No form of energy–not solar, wind, hydropower, obviously not coal or oil–comes without environmental tradeoffs.
One promising new energy source–a vast supplies of natural gas, trapped in shale deep beneath the earth’s surface–is getting renewed scrutiny these days, and for good reason.
While natural gas is often called a “bridge” to a clean energy future, critics are bombing the bridge with a frack attack, says energy policy analyst Kevin Book of Clearview Energy Partners.
Book was referring to the drumbeat of questions being raised by environmentalists, community activists, reporters and members of Congress about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process during which water, chemicals and sand are pumped underground at high pressure to cause tiny fissures in rock and force natural gas to the surface.
In the weeks ahead, new pressures will come from activist shareholders of a dozen energy companies. They’ve filed shareholder resolutions asking the companies to take a hard look at fracking and its risk, and they will raise the issue at annual shareholder meetings. [click to continue…]
Today’s guest post is from Richard A. Liroff, Ph.D., the founder and director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), a group of investors and NGO that advocates for safer corporate chemicals policies to reduce financial and reputational risk to companies, and grow long-term shareholder value. That’s a mouthful, but in essence, Rich and his allies try to persuade companies to use safer chemicals; you can find a list of shareholder resolutions on safer chemicals policies at the IEHN website, www.iehn.org.
Rich Liroff
A lifelong environmentalist, Rich has worked on toxic issues of various kinds since the late 1980s, when he looked at indoor air quality. “That work exposed me to the idea that air pollution hazards from toxics might be greater indoors than outdoors,” he told me. He formed IEHN in 2004 and says: “I thought the best way to move the issue forward was by working with the private sector.” Since then, of course, we’ve heard a lot about chemicals in products ranging from household cleaners to toys to cosmetics. This article is about BPA, which has interested me since I wrote a long story for cnnmoney.com called Wal-Mart: the new FDA in 2008. I worried then that the BPA controversy was more about emotion and entrenched interests (on both sides) than it was about science. I’m not sure things have improved much, but you can be the judge of that. Rich’s column originally appeared at Greenbiz.
On January 15, 2010, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shifted its position on the safety of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), expressing for the first time some concern about safety, announcing further research, and providing tips for parents to minimize infants’ exposure.
As a result, smart companies will change the way they communicate about BPA and as well as search for alternatives to better align themselves with consumer concerns. Some companies could gain reputational benefits and free media attention from supporting proposed legislation restricting use of BPA. [click to continue…]
