Author: Main Feed – Environmental Defense

We've just finished a call sequence (which we're calling a "module") on The Commons, with special attention on the notion of a Sustainability Commons.

Now we're turning our attention to a specific, high-impact domain for greening business: truck fleets and logistics in general. Emissions from corporate owned and operated vehicles account for about 6% of total U.S. carbon emissions.

Our co-host for this module is EDF's Jason Mathers, who over several calls will guide us through what's been done already to green corporate fleets, hybrid truck designs, ambitious future visions for logistics and trucks, mode switching (truck vs. rail vs. ship), black carbon's effects and remedies, and a few other topics. (Watch Jason tool around in some of the new, cleaner trucks coming on the market.)

We'll start this coming Monday, April 12 at 9am PT by mapping the landscape of green initiatives and the state of emission reduction efforts in corporate fleets and goods movement to set up future discussions on how to improve these efforts. Please join us, and forward this invitation to others who might be interested.

One further thought about our approach here: we're going to be diving deep into transportation and logistics, but we expect to hit insights that apply to many different domains. We'll be bringing domain experts in as our guests, but we'd also like to appeal to other sustainability practitioners in very different fields. Sometimes it takes wandering far afield from your own turf to feel the spark of a great solution. We want to bring oxygen to those sparks.

Please join us for this conversation April 12, 2010 at 9am PT (noon ET). Here's the dial-in info:

• Phone number: +1 (213) 289-0500
• Code: 267-6815.

Get Updates about EDFix Conference Calls

If you'd like to get announcements about upcoming EDFix conference calls and the results with podcast releases, please sign-up here:

Doug Foy, prominent Massachusetts-based environmental strategist, caught my attention with this quote at the Harvard Business School Think Tank on Energy, Environment and Business. Doug’s point was that the 100 major metropolitan areas in the U.S. are a key lever for addressing carbon emission reductions. He cited that while nationally, 40-50% of carbon emissions come from buildings, in cities, that number goes up to 70%.

Ken Hubbard of Hines, an international real estate firm, expanded further on the building energy efficiency marketplace citing that there are 74 billion square feet of existing building stock, which is replaced at 1% per year. Hence, he emphasized that to address the issue of building energy efficiency,

the focus has to be on retrofits and other supporting strategies, such as financial incentives that are tied to longer term building performance and metering.

In Environmental Defense Fund's efforts to catalyze the marketplace for sustainable urban development, we have taken our cues from this data and focused on both an urban and a business focused strategy, demonstrating that building energy efficiency is both good for the environment and cost effective. A compilation of lessons learned from our urban work, housed in our Living Cities Initiative, is found in this report: Green Renaissance — Guide to Healthy, Sustainable urban Development: A View from Harlem.

At the same time that we are executing on this urban strategy, we are also creating a business movement for energy efficiency embodied in our EDF Climate Corps program. EDF Climate Corps places MBA students with companies for summer fellowships focused on energy efficiency. Much of what these students focus on involves retrofits, which is in line with Ken’s comment. Last year EDF Climate Corps Fellows found energy savings to avoid more than 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year, all at a net benefit to participating companies of $54 million!

You can find out more about the HBS Think Tank event, including presentations, readings and video, here.

On March 24, California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) released a new economic analysis that found that California can grow its economy while meeting air pollution reduction goals of its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

This post is the second in a series. The first summarized ARB’s modeling methods and findings about gross state product. This one covers jobs. Subsequent ones will discuss the following topics:

• household income
• energy price "shock risk" reduction
• how CARB's work compares to other analyses

1. What is the big picture jobs impact of California’s climate policy?

ARB modeling indicates that statewide employment is going to grow dramatically during the decade leading up to 2020 whether or not the measures laid out in the AB 32 Scoping Plan are fully implemented. According to the Employment Development Department, California employment in 2009 totaled approximately 16.1 million jobs.

Total labor demand is forecasted to grow to more than 18.4 million jobs in California with or without AB 32, as shown in Figure 1. In truth, the difference in labor demand between the business as usual and AB 32 scenarios is barely visible.

Figure 1 – Gross State Economic Productivity in 2020 with and without AB 32 Implementation

2. What do the numbers suggest for specific sectors?

With a few exceptions, employment in California’s major economic sectors will look very similar with or without AB 32. Many sectors are forecasted to gain jobs thanks to AB 32, including the biggest one: services.

