultural research. In total, only $3 billion per year is spent on researching the seven most important crops…Very little of the country and private spending goes toward the priorities of small farmers in Africa or South Asia.

Andrew Kimbrell

But critics like Andrew Kimbrell says the biotech industry has failed to deliver on its promise to feed the world:

The biotech industry has exploited the image of the world’s poor and hungry to advance a form of agriculture that is expensive, input-intensive, and of little or no relevance to developing country farmers.

The debate will rage on. Meanwhile, a campaign is underway to require the FDA to label genetically engineered foods. Supporters of labeling, most prominently Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farms, say we have a right to know what’s in our food: “Without a requirement to label foods containing these ingredients, we are forced to be guinea pigs in a giant experiment involving our health and the environment.”

By contrast, in his book Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, the veteran environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote:

I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we’ve been wrong about. We’ve starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool.

Your thoughts?

[Disclosure: I'm paid to moderate the annual policy conference of Croplife America, a trade association of big agricultural firms, which sell biotech seeds.]

If there’s one industry that ought to be concerned about the threat of global warming, it’s the insurance industry. OK, the ski industry, too, but I digress.

Dave Jones, California’s insurance commissioner, recently put it this way: “Climate change is an obvious physical threat to us all, but increasingly it also poses a serious financial threat to the insurance industry…” When extreme weather causes damage, insurers pay.

So you’d expect insurance companies to be among the most forceful voices in corporate America calling for the regulation greenhouse gas emissions.

Uh, no. They’ve been eerily quiet.

And, at the least, you’d expect them to be proudly steering some of their massive investments to clean energy or energy efficiency projects aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Wrong again.

“It’s surprising, in a sense, because they have so much to lose from climate change,” says Sharlene Leurig, senior manager of the insurance program at Ceres, a nonprofit coalition of investor and environmental groups. But, she notes, insurance is a conservative business. The industry is all about risk, but it doesn’t want to take the risk of speaking out on climate change.

This is the second of two blogposts about the insurance industry and climate. Yesterday, I blogged about federal and state-backed programs that are insure risky properties from flood and storm damage, creating potential liabilities for all of us. Today, I’ll ask why U.S. insurers–in stark contrast to the big European reinsurance companies–have been missing in action during the Washington climate wars.

Consider: The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an alliance of big companies and environmental groups calling for a cap on carbon emissions, includes 21 companies–seven utility companies, industrial giants GE and Siemens, chemical firms Dow and DuPont, Alcoa, Shell, Rio Tinto, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo and not a single insurer since the departure of AIG (for reasons unrelated to climate).

Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, or BICEP (which is a project of Ceres), another coalition pushing hard for policies to drive a low-carbon economy, includes Nike, Starbucks, Timberland, eBay, Gap, Avon and the Aspen/Snowmass, among others. No insurers.

Now…this isn’t to suggest that insurers have been entirely absent from the climate debate but mostly they’ve focused on their parochial interests. Some companies, for example, have asked the federal government to provide wind as well as water coverage in the event of hurricane damage. Others proposed want the federal government to offer reinsurance — that’s insurance for insurance companies — to protect against a major catastrophe, or “mega-cat” in industry argot. Fireman’s Fund, a unit of the German financial services firm Allianz, has been writing “green insurance” policies for building owners. (See my blogpost, Fireman’s Fund: an insuror that isn’t dull.)

But the industry has been a non-factor on the big issues, unlike the European reinsurance firms which have repeatedly warned of climate risks. Way back in 2007, Andrew Castaldi, head of the catastrophe risk unit for Swiss Re America Corp, told a Senate committee: “We believe unequivocally that climate change presents an increasing risk to the world economy and social welfare.” In a 2009 report, Lloyd’s of London warned of climate change contributing to “resource-driven conflicts; economic damage and risk to coastal cities and infrastructure; loss of territory and resultant border disputes; environmentally induced migration; government fragility; political radicalisation; tensions over energy supplies and pressures on international governance”. Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurer, said last year:  “It would seem that the growing number of weather-related catastrophes can only be explained by climate change.”

When I emailed the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America to ask why the industry hasn’t been more vocal, David Kodama, senior director of research and policy analysis for PCI, replied:

Climate change is one among many of important strategic risks for insurers. Broadly speaking, insurance companies assess and monitor developments associated with climate change and, as appropriate for the individual insurer, incorporate the relevant information into their business model and practices.

However, climate change is a particularly complex issue and its causes, effects and the relevant variables that impact it are multifaceted and not well understood.

…It is prudent for the many insurers to continue to study the issue.

Could the association be any more cautious? “Climate change is a heavily politicized issue in the US,” Ceres’ Sharlene Leurig says, when I ask her why the companies have stayed on the sidelines. “Why put your neck out there and start messaging about a topic that many consumers are confused about and, in some instances, downright hostile to?” Of course, that’s exactly what bolder companies like Nike and Starbucks are doing with BICEP.

There may, however, be another reason why insurers have been loathe to speak out: They write liability coverage for corporations, including oil and coal companies, which are being sued over climate-related liability.

An aerial view of Kivalina, Alaska

Claims have been filed against fossil fuel companies that remind some people of  class-action suits against tobacco and the asbestos makers. In Comer v. Murphy Oil, plaintiffs sued corporate defendants claiming personal injury and property damages caused by the allegedly climate change-induced impacts of Hurricane Katrina. In Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, a native Alaska group sued oil and gas companies and US utilities claiming that coastal erosion caused by global warming would force them to relocate their fishing village.

