As climate change accelerates, leading investment groups are asking to hear more from corporations about their plans to adapt and survive in a changing world.

U.S. investors – pension funds, labor, religious and other institutional investors – filed a record number of climate change resolutions in 2009.

The 95 shareholder resolutions were filed with 82 U.S. and Canadian companies, some of which face special challenges from climate change, according to a news release by Ceres, a coalition of investors, environmental and social responsibility groups.

The number of resolutions represent a 40 percent increase over 2009 and were likely encouraged by recent guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission on climate disclosure.

“As the SEC recently affirmed with its disclosure guidance, climate change presents clear material risks and opportunities for U.S. businesses – and investors have a right to know which companies are well prepared and which are not,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, which helps coordinate the shareholder filings.

Companies targeted by the resolutions include oil and gas corporations such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, as well as the nation’s largest coal companies, electric utilities, homebuilders, “big box” retailers, financial institutions “and other businesses that investors believe are not adequately disclosing and managing potential climate-related business impacts,” according to Ceres.

Tar sands open mining, Alberta (Photo: U.S. Dept. of Interior.)

Investors want to know about the risks companies are taking with certain business practices that could increase a company’s carbon footprint and work against sustainability.

Resolutions, for example, targeted ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips over the companies’ plans to spend billions to extract fossil fuels from Canada oil sands deposits. The  shareholders want more information about the environmental impacts of this controversial practice, which faces legal challenges in both Canada and the U.S. They also asked for the companies’ assessments of potential risks to their reputation over oil sands extraction, a more complex, costly way to extract oil for petroleum.

Other resolutions asked big coal and electric utilities about their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the U.S. readies for possible regulation of GHGs.

“We want our companies to closely look at the impact climate change legislation and regulation have on them, to realistically assess those risks, and to consider the indirect consequences of climate change-driven regulation and business trends on their activities,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS, the California teachers’ retirement pension fund, which manages $131 billion dollars in assets.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, whose office oversees the state’s $129.4 billion pension fund and filed resolutions with CONSOL Energy Inc. and engineering firm KBR, also spoke out on behalf of more transparency.

“Investors cannot remain silent to the threats of global climate change, which has the potential to negatively impact businesses and their long-term profitability. The New York State Common Retirement Fund wants the companies it invests in to more clearly assess and better manage the far-reaching risks of climate change,” DiNapoli said.

Walmart announced a plan to reduce carbon emissions across its global supply chain today, saying it intends to shave 20 million metric tons off its greenhouse gas emissions   through 2015.

Walmart CEO Mike Duke annoucing carbon reduction goals

The reductions will come from Walmart’s own operations and  from “the life cycle of the products we sell,” said Walmart CEO Mike Duke, adding that the savings would be the equivalent of taking 3.8 million greenhouse gas-emitting cars off the road for a year.

“It’s a very sizable goal, as we often do here at Walmart,” he said.

Calculated another way, the reductions represent 150 percent of Walmart’s anticipated carbon growth over the next five years.

The reductions will be done as Walmart works with suppliers and will come from reduced energy spent on manufacturing and transportation; from products redesigned to consume less raw material or last longer; from the reduction of disposable products and the increased use of recycled goods, Duke said. “All of this is part of the life cycle of products.”

“We will be the leader in retailing because we will be the first to look at the supply chain on a global basis,” he told an audience of partner groups, reporters and suppliers during the webcast announcement from the company’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark..

Duke explained that Walmart sees these carbon reductions as compatible with business growth.

“There are millions more customers around the world who really do want to save money and that Walmart could reach. We do plan and want to continue to build stores. We want to add square footage, that’s the reality of our business. Yet we know we need to get ready for a world in which energy will only be more expensive. And there will be a greater need to operate with less carbon in the supply chain,” Duke said.

He said he expects that the efficiencies found as suppliers reduce their carbon emissions will result in continued lower prices for customers. “Like everything we do around here at Walmart, this commitment ends up coming down to our customers, and helping our customers around the world save money and live better.”

More sustainable business practices also can help shield customers from high energy costs in their own lives, Duke said.

“That is why America needs comprehensive legislative policy that addresses energy, energy security, the country’s competitiveness and reducing pollution.”

Several environmentalists and advisors, including Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, joined Duke and Walmart executives for the announcement.

EDF has set up at office in Bentonville, Ark., near Walmart headquarters.

The retailer also has worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council and World Wildlife Fund to develop its sustainability plan.