Others, such as mining, utilities and retail trade, may lose jobs relative to business as usual growth, but will still grow dramatically between 2010 and 2020.

Utility sector labor demand reduction is anticipated as a positive consequence of energy efficiency investments, whereas retail trade labor declines will result from less gas being sold (e.g., fewer gas station attendant jobs) once people begin driving more fuel efficient vehicles.

This is good news for the overall economy: consumers will end up with more money in their pockets because of the savings they’ll get from using less energy and fuel.

Figure 2 – Jobs by Sector in 2020 with and without AB 32 Implementation

3. Do these findings about job growth make sense?

While it might seem logical to conclude that environmental regulation will be a drag on the economy, plenty of evidence indicates the opposite is true. Environmental regulations can translate into more efficiencies that reducde costs and more competitive industries employing more people.

EDF examined the job generating potential of AB 32 in 2009. We found that employment is likely to be spurred in several sectors and their supply chains, including:

• Biofuels, particularly those used for transportation and electricity
• Construction, particularly solar installation, heating, ventilation and air conditioning contractors, as well as for new electricity generation and transmission facilities
• (Clean) Technology, particularly associated with energy efficiency, advanced materials and nanotechnology, high efficiency vehicles, photovoltaics and related software
• Environmental engineering services associated with testing and compliance
• Consumer products, particularly biodegradable packaging, plastic ware and nontoxic household cleaners
• Information technology, particularly environmental-related software
• Transportation and logistics such as fuel cells, diesel retrofits and hybrids
• Waste and water purification and conservation

EDF also found that existing public policies and economic conditions are already acting to transform the state’s economy to be more efficient and reliant on cleaner energy sources.

AB 32 measures will ultimately prompt higher energy productivity (more output per unit of energy used) from our vehicles, appliances and buildings, which will help our economy be more competitive in a global marketplace and less exposed to risks related to dependence on imported fuel (more on this last topic in a future post).

The act also calls on the state to use more renewable energy technologies, which is already creating jobs and will continue to do so. A UC Berkeley report found that renewable energy generates more jobs per unit of energy produced and per dollar of investment than the fossil fuel-based energy sector. AB 32 will also continue to draw increased energy-related research and development (R&D) investment into the state.

California is enjoying the economic productivity of more than 40,000 green jobs, a category that has grown dramatically while other employment opportunities have declined. With current statewide unemployment rates above 12 percent, the job generating potential of AB 32 is increasingly important. To put that importance into perspective, in the absence of our recent green job growth, the current statewide unemployment rate would exceed 13 percent.

Victoria Mills is speaking at a Sustainable Business Seminar for MIT’s Sloan School on April 1st. Then on April 6th and 7th in Chicago, Victoria is attending The Pew Center on Global Climate Change Conference: “From Shop Floor to Top Floor: Best Business Practices in Energy Efficiency” along with Audrey Davenport.

This year at Fortune's Brainstorm: GREEN Fred Krupp, Gwen Ruta and Beth Trask will be speaking on panels, and Tom Murray, Melanie Janin, Greg Andeck and Elizabeth Sturcken will attend in Laguna Nigel, CA from April 12th through the 14th.

Namrita Kapur will be at the Skoll World Forum in Oxford, UK April 14th through 16th.

Rachel Hinchliffe is moderating a panel at CoreNet Global’s Corporate Real Estate Summit from April 18th through 20th in New Orleans. On April 23rd, you can meet her at the New England Board of Higher Education Sustainability Summit.

Jason Mathers and Jana Holt are going to NAFA's 2010 Institute & Expo April 24th through April 27th in Detroit, MI.

Look for us at these conferences – and let us know if you’ll be there so we can watch for you as well!

You can always see where we’re going to be – and what other conferences we know about– on the Innovation Exchange Calendar.

Even in our electronic age, paper is still with us. It brings us our morning news (some of us still arrive at work with ink-stained fingers), great literature and gossip magazines, personal hygiene and playing cards. But producing and disposing of paper has huge and wide-ranging environmental impacts, from damage to forests to energy and water consumption to air and water pollution and solid waste.

Unless you’re an expert, it can be difficult to sort out the complex environmental issues associated with paper production and disposal.