In a fascinating interview with an Australian newspaper, Gerald Maples, the lead attorney in the Comer case, said he’ll go after those fossil fuel companies that misled the public about the dangers of climate change, just as tobacco companies sowed doubt about the danger of smoking: “It’s pretty much accepted history that asbestos and tobacco are the role models for climate change litigation now.”

Happy New Year! And good riddance to 2011, a year during which we made little or no progress on some of the issues that I care most about: climate change, the long-term federal debt, social mobility (aka the American dream), and our dysfunctional Congress. Yet I remain an optimist.

Texas drought 2011

I could write many words about our woes. Instead, I’ll try to be succinct. On the climate issue, global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, we learned recently, and 2011 surely brought further increases.  Concentrations of CO₂ are 39% above where they were at the start of the industrial era and approaching the point when some scientists say it will be nearly impossible to contain global warming, the Guardian reports. Neither the US nor the UN moved closer to regulating CO2. In a discouraging development, Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich backed away from their once-sensible support of greenhouse gas regulation, in what can only be seen as shameless pandering to the know-nothing wing of the Republican Party. Discouraging, too, was the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which will slow down the growth of carbon-free nuclear power. So will the failure of Solyndra. Meanwhile, the U.S. suffered massive flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, a terrible drought in Texas, record wildfires and at least 2,941 monthly weather records that were broken by extreme events, according to the NRDC.. Coincidence? Uh, no.

Like the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the federal budget deficit has been growing.That’s no coincidence either. We’re living beyond our means, whether by burning fossil fuels or taxpayer dollars, and sticking future generations with the cleanup bill. Just last week, the White House asked for a $1.2 trillion increase in the federal debt limit, raising it to about $16.4 trillion. According to Marketplace Radio, that amounts to about $52,000 for every American. For a typical  family of four, that’s bigger than the mortgage.

Social mobility is harder to measure than income inequality (and more important, methinks), but indications are that it’s more difficult to climb the economic ladder in the U.S. than in other western democracies. The Economic Mobility Project, a  bipartisan effort to study the issue, reported recently on a study of 10 western nations that concluded: “In the United States, there is a stronger link between parental education and children’s economic, educational, and socio-emotional outcomes than in any other country investigated.” The sluggish U.S. economy in 2011 didn’t make life easier for those on the bottom who want to work hard and better themselves.

And yet.

As I wrote a year ago (see my blogpost, China, cappuccino and cell phones: reasons to cheer!),  life on this planet is getting better all the time. We humans are richer, healthier and and more peaceful than ever. It’s easiest to forget that, especially if you focus too much on the day-to-day headlines.

Here are several reasons to feel good about the year ahead:

Western economies are slumping, but the rest of the world is growing robustly. The most urgent problem facing mankind isn’t climate change: It’s the human misery that’s caused by poverty. There’s less of that today than there was a year ago, and there will be less on Jan 1, 2013, I’d bet. China’s GDP grew by about 10% in 2010 and by an estimated 9% in 2011. India grew by 6 to 7 percent last year.

A Nairobi street

Then there’s Africa. As Forbes reported last week, in the middle of the 2009 global economic recession, Africa was the only region apart from Asia that grew positively, at about 2%. The continent’s growth has been on an upward trajectory ever since then- 4.5% in 2010 and 5.0% in 2011.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but you can be sure that this means that many millions of people are living longer and healthier lives, and that their children have a better shot at an education. This is good  for all of us because the global economy is not a zero-sum game. An expanding pie means a safer world, and more markets for U.S. goods. And there’s even reason to hope believe that the US economy is due for a rebound. See what Matthew Yglesias writes in Slate that Happy Days Are Here Again.

Corporations are taking a more expansive view of their responsibilities: One reason why I write about business is that I believe that corporations can be a powerful force for good. Many are not, but I found reason in 2011 to applaud changes at Walmart (Have I Fallen in Love with Walmart?), McDonald’s (Mainstreaming Sustainability? ), Smithfield Foods (Sustainable pork?), Office Depot (No tree hugging, please), Shaw Carpets (This carpet has moral fiber), Unilever (CEO Paul Polman: Don’t stay on the sidelines), Starbucks (We are indivisible), Marks & Spencer (Sustainability, profits and a carbon-neutral bra),  TD Bank (America’s greenest bank?) and GE (How GE learned to think small and serve the poor). My most popular post of the year, by far, was about Patagonia (Maybe the best retail ad ever).

These companies are responding to rising expectations–from advocacy groups, consumers, a handful of shareholder activists and especially from their own workers. The changes they are making aren’t big enough, and they aren’t happening fast enough, but the forces driving companies to become more sustainable are getting stronger all the time.

