NEWS: College students are concerned about the environment more than jobs.

A survey was conducted of more than 400 college students of the class of 2011 and their parents to determine whether or not there has been any change in overall attitude over a generation. The study found that while parents were more concerned about post-graduation employment, the college students were, in fact, more concerned about the environment. Both groups were equally concerned with making enough money to be self-sustained, good grades, and keeping up with schoolwork. Of the students polled, 18% stated that the environment was their biggest social concern. Also, 91% stated they would pick an employment position they were passionate about over earnings. When the class of 2011 graduates, time will tell if these ideals hold true.

NEWS: The Economist's Report on Business and Climate Change

In Early June The Economist featured a cover story entitled, “Cleaning Up: A 15-page report on how business is tackling climate change.” The report included several articles on how big companies are going green and why. The report discussed that the driving force toward green energy is not just moral pressure, but there is growing economic pressure as well. In spite of the current interest in greenhouse-gas emissions, emissions are continuing to rise:

“If greenhouse-gas emissions are to be stabilized, then the carbon price or the support mechanism for clean energy, or both, will have to rise or be adopted worldwide, or both. And if that happens, the returns on clean-energy investment will increase even further and the companies that have already invested in such businesses will have a head start over those that have not.”

Therefore, customers, businesses and governments are realizing solving the climate change problem will provide new markets, technologies, business, and money to be made.

The Economist report featured:

• “Everybody’s Green Now: How America’s big companies got environmentalism.”

This article explains how a new business is forming out of the carbon market. More and more companies involved in power generation that once believed climate changed was the work of fiction, are coming out of the woodwork to create their own emission control promises and encouraging government regulation. Since states like California have created regulations or are working on creating them, companies are encouraging a federal government policy that is universal within all the 50 states. The companies however are not just interested in a cleaner environment or a universal policy to make paperwork easier, there profit involved:

“There is money in it, (federal regulation) too. If the American government adopts a cap-and-trade system, it will hand out permits to pollute. They are, in effect, cash. According to Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy, those allowances are likely to be worth in the region of $40 billion. Companies therefore want to be involved in designing those regulations.”

• “Irrational incandescence: People can’t be bothered to make easy energy savings.”

A Swedish power utility company, Vattenfall, is working on quantifying what ways of cutting carbon are cheaper. Insulation improvement, Fuel-efficient vehicles, Lighting system, Water heating, and sugar cane biofules, can both cut emissions and save money for people and business. However, the immediate savings are too small and the effort involved talks to much work, and electricity bills are too “boring” to think about. Also, people responsible for these changes may not have the knowledge or capital to make the initial investment to change.

• “Sunlit uplands: Wind and solar power are flourish, thanks to subsidies.”

Worldwide, 13% of the world’s energy needs are supplied by renewable resources. The three biggest sources are currently geothermal, hydro-electric power, and biomass. However, these sources aren’t perfect. Geothermal energy is limited by geology. Hydro-electric power is limited by building dams, use of large amounts of land, and government participation in large-scale production. Biomass is limited by the expense of long-distance shipping and old technology. Wind and Solar energy become next best expandable renewable resources. Countries that currently engage in large scale use of solar power, include Germany, Denmark, and China. Advanced technology and economies of scale have both dramatically reduced the price of solar cell technology, thus making solar power a more viable option for consumers. As with all things in life, minor setbacks do occur. One such example was a recent shortage of silicon, which inflated the price of solar cells. The silver lining in that cloud is that it forces companies to invest in thin-cell technology, which uses much less silincon, which, overall, is better for the environment. Energy tariffs have also made renewable energy more complex than need be. Nevertheless, big energy players have begun to invest in renewable energies. Such companies include GE and BP. Another factor in the future of renewables is politics. Luckily, wind and solar energy is less politically-risky, and can thus be shielded from partisan strategy.

• “Trading thin air: The carbon market is working, but not brining forth as much innovation as had been hoped.”

The carbon market is a place where traders can buy and sell non-carbon in the form of carbon credits. The purposes of the market are to establish a price for carbon and to allow companies to cheaply buy carbon credits. Carbon credits primarily come from two sources. The first is from corporate allowances. The second is certified clean mechanisms in developing countries. Such an example would include capturing methane gas from pig stool to create electricity. In fact, last year alone, developing countries accounted for 562 metric tons of CO₂ [$5.33 billion] traded. China is an up and coming polluter, and appropriately, last year, purchased over $4billion worth of carbon credits. Europe is still having a tough time in cutting emissions, partly due to the continued use of coal.

• “Boom” As security and climate concerns rise, nuclear power may be coming back.”