Tree Hugger and Planet Green co-sponsored the webcast. TreeHugger founder Graham Hill helped kick off the news conference by remote, with a video lesson on greenhouse gases, which he likened to a blanket that’s getting too thick and threatening to disrupt the climate humans are adapted to. He discussed ways products can be more earth-friendly, alluding to paper towels that can be ripped off in half sheets and proper sizing of food portions.

TreeHugger Editor-in-Chief Meaghan O’Neill talked with an invited panel about how business and sustainability can interact. A FoxHome Entertainment executive showed off a DVD package that has less plastic and Paul Kelly of Walmart-owned Asda in the UK talked about how more sustainable products can be low cost.

“You can decouple business growth from carbon growth,’’ said Asda exec Kelly.

Walmart, once widely derided as a merciless profit-seeker and crusher of small businesses, has in recent years taken a variety of steps, from using fuel-efficient trucks to buying more local food and daylighting its stores, to reduce its carbon footprint. Lately, it has been pushing its suppliers to operate more sustainably, and already gives points to products that come with less packaging and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Critics says that Walmart’s push is more about squeezing out costs than greenhouse gases. But others, including some leading environmentalists, vouch for Walmart’s sincerity and believe its scale gives it an incredible podium.

“Walmart is looking at the big picture,” said Krupp, by leveraging its vast vendor network to achieve change.

During a mock interview with a Walmart executive during the webcast, Krupp said Walmart is showing leadership by acting in advance of government mandates to reduce carbon emissions and also throwing out a challenge to consumer products companies around the world.

“What’s sensational is that you’re (Walmart) going to launch a process, a race, a treasure hunt among your suppliers to find ways to cut carbon pollution and cut their energy costs.”

For more information, see the Walmart Fact Sheet on how it intends to reduce carbon emissions.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

While environmental activists raise banners and bullhorns demanding action on climate change, the movement to quell climate change has quieter advocates in all corners of society.

Some of these advocates have big names Americans will surely recognize: Addidas, Coca-Cola Company, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Chevron Ltd., Alcoa Alumnio, Ericsson, Nike Inc., General Electric, Levi Strauss, KPMG International, Gap Inc., Fairmont Hotels and Resorts, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Starbucks and Yahoo! Inc..

These are not companies that one normally associates with strong environmentalism, and some have carbon footprints that scare the bejesus out of environmental groups. (Though a closer look would reveal that many also have significant green initiatives underway. Fairmont has built green hotels. General Electric is invested in green energy.)

What these companies have in common, though, is a signed commitment asking for progress on climate change. They are signers of the Copenhagen Communique, a message to global political leaders from some of the world’s largest businesses, and some smaller ones.

They share a common belief that inaction on global warming is not the answer; that climate change is real and stands to hurt everyone and must be addressed with strong laws and steep carbon emissions reductions.

“Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilized,” they say in the communique, released last week and available for full viewing at the website, Copenhagen Communique.

“It is critical that we exit this recession in a way that lays the foundation for low-carbon growth and avoids locking us into a high-carbon future,” says the communique, which aims to push for an “ambitious, robust and effective” agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Conference opening today (Dec. 7-18).

An initiative of the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leader’s Group on Climate Change, the communique has more than 700 signers and articulates a strategy to address climate change that shares much, both in tone and substance, with environmentalists.

The communiqué outlines a “basic shape” that a Copenhagen agreement should take:

• It must establish a global emissions cap and long-term reduction “pathway” for all greenhouse gas emissions and sources of GHGs for the period 2013 to 2050. The targets should be based on science to “ensure global greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized below critical thresholds.”

• Emissions should “peak and begin to decline rapidly within the next decade to keep the Earth’s global average temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius. (Many environmentalists, however, now say a decade is too long a time frame.)

• Emissions must be reduced by 50-85 percent by 2050 (based on what baseline is unclear) in keeping with the latest International Panel on Climate Change report. (Some environmentalists are calling for steeper cuts, sooner in light of recent science reports that the IPCC 2007 report underestimated the rate of climate change.)

• A “mechanism” for the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (commonly known as REDD) to stop deforestation. This would accomplished by funding tropical forest nations to halt deforestation and develop alternative economic paths.

The report notes that “there is nothing to be gained by delay” on climate change, which only raises the cost of the required emissions reductions.

It also says that developed nations need to take on “immediate and deep emissions reduction commitments that are much higher than the global average,” another area of agreement in principal with many others urging action to stem climate change.

Developing countries will need to have their own emission reduction plans in line with their “differentiated responsibilities” and the least developed economies will need “additional assistance” with this, the report notes.

All nations must enact policies to encourage  low-carbon technologies and improve markets for low-carbon goods and services because a carbon market, or “strong carbon price” alone, won’t be sufficient, according to the communique.