Protesters in Egypt

Citizens’ movements are growing here and abroad. Whatever you think of Occupy Wall Street, they got one thing right–the deck is stacked in the US in favor of the well-to-do and the powerful, not just the 1% but the 10 or 20 or 30%, and it’s stacked against those at the bottom of the income ladder. So many laws and cultural practices that we take for granted–from the mortgage interest deduction to the dismal quality of the public education system in our big cities and poorest rural areas–serve the interests of the rich and powerful. Wall Street got bailed out. Main Street got left behind. Thank goodness for people didn’t take that lying down. Thanks, too, to the Tea Party, which is wrong about most things but right about the fact that the federal government can’t keep spending money that it doesn’t have.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street was largely inspired by citizens uprising in Tunisia and Egypt, which in turn seem to inspired people in Russia and even in China to demand more of a voice in their own affairs. This is all to the good, and it should be a reminder to those of us here in the U.S. not to take our freedoms for granted and to exercise our rights as citizens. A big job ahead is to convince Congress to act like adults and treat us that way, understanding that they were elected to solve big problems, even if that requires. We can’t have big government, generous services and low taxes. Or cheap energy without climate risk. Or affordable, unlimited health care for all.

Sure, there’s reason to be gloomy but it always helps to think long term. More people are free today than at any time in human history. More people live comfortably. We’re more tolerant and loving that we used to be. We’ve got an African American president and my daughter, who is gay, will get legally married in June. MLK Jr. had it right: “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

Pity the much-maligned plastic bag.

Plastic bags are being banned or taxed in cities and counties across America–just this week in Seattle, before that in San Francisco, Portland and Washington, D.C.  Beginning in January, Montgomery County, MD, where I live, will impose a five-cent charge for carryout bags at all retail stores. Like most of my neighbors (median household income in the county tops $92,000) I can afford the extra nickel.

But I’m not persuaded that plastic bag bans or taxes makes sense. Here’s why.

They’re not  based on science. Independent studies show that plastic bags are environmentally preferable to paper. Other suggest that, when they are reused, they are preferable to the reusable plastic or cloth sacks that many of us tote around.

Some of the arguments put forth for the bans don’t hold up. That plastic waste waste in the oceans you’ve probably read about? No, it’s not the size of Texas. Nor is it made of plastic bags.

Getting rid carryout bags won’t lead to a long-term solution to the problem of plastic waste. Maybe instead of banning or taxing bags, we should be recycling them. That’s the argument being put forth by a company called Hilex Poly, which will recycle tens of millions of pounds of plastic bags, sacks and wraps this year, and would like to do more.

You may disagree but after digging into this subject for a while, I’m certain about only one thing: It’s complicated.

The arguments for plastic bag bans or taxes are, by now, familiar.  The Montgomery County carryout bag law  “is designed to improve our environment by cutting down plastic bags—a significant source of litter—which pollute our streets, streams, and playgrounds, and harm property values.” Econ 101 tells you that charging 5 cents for plastic bags creates an incentive for people to use fewer of them, and carry reusable bags instead. Proceeds go to “programs that fight litter and provide stormwater pollution control.”

Bill Hickman, who leads the Rise Above Plastics campaign at the Surfrider Foundation, an advocacy group, told me by phone: “We’re trying to stop the plastic impact on the marine environment. Plastic doesn’t biodegrade in our lifetime…Anything, single use, at the end of the day has negative effects on our environment.”

All true, but…

Studies say that plastic bags have a lighter environmental footprint than paper, and in some cases are preferable to reusable bags. A thorough life cycle analysis done in the UK by the government’s environment agency in 2006 (download, PDF, here) found that HDPE (high-density polyethylene, the typical lightweight plastic bags) are superior to paper because they require less energy and far less water to make and take up less space in landfill. Comparing them to reusable non woven polypropylene (PP) bags–the typical reusable bag, made in China, and sold by grocers–the study found that their impacts depend upon the number of times that plastic bags are reused. Data on this is scarce and controversial–critics of plastic say the bags are typically  used just once, but the industry says they are frequently used, often as garbage bags, or to carry kids’ lunches to school, or pick up dog poop. (Banning plastic carryout bags means that people may have to buy bags for those purposes.) Focusing on the climate issue, the 120-page-long UK study says:

The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused.

If I understand that correctly, it means that one reusable bag has the carbon footprint of 13 disposable bags that are used just once. If you use the disposable bag twice, you’ll need to deploy the reusable bag 26 times before you are ahead in terms of global warming. By the way, this doesn’t include the impact of washing the reusable bag in hot water, which is highly recommended because bacteria like E. coli and fecal coliform can thrive in reusable bags, according to this study, which, it must be said, was financed by the plastics industry.

A study from the University of California, Chico, funded by Keep California Beautiful, (PDF, download) analyzed the UK studies, as well as research from Scotland, Australia and a U.S. consulting firm and found that “reusable plastic bags can have lower environmental impacts than single-use polyethylene plastic grocery bags.” But it also found traces of cadmium and lead in the reusable bags. The professor who did the study has consulted for both plastic bag and reusable bag makers. Like I said, it’s complicated.

Plastic pollution of the oceans probably isn’t as bad as you think. You can find dire stories of plastic pollution, as well as birds being strangled by plastic bags, on the websites of Surfrider and Save the Bay. Oprah Winfrey devoted a television program to the problem, saying:

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch stretches from the coast of California to Japan, and it’s estimated to be twice the size of Texas. “This is the most shocking thing I have seen,” Oprah says.