Using less paper is the obvious first step (and at the top of the “reduce, reuse, recycle” environmental hierarchy) but what’s next? You want to include postconsumer recycled content, but how much is available in the grades you need? You want to protect endangered forests, but which certification schemes are credible? What about toxics in paper production – how do you avoid those? And where can you find paper that meets your environmental criteria? All great questions, but one that you might not have yet asked is What’s in Your Paper?

What’s In Your Paper is an online resource for businesses and individuals who want to reduce the environmental impact of their paper use.

It offers a comprehensive purchaser toolkit including model purchasing policies, letters to suppliers, specifications for environmentally preferable papers and links to additional resources such as Canopy’s eco-paper database, Conservatree’s paper listings and EDF’s Paper Calculator. What’s In Your Paper is produced by the Environmental Paper Network – a coalition of several hundred national and international NGOs working for a more sustainable paper industry.

Paper purchasers large and small have the power to shift paper production in a positive direction, one that leads to systemic reductions in environmental impacts. But they need to know how.

Until paper comes printed with the environmental equivalent of a nutritional label, you need to ask what’s in your paper. Now you can use Whatsinyourpaper.com to get answers.

Want to start cutting your company's greenhouse gas emissions but feeling overwhelmed by your options? Here at EDF we know how you feel. That’s why we put together a new Roadmap to Corporate GHG Programs [PDF], a step-by-step guide to help companies develop a strategy for GHG emissions that can lead to credible and lasting reductions. The Caution! sidebars highlight some of the trickier parts – such as how to avoid green-washing scams.

Read more on EDF's Innovation Exchange blog, and let us know if we've missed any. You'll be glad you did!

This week’s news catch brings in two great pieces — an article from The Seattle Times and an editorial from Cape Cod Times. Both pieces point toward catch shares as a solution to end overfishing. Hal Bernton of The Seattle Times reports on the propsperous health of the pacific halibut fishery since its transition to catch share management. Cape Cod Times recognizes some of the fishing industry’s hesitation to move to sector-based catch share management in New England, but rightly states, “The new system is not what’s causing the industry’s pain; the overfishing of the past is.”

Read the full post »

It’s all about jobs, community, family and food. But one sign at the rally didn’t say, “Turn On The Pumps.” It said, “Salmon Mean Business.”

It was an extraordinary scene at San Francisco's Fort Mason Center yesterday, and I'm not referring to the excellent spread provided by Bay Area’s premier seafood restaurants or the massive inflated salmon. Hundreds of angry, anxious and stormy fishermen representing ports covering most of the Pacific Coast converged in San Francisco to tell their stories to the third-highest ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, Rep. George Miller, and other legislators. They came waving home-made signs and holding their kids by the hand, and they came with their stories of economic devastation and community decline.

For hours, Rep. Miller who was joined by Congressman Mike Thompson, State Assemblyman Jared Huffman and a rep from Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey’s office listened to fishermen talk about how the decline in salmon populations — due in large part to how California manages its water supply — has affected their businesses, their lives and their dinner tables.

Fishermen can be notoriously independent–“That’s why we fish,” one said–but yesterday’s salmon summit demonstrated an astounding level of community cohesiveness.

The event brought together commercial and recreational fishermen, and a wide array of businesses and industries that rely on a healthy and robust salmon fishery to support their families: fish processors; marine equipment businesses; harbors and ports.

A bait-and-tackle shop owner grew emotional describing his fear that without fast governmental action to reverse salmon declines, he could lose the business his family has nurtured for decades. A party boat fisherman noted that his work is the economic engine for these communities, supporting not only fishing-related businesses but virtually all parts of the coastal economy and attracting people from all over the country.

A port master said that 70 percent of the boats in his harbor are fishing boats. "People are not just going out on the Pacific to float around," he said to laughter. Restaurateurs passionately pleaded with the Congress members not to stand by while salmon are driven to extinction, replaced by the far inferior farmed fish. “Customers expect to see wild salmon on our menus! San Francisco is a seafood town!”

The legislators got the message. As Congressman Miller said, "This is no April Fool’s joke – the situation facing our coastal communities is serious.” He went on to say that we have "an obligation to base our water policy decisions on the science and to take into account the needs of these Northern California families, businesses and communities. It’s a very important message for Congress to hear – the drought and prior water management decisions are severely affecting fishing businesses and families all over the west coast. What the Bay-Delta ecosystem needs now is a science-based comprehensive program that tackles the challenges before us in a coordinated fashion. We can’t go back to the old way of doing business – water grabs based on politics."