Nuclear energy in wealthy nations is responsible for a large chunk of energy: 18% in Britain, 19% in the U.S., and a whopping 80% in France. However, the nuclear society in America has been buzzing with activity of recent, for three reasons. First, the nuclear approval process was reformed in the 1990’s. Second, global warming has increased the need to find energies that emit less carbon dioxide. Third, the Energy Policy of 2005, which provided the nuclear industry with a tax credit, provided for $1.25 billion for innovative technologies, as well as another $2billion in insurance for regulatory issues. The application deadline is the end of next year, and so far 22 companies has applied to build 32 new nuclear plants. There are three problems that still remain. The first is waste removal. There is no long-term waste solution, but nuclear experts agree that waste can be safely stored in dry-storage casks surrounded by inert gases for about 100 years until a solution is found. Second, terrorism is still a worry. While plants are build strong enough to survive most routine attacks, plants can never be completely ready for innovate attacks. Third, costs for nuclear energy are higher than that of coal, by about 2KWH. However, new technologies may help to reduce the costs, and new plants with new technology appear to be the only viable way to gauge real-world cost savings.

• “Dirty king coal: Scrubbing carbon from coal-fired power stations is possible but pricey.”

Statoil, a Norwegian oil company, collects oil, but doesn’t contribute to atmospheric global warming. This is because the company pumps the carbon dioxide back into the ground. This innovation, called Carbon Capturing and Storing, or CCS, is considered a quick fix for global warming. While standard pulverized coal can be burned more cleanly at higher temperatures, energy demands are too burdensome for this technology alone, which is why CCS is getting a closer look. CCS is currently being done in three places: Norway, Canada, and Algeria. According to the International Energy Agency, about 15 new CCS power plants have been approved for production. The abundant use of coal is a good reason to further investigate the use of CCS.

• “The drive for low emissions: Car and fuel companies are investing in clean transport.”

Greenhouse emission cuts and fuel standards are beginning to toughen up. The EU has enacted mandatory fuel efficiency laws, and now more governments are following suit. In January 2007, California announced its goal to reduce carbon emissions from fuels by 10% by 2020. Hybrid cars, while a current quick fix, are not the answer, as their carbon savings will soon be offset by the overall increase in global car ownership. Some real changes have to take place. One change is ethanol, which gives off CO₂ , but, in theory, soaks it up through the plant’s photosynthesizing phase. There are three problems with ethanol. First, the market is currently limited. Most American cars can take E10 fuel [10% ethanol] but only about 6 million cars are currently “flex-fuel” ready, and can support E85 [85% ethanol]. Second, ethanol is expensive. While competitive with gasoline in price at the pump, subsidies cost the American taxpayer billions, and import tariffs keep out cheaper ethanol, such as that from Brazil which is made of sugar cane. Third, ethanol isn’t very green. Some experts believe that ethanol, due to its energy use for growth, releases more emissions than saves. Celluosic ethanol, or ethanol made from anything with cellulose in it, may be a better, greener ethanol. Other ideas that are still alive are electric and hydrogen cars. However, hydrogen is currently very expensive to produce, costs about the same as gas at the pump, and there are only 3 fueling stations in the world: one in Iceland, one in Washington, DC, and one opening in California. Hydrogen fueled cars cost about $1million to produce. Other ideas include cars ran on Lithium-Ion batteries, similar to those in laptop computers, only much bigger.

• “The final cut: Business can do it, with government’s help.”

While green thinking has greatly increased over the past few years, more so in the last year alone, some worry that being green could be a trend that could die off. One risk could be the loss of greenness as fashionable. For example, it may only be a matter of time until Hollywood mega stars move one to the next big thing, and leave their hybrid cars behind. The second risk is oil prices. While they have been high for some time, if the price per barrel were to come crashing down, so would the hopes of expanding alternative energies. Third, politics can interfere. Companies are banking of alternative energy tax breaks and incentives to help. The best way to ensure that the green revolution becomes a permanent fixture and not a trend is to vote in officials who will continue to implement green policy, and to buy from companies who are committed to green ideologies. Carbon prices must be set, and the richest and developed countries must take the plunge to permanency before developing countries can follow suit.

• “Fairfield v the valley: Two competing models for the clean-energy business.”

Venture capitalists of the internet boom of the 90’s are now trying their hands at alternative energies. At the other end of the spectrum are established companies looking for new markets in new energies. An example is GE and its Ecomagination campaign. While the venture capitalists claim that alternative energy is geared to small business, pointing out the number of small wind and solar powered farms, the alternative energy market is still dominated by incumbent companies who have the capital to move mountains and market new ideas.

SSC can help your organization understand what these new developments means for your organization and can assist your business in navigating the carbon market.