Whether Oprah has actually seen the garbage patch is anyone’s guess. But Angelicque “Angel” White, an assistant professor of oceanography at Oregon State, participated in one of the few expeditions solely aimed at understanding the abundance of plastic debris in the Pacific. He says the claim that the “Great Garbage Patch” between California and Japan is twice the size of Texas is flat wrong. OSU reports:

“There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists,” White said. “We have data that allow us to make reasonable estimates; we don’t need the hyperbole.

According to NOAA and others, plastic debris in the oceans comes from many sources, including fishing lines, PET bottles, polyester clothing, detergent bottles, plumbing pipes, drinking straws and toothbrushes. The photo below comes from the website of a group called Heal the Bay, which crusades against plastic bags. Do you see a lot of plastic bags in the picture? Should we tax or ban all plastics because some end up as litter?

Why not recycle? Since we’re never going to ban all plastic bags and containers–plastics used to carry fruits and vegetables, plastic newspaper wrappers, styrofoam containers used for carryout food, etc–maybe the answer is to support and develop robust recycling streams for plastic. Like PET bottles, plastic bags are 100% recyclable. The plastic isn’t the problem; litter is the problem.

This is from my local Safeway. What's so hard about recycling?

Unfortunately, recycling rates are low, but the good news is that they are climbing. EPA recently reported (PDF, download) that in 2010  recycling was up from 12% to 15% for polyethylene bags, sacks and wraps. The more plastic bags are recycled and reused, the less their environmental impact, of course.

This argument was put to me by Mark Daniels, who is vice president of sustainability for Hilex, a leading manufacturer and recycler of plastic bags. Hilex pays about $300 to $400 a ton to supermarkets and others for used plastic bags, stretch wrap, the plastic wrap that goes around bottles, etc.  They company says it will recycled between 35 and 38 millions pounds of post-consumer plastic bags this year–a tiny fraction of all bags, but still–and it wishes it had more. Hilex does its recycling at a plant in Indiana that it opened in 2005, and doubled in size in 2010.

“It is less expensive for us to collect, purchase, transport and reprocess and redistribute that materials to all of our other plants than it is to purchase virgin material,” Mark told me. That’s true even though plastic bags are made from natural gas, which is cheap right now.

Hilex does its recycling at a plant in Indiana that it opened in 2005, and doubled in size in 2010. But a robust supply of post-consumer plastic is needed to keep the plant busy. “We can triple our capacity to nearly 100 million pounds,” Mark said. “But it’s difficult for our company and our board of directors to commit those tens of millions of dollars,” without the support of cities, towns, retailers and environmentalists for more recycling. “We should be 100% aligned with environmentalists,” Mark said.

The truth is, we don’t really have a clear answer to the age-old question of “paper or plastic,” now amended to say “paper, plastic or reusable?” Too many variables are at play.

My own answer? I carry several reusable bags in the trunk of my (hybrid) car and bring them into the grocery store when I remember. When I don’t, I take plastic and bring it back to be recycled. I don’t feel bad about that. Neither should you.

–

A personal note: Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog in 2011. This is my 188th and final post of the year. Enjoy the holidays, and see you in 2012.

Next April, FORTUNE will again bring together some of the smartest people we know in sustainability for Brainstorm Green, the magazine’s annual conference on business and the environment.

This is will be our 5th Brainstorm Green–hard for me to believe, since I’ve been involved since the beginning–and we’ve again got a first-rate lineup of leaders from corporate America, the  environmental movement, the investment community and government, as well as a scattering of interesting writers, thinkers and doers about “green.”

Once again, the event will be held at the spectacular Ritz Carlton in Laguna Niguel, CA. Dates are April 16-18, 2012.

Alan Mulally

New faces for 2012 from the corporate world will include Alan Mulally, the president and CEO of Ford; Rob Walton, the chairman of Walmart; Andy Taylor, the chairman and CEO of Enteprise (they buy more cars than anyone in America); C. Larry Pope, the chairman and CEO of Smithfield Foods (they make more hot dogs than anyone in America, as I wrote in Smithfield Foods: Sustainable Pork?); Vance Bell, the chairman and CEO of Shaw Industries (the world’s largest carpet manufacturer, see my blogpost, This carpet has moral fiber); John Faraci, the chairman and CEO of International Paper; Gary Hirshberg, the CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm; Russ Ford, the executive vice president of Shell; Bea Perez, the chief sustainability officer of Coca-Cola; and Trae Vassallo of Kleiner Perkins.

Other newcomers will include former EPA chiefs William K. Reilly and Christine Todd Whitman; he’s now with private equity firm TPG, and chaired the BP oil spill commission, she’s an energy and environmental consultant and nuclear-power advocate. We’ll talk politics and climate with  John Podesta, the chair of the Center for American Progress and former chief of staff to President Clinton. John Warner — the Ph.D. chemist, not the former U.S. Senator — will explain the promise of green chemistry.  Bonnie Nixon will deliver insight into The Sustainability Consortium. And I certainly hope that Jared Diamond, the Pulitzer Prize winning author and geographer, will counsel us on how to avoid Collapse.

Frances Beinecke

Although we meet just once a year, I like to think of Brainstorm Green as a community, albeit an ephemeral one. That’s largely because many of those who came for the first Brainstorm Green, back in 2008, have come back again and again. In particular, we are joined every year by the leaders of our programming partners–the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International. EDF’s Fred Krupp, NRDC’s Frances Beinecke, TNC’s Mark Tercek and Glenn Prickett and CI’s Peter Seligmann will all be back in 2012.