While some legislators have dismissed these businesses as the “supposed fishing industry,” yesterday’s summit made clear that fishermen represent real people, real jobs, real communities, and yes, really good food.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Congratulations are in order for a prize awarded today to the Coalition for Chemical Safety (CCS), about which I have blogged frequently over the last several months. As reported today on the front page of the Huffington Post, CCS received second place in the coveted "Best Pranks of 2010" contest. Quite an honor for such a new kid on the block.

The contest was judged by those intrepid faux captains of industry, the Yes Men, who know a good PR ruse when they see one. And while this contest was an April Fool's Day special, the subterfuge continues daily at CCS' website.

Now or Never Radio, a web-based radio show on the environment, recently interviewed Tim Fitzgerald about catch shares and the currently failing fisheries management system of “days at sea” (see segment titled “To Sea or Not to Sea”). While Tim expounds on the ability of catch shares to end overfishing and improve fishing jobs, Now or Never also interviewed Gary Hall, a gill net fisherman from Block Island, Rhode Island

Read full post »

Welcome to the first of a series of quarterly roundups of tools and insights from our work at the intersection of business and the environment. Please let us know what you think and what else you'd like to see!

New tool takes the guesswork out of choosing an emissions reduction program

Leading CEOs aren't waiting for climate legislation to implement sustainability initiatives. If you are feeling lost in the buzz around greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions check out this quarter's featured tool: A Roadmap to Corporate GHG Programs.

Why Walmart matters

In February, Walmart leaders announced an innovative approach to reducing carbon pollution from its supply chain, a project we've been working on for many years. Read why Walmart's carbon commitment can make such a difference and Dominique Browning’s take on EDF’s work with Walmart and our roles as citizens and consumers.

Climate Corps efficiently sharing energy efficiency lessons

Interested in energy efficiency but don’t know where to start? Know a lot about energy efficiency and want to share what you know? We created an energy efficiency wiki to share knowledge and best practices. Read more about what it is and how you can use it. There will be lots of new content coming this summer as 50(!) Climate Corps fellows share their experiences finding energy efficiency opportunities at 46 host companies.

Improve operational performance using a green lens

If you’re looking for ways to improve operational performance or make more informed investment decisions, look no further than this suite of new tools. Developed as part of our initiative to make environmental management and innovation a standard best practice across the private equity sector, these tools can help a wide range of companies find environmental innovations that lead to bottom line benefits:

• The operational performance tools developed in partnership with KKR helped three companies – U.S. Foodservice, Sealy and PRIMEDIA – capture $16 million in cost savings and avoid 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in the first year
• EcoValuScreen takes a new approach to conducting due diligence to discover new opportunities to improve operations and create value through environmental innovation prior to investment

Tools for fleet managers, CFOs and more

Vehicle fleets aren’t sexy, but they can have significant bottom line and environmental impacts. This new video illustrates how small things make a big difference when it comes to fleet efficiency. The video is just one of several tools available to fleet managers, including a new whitepaper designed to help reduce costs and emissions from medium-duty trucks.

We want to work with you

Check out ways to connect with EDF staff in-person and online to accelerate green innovation in business.

Subscribe to receive quarterly updates from EDF's Innovation Exchange

This is the first in a series of summaries we intend to produce once per quarter. If you're a regular subscriber to the blog, you'll get this summary automatically. If you'd like to subscribe to receive only these quarterly summaries, you can do that here:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Last June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California's long-standing request to carry out its Clean Car standards—adopted by 13 other states—giving it the green light to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles.

That move followed President Obama's announcement in May of a landmark agreement among major automakers, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the United Auto Workers' Union and environmental groups, including EDF, calling for a national clean cars program based on California's standards.

Today, that agreement reached fruition with the EPA announcing the first national greenhouse gas pollution standards in U.S. history.

EDF president Fred Krupp lauded the achievement as a "trifecta of benefits to Americans: less dependence on Middle Eastern oil, less pollution and more savings at the gas pump."

The program calls for achieving a five percent annual improvement in fuel economy for cars with model years 2012-2016 to get 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2016 from today's fleet average of 25.1 mpg. This improvement is expected to reduce fleet-wide greenhouse gases 21 percent by 2030.