The communiqué ends on a high note, characterizing the problem of climate change as “solvable” and the costs of doing so as “manageable.” Many technologies are available to help and the policies are clear.

But it warns a second time: “Delay is not an option.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Kimberly-Clark Professional, a division of the paper products company serving commercial and institutional facilities, said today it is launching an awareness campaign that encourages industry professionals to go beyond recycling and think about reducing what they use in the first place.

The company said the campaign called “Reduce Today, Respect Tomorrow” will be its first environmentally focused, global communications effort.

One of four global business sectors within Kimberly-Clark Corp., Kimberly-Clark Professional is among the world’s largest manufacturers of washroom products, serving office buildings, hotels, schools, health-care facilities, manufacturing plants and other public buildings.

“Our ongoing efforts to achieve outstanding environmental performance are not just our responsibility as corporate citizens, they are vital to our success as a business,” Jan Spencer, president of Global Kimberly-Clark Professional, said in a statement. “These efforts are also guided by global, company-wide objectives for improving operational performance in energy, water, waste, and environmental management systems.”

The company said that while many regard recycled fiber content as the main measure of environmental stewardship, Kimberly-Clark Professional wants to reduce environmental impact at every stage of a product’s lifecycle. K-C said that by practicing “source reduction” it can essentially prevent waste before it is ever created. If less is consumed in the first place, it often means there is less packaging waste, which further reduces the amount of waste to recycle, or send to landfills.

Kimberly-Clark Professional said it has implemented other practices to reduce the environmental impact of products, including:

• Developing unique fiber-efficient technologies, such as the patented UCTAD manufacturing process, which reduces by up to 17 percent the amount of fiber needed to make tissue, towel and wiper products versus competitive wet press technology.
• Compressing or redesigning products and packaging so that more fits into every case.
• Introducing products such as Scott Coreless Standard Roll Bath Tissue, which reduces packaging waste by nearly 55 percent, compared with standard roll bath tissue — including 100 percent core and paper wrap elimination.
• Resizing cases to optimize how they fit onto standard pallets, so truck space can be used more effectively, reducing the total number of deliveries needed to fill orders.

Los Angeles’ program to reduce trucking pollution is working faster than planned, but it has come under attack by the trucking industry.

Today, the city celebrates the one-year anniversary of the  Clean Truck Program (CTP), which has taken more than 2,000 polluting trucks off the road and helped placed more than 5,500 clean vehicles into service. The changes mean that ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are now two years ahead of schedule in their master plan to reduce shipping truck emissions by 80 percent. The two ports have collaborated to reduce air pollution from both trucks and ships using the hubs.

Photo: Port of Los Angeles

“Los Angeles is home to the worst air pollution in the country, which plays a role in thousands of heart attacks, respiratory ailments and deaths every year,” said David Pettit, senior attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), in a statement. “Knowing those statistics, the Port of Los Angeles decided to take proactive and permanent action to reduce those deaths and invest in sustainable jobs at the ports.”

But, like so many air cleansing efforts, this one faces opposition from the polluters, who until recently hadn’t been asked to pony up for their effects on the environment. The American Trucking Association is fighting the program, arguing that it costs too much and will put independent truckers out of business. The ATA also opposes pending climate legislation in Congress as too costly.

It’s not cheap to clean up “dirty trucks” and replace them with retrofitted or new cleaner operating  diesels or biofuel vehicles.

The CTP is spending an estimated $1.6 billion to replace an aging fleet of 17,000 trucks with newer, cleaner vehicles at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach before 2012. So last February, the port authorities began collecting a $35 container fee (applied to each 20-foot container) to help offset the purchase the clean trucks.

The ports have reported that the fund created by the $35 fees will allow them to subsidize up to 80 percent of each new truck.

The ATA sued, citing a federal law (the Federal Aviation Admnistration Authorization Act – FAAAA) that prevents the local authorities from asking the trucking companies to meet environmental standards set by local authorities.

Environmentalists and local proponents of the Clean Truck Program say the suit has put the Clean Trucks Program, which they consider a model for other ports, in jeopardy.

But the Truck Association says the program puts an unfair burden on trucking companies .

The ports, the NRDC, Sierra Club and the Coalition for Clean Air are fighting the  ATA’s lawsuit. The groups also are working with federal legislators to update the FAAAA law  so that it would allow the Clean Truck Program to go forward.

Sustainability and clean air advocates have lavished praise on the ambitious truck clean-up program, which they believe will help reduce asthma and other respiratory-related ailments from air polllution.

The Bay Area, which has plans for a similar program at the Oakland port, is watching developments in LA closely.