Many other Brainstorm Green “alums” will return, too. In no particularly order: David Crane, the CEO of NRG Energy; Fisk Johnson, the chairman and CEO of S.C. Johnson; Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy; Mike Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club; Scott Griffith, the chairman and CEO of Zipcar; David Neeleman, the founder and CEO of Brazil’s Azul airline; Ted Roosevelt IV of Barclay’s; Dara O’Rourke of Good Guide; and water expert Will Sarni of Deloitte.

[I'm also hoping that the incomparable Chuck Leavell -- keyboardist with the Rolling Stones, award-winning tree farmer and all-around good guy -- will return in 2012. My FORTUNE colleague Brian Dumaine, who is co-chair with me of Brainstorm Green, also functions as our musical impresario, and he tells me he's doing his best to persuade Chuck to come back.]

As always, there will be plenty to talk about–the shale gas boom, the future of renewable energy, the continuing “greening” of corporate America, the 2012 election, consumer behavior around green, corporate water strategies, electric cars, etc. The theme of the conference is, how can business help profitably solve the world’s big environmental problems?

The program remains in flux, so if you want to propose a speaker or call our attention to a new topic, please do so here at the Brainstorm Green website. You can also request a delegate invitation on the registration page. I hope to see many of you in Laguna Niguel in April.

Patagonia's home page this weekend

In the midst of the madness of black Friday, and this weekend of American consumerism run amok, come a few wise words from the outdoor retailer Patagonia.

In a full-page ad in the New York Times, the privately held company asks shoppers to think more carefully about what they purchase, and the real cost of all the things we buy.

The headline: Don’t Buy This Jacket

“We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else,” the company says.

The rest of the ad is worth reading, and thinking about, so I’ll copy the text here:

It’s Black Friday, the day in the year retail turns from red to black and starts to make real money. But Black Friday, and the culture of consumption it reflects, puts the economy of natural systems that support all life firmly in the red. We’re now using the resources of one-and-a-half planets on our one and only planet.

Because Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time – and leave a world inhabitable for our kids – we want to do the opposite of every other business today. We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else.

Environmental bankruptcy, as with corporate bankruptcy, can happen very slowly, then all of a sudden. This is what we face unless we slow down, then reverse the damage. We’re running short on fresh water, topsoil, fisheries, wetlands – all our planet’s natural systems and resources that support business, and life, including our own.

The environmental cost of everything we make is astonishing. Consider the R2® Jacket shown, one of our best sellers. To make it required 135 liters of water, enough to meet the daily needs (three glasses a day) of 45 people. Its journey from its origin as 60% recycled polyester to our Reno warehouse generated nearly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, 24 times the weight of the finished product. This jacket left behind, on its way to Reno, two-thirds its weight in waste.

And this is a 60% recycled polyester jacket, knit and sewn to a high standard; it is exceptionally durable, so you won’t have to replace it as often. And when it comes to the end of its useful life we’ll take it back to recycle into a product of equal value. But, as is true of all the things we can make and you can buy, this jacket comes with an environmental cost higher than its price.

There is much to be done and plenty for us all to do. Don’t buy what you don’t need. Think twice before you buy anything. Go to patagonia.com/CommonThreads or scan the QR code below. Take the Common Threads Initiative pledge, and join us in the fifth “R,” to reimagine a world where we take only what nature can replace.

That’s good environmental messaging. But is it good business for a company to urge people to buy less? Moreover, is there a disconnect between this ad and Patagonia’s own plans for grow, open new stores and mail out more catalogs?

Patagonia responds in a blogpost about the ad:

The test of our sincerity (or our hypocrisy) will be if everything we sell is useful, multifunctional where possible, long lasting, beautiful but not in thrall to fashion. We’re not yet entirely there. Not every product meets all these criteria. Our Common Threads Initiative will serve as a framework to advance us toward these goals.

Patagonia, to its credit, is pushing us (and its own people) to think about what sustainable consumption might look like. There’s nothing inherently wrong with buying stuff–without consumption, we’d have no jobs or economy–but our goal should be to buy stuff with the lowest possible environmental footprint, stuff that is produced and transported using renewable energy and stuff that, when it’s no longer useful or needed, can be turned into something else. Consumption, in other words, that is part of a zero-waste, zero-emissions economy.

It’s a long, long  way from here to there, but we need to start down that path down, and we  need visionary companies, as well as visionary environmentalists and politicians, to help us figure out how to get there. In an industry where lots of companies (notably Nike and REI) are thinking hard about sustainability, for obvious reasons–their business depends on the outdoors–Patagonia is leading the way.

Meanwhile, if you’d like to become a more responsible holiday shopper, check out the NRDC and its Green Gift Guide (plant a tree in Costa Rica, adopt a wolf in Yellowstone), which features some mildly amusing celebrity videos from people like Kyra Sedgwick and Tony Shalhoud on bad gifts.  Worth a look, too, is the Simplify the Holidays challenge from the invaluable Center for a New American Dream which suggests gifts of time or hand-made gifts.

In another bit of encouraging news, those Thanksgiving Day store openings that I blogged about last week [See my blogpost Thanksgiving Shopping Madness and especially the comments) have generated more than the usual backlash. Yesterday, the New York Times’ James Stewart did a terrific column about Anthony Hardwick, whose change.org petition challenged Target to give workers Thanksgiving Day off.