These standards will put our country on a path to more efficient fuel use and significant reductions from cars and light trucks over the next two decades. This is significant since passenger vehicles account for approximately 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption and nearly 20 percent of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions, recently found to endanger human health and welfare.

Consumers are likely to save approximately $3,000 in fuel costs over the life of a new clean car vehicle. This will help break our addiction to foreign oil by cutting 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

It's a great day to be an American, especially one from California. Our environmental leadership continues to be the model that other states and our country are following to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, create a healthier environment and help consumers save money. A triple win, for sure.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

On March 30, the Washington Post ran the following story:

Reporters from WRC-TV, the NBC Station in Washington, D. C., spent nine months investigating asbestos-lined hair dryers after the Consumer Product Safety Commission declined to do so. The station, in collaboration with the Environmental Defense Fund, conducted an investigation which culminated in an uninterrupted 15-minute news segment detailing the results of their findings. 

EDF estimates that some 10 million of the 55 million hair dryers sold since 1974 have asbestos linings and that some of these dryers emit potentially dangerous levels of asbestos particles. Asbestos is a potent carcinogen, and government estimates suggest that it is responsible for as many as 75,000 cancer deaths annually. 

Dr. Joseph Highland of EDF commented that using some of these dryers is equivalent to "living near an asbestos mine and breathing the dust." As a result of the report, CPSC has called a meeting of the ten leading manufacturers of the hair dryers. 

In the meantime, most of the manufacturers have suspended sales of their asbestos-lined dryers; some of them have arranged for recall and replacement of the dryers. The TV investigation began after a photographer, who was using a hair dryer to dry his photographic plates, found that the plates were dusty.

Click here for more detail, BUT then come back here and finish reading this post.

This article appeared in the Washington Post on March 30, 1979. That's the April Fool's part of this post.

But here's the part that's not fooling: What is described in this article actually happened. And while asbestos production and use in the U.S. has declined dramatically — not because it was banned by government, but because of legal liability — 31 years later asbestos is still killing nearly 10,000 people every year.

No doubt the publicity surrounding this episode spurred or lent momentum to EPA's ill-fated attempt to ban asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

Yet decades later, the very same TSCA that didn't allow EPA to ban asbestos is still the nation's primary law that is supposed to ensure the safety of chemicals.

TSCA reform is long overdue, and that's no joke.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

As the long-awaited introduction of TSCA reform legislation at last appears to be about to happen (how’s that for being definitively vague?), the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) coalition believes it is time to more sharply define some of the policy areas where we currently differ from the chemical industry, insofar as we have been able to discern their positions through the principles, testimony and other public statements they have provided. After all, you have first to identify differences before you can seek to narrow them.

SCHF took the opportunity to define those differences yesterday, choosing as our venues both the inside and the outside of the chemical industry’s big annual shindig, its GlobalChem conference held in Baltimore.

Outside, accompanied by a 20-foot inflatable rubber ducky battered by rain and wind but clearly visible to conference attendees, SCHF members and supporters held a rally and news conference. Draped across the duck was the message: “Chemical industry — You can’t duck real reform!”

Inside, warm and dry, I was the only environmental NGO representative to speak at the conference. I was part of the kickoff plenary panel on “TSCA Modernization” that also featured the presidents of the two major chemical industry trade associations – ACC and SOCMA – as well as the former head of the toxics office at EPA, and a current EPA official.

While the adjacent venues stood in stark contrast to each other, our message was the same: We need strong reform that fully protects public health and the environment.

Here are SCHF’s news release (English/Spanish) and factsheet highlighting three key differences between our and the industry’s positions.

Here’s Chemical Week’s take on all this.

And below is a graphic boiling down the differences:

 

Finally, one little annoyance to report: SCHF had printed up postcards carrying the above graphic on one side, and a photo of an infant chewing on a rubber ducky on the other side, bearing the tag line: “Chemical industry — You can’t duck real reform!” At several points throughout the morning, I placed a stack of the postcards on a table near the registration desk bearing literature from various companies and organizations. Each time, shortly after putting them out, I saw they were all gone. 

Clearly, some conference official decided to keep removing the postcards, which they apparently considered subversive literature. You’d think something as minor as this would have been treated like water running off a duck’s back. Oh well.

Guest blog written by Jennifer Walker. Jennifer works on water issues at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and serves at the vice-chair of the CWCITF.