RESOURCES: Climate Change for Small Business

Individual small business owners often have difficulty imagining their role in managing climate for the simple reason that it's hard to measure climate impact on such a tiny scale. But the total climate-related impact (or "carbon footprint") of small businesses certainly add up. While your small business may produce actual greenhouse gas emissions, it certainly has an indirect impact on climate: electricity, heating, cooling, and transportation all translate into BTUs with global warming potential.

So begins Climate Change for Small Business, a background brief from ClimateBiz.com. This 5-ish page document outlines why small businesses should care about their contribution to climate change, steps for calculating a small business's climate change impact, and a list of resources for further information.

If you've seen An Inconvenient Truth but aren't quite sure what YOUR business can do to help combat climate change, this white paper is a great place to begin. Once you've read it, we're convinced that you'll want to take the next step in calculating your office's carbon footprint.

That's where we come in--Strategic Sustainability Consulting now offers Office Carbon Footprinting. In addition to measuring your climate change contribution, we'll also recommend ways to go carbon neutral in the most cost-effective and credible way possible.

Contact me at jennifer@sustainabilityconsulting.com or 202-470-3248 for more information--let's talk!

PEOPLE: Meet the SSC Summer Team

We're so pleased to have a great team of research and marketing interns this summer--they are an amazing group of talented students and recent grads that are making a huge contribution to our work. Read on for their details...

Anders Edvardsen is a Norwegian MBA (strategic management) student living in New York. He also holds a MSc in Philosophy from Copenhagen Business School, with a minor degree in Sustainable Business. He has worked as a research assistant for a political / philosophical think tank in Copenhagen, as well as in marketing research for the Danish branch of the Nielsen Company. He is especially interested in organization wide strategic sustainability planning and the integration of sustainability issues into long term vision and core business practices.

Britt Hinchliff is currently a 4^th year student at the University of California- Berkeley studying Business Administration and Public Policy. Her interest in sustainability began 3 years ago when she realized that companies could actually be positive actors in the world and make a significant impact. She has experience in the business and non-profit sectors, and being born in Brazil and raised in Latin American, she speaks fluent Spanish and Portuguese.

Christina Benz has a B.S. in Business-Marketing from Indiana University an MBA from The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. She spent her MBA studies focusing on sustainable enterprise and won the Net Impact National Case Competition in 2006. She will spend this summer sizing up the sustainability "score card" for multiple North Carolina businesses and conducting research for strategic sustainability initiatives. Her enthusiastic approach, progressive market insights, blend of public and private sector expertise, and expansive network of experts and organizations help her clients generate business value by integrating sustainability into their marketing and overall business strategies.

Denise Buhrau, a native of Germany, is currently pursuing a PhD in Consumer Behavior and Marketing at Tulane University. She has an abiding interest in consumer judgment and decision making. Her interest in sustainability is based on her own acknowledgement of a discrepancy between environment-related behavior in the US and in Germany. Through her internship, she wants to understand and learn about sustainability-related issues at the practical level. Denise enjoys mountain biking, playing the drums, and conducting an orchestra.

Erik Rainey is a 2006 graduate of the University of Rochester where he studied Japanese Language and Culture and Political Science. He currently lives in Miyazaki, Japan teaching English to high school students as a part of the JET Program. Erik is a 2006 StartingBloc Fellow and is interested in pursuing a career in sustainability consulting.

Frankie Cheung studied computer science at NYU and has worked almost two years in a business management role for a technology division of Merrill Lynch. After watching Al Gore's documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth," Frankie became increasingly aware of the problems facing the world today. As a result, he is currently exploring the field of sustainability as one of the paths toward a rewarding career where one can contribute to the solutions of the some world's problems. Currently, he is interested in green building, ecological footprinting, and corporate responsibility reporting.

Rose Carbonell is currently an MA candidate of Florida State University and will be graduating in just a few months. She's from Brazil, where she worked for Philips Electronics in the Social Sustainability department. Her job in Brazil allowed Rose to work with many non-profit organizations and in many ways changed her goals in life. Now, she would like to use her skills to help build a better world.

Scott Kleiman has spent summers pruning vineyards and building pig-pens as a farmhand at Spannocchia, an organic farm in Italy, and teaching teens about food, nutrition, and cooking at the youth development organization Brainfood in Washington, D.C. He graduated cum laude from Middlebury College in 2006 with a degree in political science and was Spring 2007 Fellow at the StartingBloc Institute for Social Innovation. While an undergraduate, Scott cooked for Dolci, Middlebury's Student-Run Restaurant, sat on Community Council, and was an active member of Ross Commons.