Then again, there was this:

At a Wal-Mart in Los Angeles, one woman seemed to take her position in line very seriously. Authorities said 20 people at a Wal-Mart store suffered minor injuries when a woman used pepper spray to gain a “competitive” shopping advantage shortly after the store opened on Thursday evening.

Ah, the spirit of the season.

“I was a huge supporter of cap and trade,” said Wayne Leonard, the CEO of Entergy, a $11 billion utility company.

“We developed enormously elegant solutions, but they couldn’t get done.”

Taxing carbon emissions is the next best way to deal with the threat of global climate disruptions, he said, in part because it would give the energy industry a degree of certainty about how to deploy its capital.

“A simple tax on every one is a starting point,” Leonard said. Proceeds could be used to reduce the federal deficit or rebated to consumers.

Leonard spoke today (Nov. 9) at a launch event for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a new organization that is succeeding the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Eileen Claussen, who has directed the Pew Center for 13 years, will lead the new group, which has raised money from three so-called strategic partners — Entergy, HP and Shell — as well as Alcoa Foundation, Bank of America, GE, The Energy Foundation, Duke Energy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Pew is no longer a backer.

The arrival of yet another Washington group to deal with climate and energy issue doesn’t mean much, especially when it’s a makeover of an existing group. C2ES says: “We believe that ensuring safe, reliable, affordable energy for all – while protecting the global climate – is a paramount challenge of the 21st century.” Well, sure, but that’s what Washington environmental groups have said for years, with few signs of political progress to show for it. Global GHG emissions, meanwhile, reached record levels in 2010.

So what’s to be done? If a new idea was voiced at C2ES’s launch event, I missed it. Most interesting, to me at least, was the conversation about an old idea–a carbon tax or fee–which was set off by Leonard’s comments.

Claussen said that C2ES will take a close look at global carbon pricing. “The most effective and efficient way to deal with this issue is through some form of carbon pricing, whether it’s a tax or something else,” she said. Europe’s approach has been based on cap-and-trade, which sets a cap on emissions, allocates or auctions permits to emit, which can then be traded among emitters. (By the time you explain cap-and-trade, most people tune out.) Australia, by contrast, has just enacted a carbon tax.

Ted Roosevelt IV, chair of the C2ES board, said: “We don’t have a good price signal on carbon, and we need it.” Cap-and-trade is dead, if only because of public distrust of Wall Street, he said. He should know: he works at Barclay’s Capital. (See my June blogpost, Ted Roosevelt is lonely.) The debt crisis facing the federal government could create an opening for a carbon tax, he suggested: “We have very severe fiscal problems. Maybe a price signal and addressing the fiscal problems can be combined.”

Wayne Leonard

Leonard, whose company is based in New Orleans, said that as much as he would like to move Entergy towards lower carbon energy sources, he’s constrained by his fiduciary duty to shareholders. That requires him,  in essence, to deliver power at the lowest possible cost. “We can do things at the margins,” he said, “but beyond that we are violating our fiduciary obligations.”

The time may be near to revive discussion of a carbon tax. Increasingly, there’s recognition on the left and the right that today’s mishmash of subsidies and mandates is not only ineffective but wasteful. With no clear end in mind, the government provides tax breaks (for wind, solar, corn ethanol and electric cars), loan guarantees (for nuclear power, renewable energy and electric car manufacturing) state-level renewable portfolio standards (mostly for wind and solar) and EPA fuel-economy standards (which regulate cars, but do nothing to discourage driving).

The results are often perverse. To pick just one example, investment tax credits for solar panels are awarded to  anyone who puts solar on a roof, including well-to-do people who live in places where there’s so little sunlight that the GHG-reduction benefits are slim. Meanwhile, a utility company that might be willing to switch from dirty coal to cleaner natural gas — which could make a real difference to the climate — has no incentive to do so under a binary regulatory scheme (dirty/clean)  that doesn’t differentiate between fossil fuels. That’s nuts.

Of course, the politics of a carbon tax or fee are difficult. Republicans on Capitol Hill are all but unanimous in their stated opposition to taxes. A carbon tax with a rebate to consumers was at the heart of legislation introduced back in 2009 by Sens. Cantwell and Collins that ran into stiff opposition.

Then again, as Phil Sharp, a former Indiana congressman who now leads Resources for the Future, said at the C2ES event, political winds can shift. “Rhetoric is one thing, and what people do when they get down to concrete decision making is often something else,” he said.

The other reason why environmental groups have been reluctant to support a carbon tax is that, unlike cap-and-trade schemes, it doesn’t even set a hard cap on GHG emissions, which scientists say we need. If the tax is too low, it won’t reduce emissions far enough or fast enough to deal with the climate threat.

Then again, anything that would put a brake on emissions would be better than what we have now, which is just about zilch.

I’m not much for patriotic displays, but I’m proud to wear this red, white and blue wristband inscribed with the word INDIVISIBLE.

I hope you’ll wear one, too. They’re available, beginning Tuesday, at Starbucks, for a donation of $5 or more to a project called Let’s Create Jobs for USA.

The program aims to create thousands of jobs across the country, by investing community development financial institutions (CDFIs) — mostly credit unions and community banks — that will then lend to small businesses, nonprofits, housing and commercial developers, micro-enterprises and the like, all to spark the economy and create jobs.