Most Monday nights for the last 6 months, the Austin Citizens Water Conservation Implementation Task Force (CWCITF) has been hard at work. Now they’ll finally get a night off because, at their last meeting, the task force unanimously passed the Water Conservation 2020: Strategic Recommendations report. 

Where it all began

On August 5, 2009, the Austin City Council charged the CWCITF to produce a policy document that recommended strategies to reduce water use beyond the 2007 Task Force recommendations. The CWCITF worked with Austin Water Utility  (AWU) staff and representatives from the Resource Management Commission, Environmental Board, Water and Wastewater Commission to produce this document

Report Highlights

The document contains over 100 strategies with 33 prioritized. Report highlights include recommendations for:

• a citywide goal of 140 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2020
• increasing conservation education for all age groups
• expanding water reuse and
• increasing landscape measures to reduce peak summer watering

Next Steps

The report also requests that city staff perform quantitative analysis of the strategies (which has already begun) and to use that information, as well as other information in the report, to map out the strategies that will need to be implemented to meet the report's goals. That “action plan” should be ready by the end of 2010. This report gives the city the opportunity to rethink that way we use water in our community while being mindful to all water users and their needs. It is an exciting time in Austin. 

The report will be presented to City Council for approval on Earth Day, April 22^nd . What better way to celebrate the Earth than to make a community commitment to use our water wisely and responsibly?

Feeling overwhelmed by all of the voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) programs and initiatives being advertised to companies these days? From the Global Reporting Initiative to EPA Energy Star to the US Climate Action Partnership and beyond, the sheer number of voluntary GHG programs can leave companies (and even EDF staff) feeling bewildered and unsure of where to start.

To help solve that problem, we’ve created a Roadmap to Corporate GHG Programs [PDF], a step-by-step guide to help companies develop a strategy for GHG emissions that can lead to credible and lasting reductions.

This short guide outlines the steps that we think companies should take to reduce their GHG emissions: measure and plan, set goals, achieve reductions, report and call for action. It also details the resources available to help companies in each of these areas. The Roadmap can help sustainability newbies and pros alike to refine and hone their GHG reduction programs, leading to credible and lasting emission reductions.

Perhaps most valuable of all are the Caution! sidebars that call out thorny issues that have tripped up other companies in the past. Examples of these thorny issues include skipping straight to flashy green solutions without having a substantive GHG reduction program in place, setting reduction goals that will be quickly overwhelmed by company growth and purchasing carbon offsets that have questionable credentials.

As is the case with any roadmap, the geography is constantly changing. New programs are popping up all of the time and old ones are being refined, so we need your help harnessing the power of these initiatives without getting overwhelmed by their growing numbers.

Please share your feedback on this Roadmap, and point us to other resources we may have overlooked:

• Are there other national programs that we missed?
• Do you have tips or guidance for companies with well established GHG management programs or those that are just starting out?

Sometimes I see something that is so downright shocking I feel the need to mention it again. The Corpus Christi City Council wants to provide more incentives to the proposed Las Brisas power plant. A plant the State Office of Administrative Hearing just recommended against because of air quality issues, but this is a blog about water — not air. Well, as I mentioned yesterday — power plants mean water.

This may not be new news, but it deserves a second look. From the sounds of it, the water to run this plant will be subsidized by the citizens of Corpus. The cost of raw water could increase by 36 percent to nearly $1.20 per 1,000 gallons of water to pay for this 40-mile, $100 million pipeline and that's if everything goes according to plan. The kicker is that without the plant, Corpus wouldn't even need the pipeline now and the citizens of Corpus could keep their money in their wallet, where it belongs.

As Americans, we are famously known for our wanderlust; we cannot stand to be hemmed in. But with our current transportation system, we are feeling increasingly trapped in an auto-centric world and want out. 

A poll released today by Smart Growth America and Transportation for America reveals the extent to which Americans want broad access to a variety of transportation choices, an expanded system, and double the amount of federal funding currently allocated to public transportation.

These results were not just found in big metropolitan areas. In rural areas, 79% of those polled felt that the U.S. would benefit from expanded and improved rail and bus systems, and 82% suburbanites support increased transportation freedom.

In a country that loves choice, 73% of Americans claim they have no option but to drive as much as they do (only 1 in 5 Americans polled took public transportation in the past month—even including walking). Access is the principle barrier for most polled: approximately 47% of those polled said that public transportation is not available in their community and another 35% lament the inconvenience and timing of routes.