“Congratulations to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, environmentalists, port truck drivers and residents for leading the way to green growth at our nation’s ports. Nearly 6,000 clean trucks put into service, and 2,000 dirty trucks off the roads in the blink of an eye. It’s simply awe-inspiring,” said Nikki Bas, Executive Director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy in a news release Thursday.

Bas continued:  “California’s port officials must be able to finish the job they set out to do. Oakland’s port clean-up efforts to get roughly 2,300 polluting rigs off the roads came to a grinding halt when the ‘profits before people’ mindset of the American Trucking Association obstructed LA’s continued emissions-reduction progress in court. The Clean Truck Program is legally sound but this devastating development has put the Port of Oakland’s plans on hold.

“In the meantime, the cost to our health and our pocketbooks skyrocket because the industry refuses to take responsibility for cleaning up its dirty air…”

The debate walks a more delicate line with workers. The ATA argues that truck drivers are being burdened. But the groups favoring continuation of the Clean Truck Program say that drivers are only unduly affected if industry refuses to pay for their air pollution.

County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, Executive Secretary-Treasurer Maria Elena Durazo issued a statement supporting the Clean Truck Program, and blamed the trucking industry for paying for the costs of clean trucking by keeping down the wages of contract drivers.

“A backwards-looking industry lobby has sued to block this pollution-fighting plan, creating a murky legal environment that has allowed unscrupulous employers to put the burden for truck leases back on their impoverished immigrant contract drivers. These drivers eke out a living on $10-11 an hour and cannot afford the proper upkeep and maintenance of these clean-technology vehicles,” Durazo said.

The CTP is part of a larger Clean Air Action Plan devised by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to expand business operations and reduce air pollution. The ports plan to expand over the coming years.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

FedEx has added 92 hybrid-electric trucks to its fleet, all of which are converted standard delivery trucks.

The increase represents a jump of 50 percent in the company’s hybrid fleet, bringing it to a total of 264 hybrid-electric vehicles. FedEx estimates that its hybrid fleet has saved an estimated 1,521 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions since 2004. That’s equivalent to taking 279 cars off the road annually.

The hybrid conversions, which retrofitted 2000 and 2001 model trucks, also helped boost green jobs in the Charlotte, N.C., area, creating 50 new, although temporary jobs, the company reported in an announcement today.

“FedEx and our suppliers have demonstrated that converted hybrids are a viable, lower-cost option compared to purchasing new hybrids,” said John Formisano, vice president, Global Vehicles, FedEx Express in the statement.

The retrofitted vehicles will be placed into service in San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles.

FedEx credited California with helping FeEx initiate its hybrid program in 2004 by providing incentives for hybrid vehicles.

In today’s announcement, Formisano urged the federal government to keep incentives alive to make projects such as the retrofits more scalable.

“We now need government incentives to end a Catch-22 situation: Production volumes are low due to high cost, and costs will only come down with higher production volumes,” he said.

The new hybrid trucks are projected to improve fuel economy by 44 percent. They will produce almost no particulate matter compared to the old combustion engine trucks (a 96 percent reduction) and also will have significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, the company reported.

For more information on FedEx, which employs 280,000 people worldwide, its hybrid vehicles and other energy saving measures the company uses, see news.fedex.com

The EPA announced this week that it is moving closer to a new global agreement to lessen ship pollution within 200 miles of American shores.

The U.S., along with Canada, has asked the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to create an emissions control area around the countries’ coastlines. Under the new proposal, U.S. and foreign-flagged ships will be required to use cleaner fuel and more effective pollution controls for their engines.

“This is an important and long overdue step in our efforts to protect the air and water along our shores and the health of the people in our coastal communities,” says EPA chief Lisa P. Jackson.

Once this is put into effect, the proposal should significantly improve air quality in port communities, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The battle for better standards in regard to large diesel-fueled, ocean-going ships has been going on for years. Rich Kassel, director of the NRDC’s Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, says he personally has been involved in diesel-related vehicles since the mid ’90s.

“I started with a local campaign to clean up New York City buses, which hit close to home since I used to ride a bicycle to work down Fifth Avenue,” he says. “Little did I know that 17 years later, that campaign would lead to a national regulatory program for first, buses, then farm engines and eventually locomotives and marine vessels.”

The EPA proposal follows an international agreement made last year that adopted new emissions standards for these ships. The agreement stated that nations can petition the IMO to create “Emission Control Areas” off their coasts. In these areas, large ships would have to use fuel that is made up of 98 percent less sulfur than the current global cap. They would also have to install pollution-cutting equipment to reduce nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, particulate matter by 85 percent and sulfur oxides by 95 percent – compared to current emission levels.