I’m a fan of this project,  for several reasons.

First, there’s no more front-of-mind issue in America today than jobs. So this a great example of how a big company can help tackle an important  problem–while enhancing its reputation as a business that supports its communities.

Second, Let’s Create Jobs for USA underscores the fact that, despite the rhetoric from politicians, jobs are best created by the private sector.  If you’re anti-business, you’re anti-jobs.

Ben Packard

Third, although credit for the campaign ultimately belongs to Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO, Let’s Create Jobs for USA unfolded as it did because of a connection between Ben Packard, vice president of global responsibility at Starbucks and Mark Pinsky, president and CEO of the Opportunity Finance Network, a national network of CDFIs. Ben, Mark and I serve together on the board of Net Impact, a great organization of students and young professionals whose purpose is to inspire and equip young people to use the power of business to make the world a better place.

Let’s Create Jobs for USA is very much in the spirit of Net Impact.

I chatted about the program with Ben and Mark this weekend during Net Impact’s annual conference in Portland, Oregon.  Ben told me the idea grew out of a long-running loan program for farmers that Starbucks supports in coffee-growing countries. Last year alone, Starbucks made loans to 56,000 farmers in 10 countries; the company has promised to make $20 million in loans by 2015.

Mark Pinsky

With the US economy reeling last summer, Schultz wondered out loud whether Starbucks could do for its retail communities in the U.S. something comparable to what it does in coffee-growing regions. The company needed a partner, and so Ben recommended Mark, an indefatigable expert on community development and finance. (Ben hastens to add that after making the connection, he stepped aside, and work on the project was done by others at Starbucks.)  Through Opportunity Finance Network, Mark and his team can get the money raised at Starbucks into low-income communities quickly and with little or no red tape. Through its foundation, Starbucks donated $5 million to Opportunity Finance Network to get things rolling.

“That money will get out and it will get out right away,” Mark told me. “CDFIs have been lending in the past few years, and at a pace faster than traditional financial institutions.”

CDFIs have been around for decades. Many, in fact, get support from the much-maligned Wall Street banks, as well as the U.S. Treasury. But their lending has been constrained by a shortage of capital. Money raised by Let’s Create Jobs for USA will go to meet their capital requirements, enabling the impact of the donations to multiply. “Every dollar that gets donated will enable $7 in new financing,” Mark said. Loans support business ranging from local grocery stores to charter schools to affordable housing, all aimed at serving the poor and working class.

Schultz and La Russa show their wristbands

The effort crosses party lines. “Howard (Schultz) gave a wristband to President Obama, and he gave one to Tony La Russa,” said Mark. La Russa, as you may know, has Tea Party sympathies (see this and this) but that didn’t stop him from wearing an “indivisible” wristband during game seven of the World Serious.

The speed with which all this came together is breathtaking. Mark visited Starbucks HQ in Seattle in early September. The program was announced in early October, and it rolls out to 7,000 Starbucks stores and online on Tuesday. Many big companies would need a month or two just to run an idea like this past their lawyers.

The payback to Starbucks will come in the form of an enhanced reputation and, in the long run, healthier communities. People without jobs don’t spend $3 for a grande latte.

“This is about using our scale for good,” Schultz said.

Nice to see a CEO stand up for the 99%.

Michael Brune

“We are starting to create the ecological U-turn that David Brower talked about, decades ago. On coal, it’s dramatic. We’ve seen a halt to the coal rush.”

“Primarily because of regulations (from)  the Obama administration, we can now project a future where our oil consumption will decline.”

“It’s not sufficient to address the problem, but it’s a positive trend.”

So says Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. [David Brower, who was made famous in John McPhee's Encounters with the Archdruid, was one of his predecessors.] Others fret that the environmental movement is on the defensive these days. Mike, an optimistic, sees progress.

Indeed, Mike argues that the effort by Republicans in the House to roll back a slew of environmental regulations as a sign that the enviros are winning.

“Republicans in Congress and their corporate benefactors are worried about the threat to the status quo in the energy industry,” he says. “That’s the reason this is happening. We’re making progress.”

Mike, who is 40, became the top executive at the Sierra Club early last year. Before that, he led the Rainforest Action Network, which I wrote about back in 2004 in FORTUNE. [See The Mosquito in the Tent] Earlier, he worked at Greenpeace, for a time as a door-to-door canvasser — a job that all but requires anyone who does it to see the glass as half full. Mike and I caught up the other day at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Miami.

The Sierra Club has nearly 600 staffers, a budget of nearly $100 million, about 625,000 paid members and another 1.4 million supporters. Stopping new coal plants and shutting down existing ones has become the club’s top priority. In a coup, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York gave the club a $50-million, four-year grant to support its anti-coal campaign. (See Mike Bloomberg takes on coal.)

Plans for more than 150 new coal plants have been dropped, and a dozen or so more are still being fought, Mike said. In large part, that’s because demand for electricity has slowed, federal pollution rules make upgrading coal plants more expensive and natural gas has become cheaper and more abundant. But environmental opposition to coal has played a key role, too.

The club’s Beyond Coal campaign now aims to lock in the shutdown of about one-third of the coal-generating capacity that’s left by the end of 2015. (Here are details.) Again, federal clean air act rules will force utilities to phase out dirtier coal plants, as will cheaper gas. The activists will work to create  political pressure to replace coal power with clean energy like wind and solar, not just natural gas.

Says Mike:

We’re going as fast as we can to replace coal with clean energy in every state across the country. It’s the top priority for Sierra Club, and the largest project that the Sierra Club has done in 20 years.

Wind and solar power costs are declining, making them good alternatives to coal, he argues. “Iowa’s 20 percent wind now,” he notes.

This campaign won’t solve the climate crisis, as Mike acknowledges, but it’s important for several reasons.

First, coal pollution literally makes people sick. Half of U.S. families live in places where, even today, air quality fails meet EPA standards. “They’re breathing air that’s unsafe to breathe,” Mike says. Coal’s also the major source of mercury, a neurotoxin which is especially dangerous to pregnant women and young children.

Second, the Beyond Coal campaign can generate environmental victories at the state and local level. Cap-and-trade is terribly complicated but “people can see that there’s this smokestack over there and it’s making us sick,” Mike says.

Third, the campaign could become one of the building blocks of a more powerful environmental movement. While most people want clean air and water, and most support action to curb climate change, most remain  passive. “We need people to engage,” Mike says. “We’re going toe to toe with some of the biggest polluters in the country.”

This is why, he says, the Occupy Wall Street protests are encouraging, as is next month’s protest at the White House to stop the Keystone XL pipeline:

Arguably, the biggest challenge in the environment movement is to show people that they’ll get a return on their investment of their time or their energy or their dollars or their passion—to not despair about the future of our country.

Wendy Schmidt

The Schmidt Family Foundation, which was established in 2006 by Wendy and Eric Schmidt—he was the longtime CEO of Google—has taken on a very big job: It wants to help transform the world’s environmental and energy practices in the 20^th century.

In the meantime, there are messes to clean up.

So in July of 2010, as the BP Deepwater Horizon continued to spill oil, Wendy Schmidt joined forces with the X PRIZE foundation to create the $1.4 Million Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X CHALLENGE, a competition to find better, faster and more efficient ways to capture crude oil from the ocean’s surface.

Today (10-11) in New York, they announced a winner—a private company from Illinois called Elastec that specializes in oil spill recovery. Team Elastec won the $1 million first prize in the competition by developing technology that sucked up oil at a rate of 4670 gallons per minute – more than three times the industry norm.

“The point here is to have a better first response,” Wendy Schmidt told me by phone last week. “We can keep the immediate damage from the next oil spill from being so damaging.”

I spoke to Wendy Schmidt last week because I was curiously to learn more about the Schmidt Family Foundation and its mission. The foundation reported assets of about $168 million, as of December 2009 and it has made about $13 million in grants in 2011.

Why focus on energy and the environment?, I asked Schmidt. She replied:

We look at the world and say we have a 150 year old energy infrastructure that can fail. It’s not designed well enough not to fail, catastrophically. We look at how we can commit our creativity to help safeguard the living systems of the world, to protect them and protect us, from the failures of a system of extraction and combustion that we know will have to end anyway.

To that end, the 11th Hour Project, which was started by Schmidt and is financed by the foundation, makes grants to a long list of  advocacy and educational groups including The Regeneration Project, Green for All, the Rocky Mountain Institute and Annie Leonard’s Story of Stuff project. All are designed to help people better understand their connection to the planet.

But changing attitudes takes time, and Schmidt said she felt a sense of urgency to do something as oil gushed during the summer of 2010 from the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“We don’t recognize this industry as being as dangerous as it is,” she said.

Elastec's rapidly spinning grooved disk skimmers cleaned up lots of oil

The Oil Cleanup X Challenge attracted 350 inquiries and 37 submissions, which were whittled down to 10 finalists, according to Cristin Dorgelo Lindsey, who managed the competition for the X PRIZE Foundation. “It was a great mix of  entrepreneurs and established industry players,” Lindsey said.

Finalists advanced to field testing at OHMSETT, an oil spill response and renewable energy test facility located on a Navy base in Leonardo, NJ.  Shell financed the testing and has indicated that it will work with the winners to try to bring the new technology to market.

Elastec, as it happens, was part of the BP Deepwater Horizon cleanup. The company’s  fire resistant booms were used to control the burning of oil floating on the water’s surface. To win this prize, the company developed giant grooved disks that slurped oil of the test tank. National Geographic has photos here.

“A million dollars is a lot of money in some ways,” Schmidt said, “but in a lot of ways not that much to generate so much innovation.”

She’s right about that. Prizes like this one seem to be able to spur change that market forces by themselves cannot. [See my 2009 blogpost, The strange power of prizes] Evidently, the creation of a prize—not just the money, but the visibility it brings and competitive spirits it unlocks—focuses companies to do R&D with a sense of urgency that is otherwise lacking.

Still, it struck me as odd that an environmental foundation would work to develop better cleanup equipment that could, at least in theory, make deep water oil drilling more acceptable.

Schmidt said there’s going to be more drilling, whether environmentalists like it or not, and that will mean more spills.

“This is a fundamentally dangerous business, extracting volatile hydrocarbons under high pressure in pristine environments … so with 4,000 active drilling platforms in the Gulf, another accident is just waiting to happen.”

“I don’t think it’s a question of if this will happen again,” she said.  “It’s a question of when.”