Kassel applauds the EPA’s proposal.

“Dirty diesel pollution from ships is a serious, but solvable, problem. EPA’s proposal is an important step towards curbing ship pollution on our coasts,” he says. “Taking the sulphur out of diesel fuel is like taking the lead out of gasoline. It opens the door to cleaner air.”

The proposal is especially important to the people who live along the coasts, he says. “Port communities around the nation have waited for years to see coordinated federal action to reduce ship pollution in their backyards. Cleaner ships will mean cleaner air for anybody who lives downwind from our ports.”

EPA’s Jackson says the stricter standards could save as many as 8,300 American and Canadian lives annually by 2020.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a longtime advocate for stronger pollution standards for ships and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, says, “We have known for a long time that our families that live around ports have a higher rate of respiratory illness, including cancer. EPA’s announcement is music to my ears because it means the United States is stepping forward to take a strong leadership role on clean air around ports.”

In 2007, Boxer and fellow California senator Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored the Marine Vessel Emission Act. It was designed to create leverage for a global agreement on ship pollution. The act didn’t become law, but did send a message to the global community that the U.S. would move forward on its own even if other countries didn’t join in.

The Boxer-Feinstein act also gave momentum to the shipping industry to unite under one set of standards, so that there wouldn’t be a patchwork of laws governing their business.

“Some countries like Denmark, the United States and Canada can move faster with cleaning up emissions,” says Kassel, “but at least now, they all have to do so in the same way.”

“[This week’s proposal] states that the United States and Canada will act together to remove sulfur from diesel fuel by 2015. By taking it out, this opens the door to new technology which will reduce emissions by 80 to 90 percent,” says Kassel.

“And it won’t take until 2015,” he says. “We’ll see cleaner vessels much sooner. It’s not like a light switch. Ships will start to get retrofitted soon, especially in places like Long Beach, Ca.” Many of the California coastal communities have been clamoring for pollution controls on ships due to the health issues they have experienced.

Interestingly enough, as cars, buses and trucks have gotten cleaner, ship pollution has increased, says Kassel.

The reason? Container shipping is growing, he says. “We’ve seen a trend that manufacturing and goods production has moved offshore. Consumption goes up with economic growth ,” says Kassel, who says despite the current economic downturn, long term trends haven’t really changed.

Take for example, a T-shirt that is made in Asia, he says. “Today it would probably go by boat to California, then by train or truck to New York. After 2015, when the Panama Canal is deepened, the T-shirt would stay on the ship all the way to New York. “

“We expect to see larger ships in the future, but not more ships,” says Kassel. “From a climate perspective, this is better. The most efficient way to transport a box is to keep it on one ship. But from a health perspective, it’s not better due to pollution.”

This is why, he explains, “it’s so important to get this program in place.”

“This is doable,” Kassel says. “We’re not talking about installing solar panels and windmills on ships. We’re talking about tested technology that’s already in place on land, and in some cases on sea.” Copenhagen-based Maersk Shipping is already using low-sulfur fuel.

These changes are feasible and cost-effective,” says Kassel, “but, they won’t happen without a law in place.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Wondering how much it matters that your sneakers were made in China and your coffee grown in Kenya? Consider this: The ships that brought those goods to America belch enough particulate pollutants into the world’s air to match half of all cars combined.

So says a paper just published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, in which scientists led by Boulder, Colorado researcher Daniel A. Lack analyzed readings taken in and around the Gulf of Mexico during the summer of 2006. The team trailed over 200 commercial vessels that summer, measuring the emissions of everything from cargo freighters to cruise ships, and what they found isn’t happy news for those living in coastal areas.

The team, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado at Boulder, estimated that ships “emit about 1,100 tons of particle pollution globally each year,” according to a summary released by the university. A little under half of the emissions are sulfates, pollutants addressed by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; the rest of the pollutants are carbon soot, which is not regulated.

From one vessel to the next, pollutant levels varied according to the speed of travel and the grade of fuel being burned. Unfortunately, it seems that the particles produced by “cleaner” fuels, while lower in volume, are of a sort that lingers longer in the atmosphere, thus increasing their impact on animal life. As the U.C. Boulder item adds, “Earlier research by one of the study’s co-authors, James Corbett of the University of Delaware, linked particle pollution to premature deaths among coastal populations.”

One thing you can’t necessarily blame on the shipping vessels is global warming: Although they do emit carbon dioxide, a global warming gas, those emissions are more than outweighed by the particle pollution, which has a cooling effect on the atmosphere. Reportedly, the ships’ cooling effect is five times their warming effect.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media