Americans want this status quo to change. Those polled want choices and expanded transportation options. Two-thirds of those polled strongly agree to greater transportation options so that they have the freedom to choose how to get where they need to go. And even in this economic climate, a close majority of 52% supports raising taxes in order to expand and improve public transportation in their community. From rural communities to urban areas, those polled want increased public transportation funding.

Currently, 80 cents out of every federal transportation dollar is allocated to highways, while only 17 cents go towards our public transportation system, which includes ferries, rail systems, bus lines, and light rail. Those polled accurately guessed that the federal government hands out a paltry sum to public transportation. While the average guess was 19 cents to the dollar, the mean ideal allocation almost doubles the current spending, preferring that public transportation receive 37 cents to every dollar.

And the benefits of a larger and better funded public transportation system? Choice and expanded mobility were seen as the top preferred results and the most likely outcomes of increased funding. Broadened transportation choice was closely followed by the preference that public transportation be funded so that low-wage workers, seniors, and disabled have an easier time getting where they need to go.

Beyond the basic desire to improve car-less travel from point A to point B, more than 2/3 of those polled also saw co-benefits of reduced traffic congestion, quality of life and safety improvements, cheaper transportation options, and the creation and maintenance of good, long terms jobs. And a majority of those polled also agreed that increased funding will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce air pollution, and global warming emissions. Not bad options.

So what does this all mean? Americans throughout the country, from those in rural communities and to those in bustling cities, support public transportation and want to see federal dollars improve and expand the existing system. We are a country that prizes the freedom to travel without hindrance and an expanded public transportation for the 21^st century is completely aligned with this sentiment.

Yesterday, the law won.

Texas state administrative judges Tommy Broyles and Craig Bennett just handed down a negative decision temporarily thwarting plans for a $3 billion petroleum coke-fired Las Brisas power plant in Corpus Christi.

Their opinion letter to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) stated that they have been unable to find grounds for approving the permit and this means that for now, Texans can breathe just a little bit easier.

We applaud the administrative judges for reaching a decision that was clearly justified on both the facts and the law. The facts in the case against Las Brisas were overwhelming (see my January post). Also, in addition to air pollution issues incorrectly outlined in the application, no one seemed to talk much about the added $100 million costs to build a water pipeline.

Now it's up to TCEQ as they decide whether or not to grant the air permit. We will be watching closely to see if – as history has proven time and again – politics trumps the law and someone finds that damned rubber stamp again.

In July 2009, Walmart began the development of a sustainable product index called the Sustainability Index. Like most folks in the corporate sustainability world, I was incredibly impressed and excited about the prospects of this mean, green, sustainability machine. But I was also a bit intimidated by what it entailed. If that sounds like you, then Environmental Defense Fund, Walmart and its other NGO partners are about to provide some clarity and a little jump start.

Read Andrew Hutson's July 2009 post with his thoughts on the importance of the Sustainability Index.

Before we talk about that, let’s talk about what the Index actually is: Walmart created the Index last year to help drive its suppliers towards the production of more sustainable products and in the process, bring greater transparency to its large and widespread supply chain. The long term vision is that the Index will use the information generated from Walmart’s supply chain to develop a consumer-facing tool. This tool will provide customers with a basic rating for every product based on the product’s environmental impact – sort of like "nutrition facts" for sustainability. However, for now that sort of rating system is a ways off, and the Sustainability Index is still in its infancy.

As a first step towards a robust Sustainability Index, Walmart has asked its suppliers to complete the Supplier Sustainability Assessment – a set of 15 questions that gauges how individual suppliers are facing sustainability, highlights those which will be instrumental to Walmart’s development of a greener supply chain and identifies suppliers needing support in their pursuit of a more sustainable business. Fifteen questions don’t sound so tough, right? Well, Walmart’s really trying to dig deep.

From the initial responses, Walmart found that some of their 100,000 suppliers had questions and needed assistance in completing the Assessment. In order to provide guidance to their suppliers as they work through the questions, Walmart called on its NGO partners, including Environmental Defense Fund, to produce content for an instructional webinar.

This webinar will provide suppliers with resources, top opportunities and best practices to aid them in answering the 15 Assessment questions and in their overarching pursuit of sustainability.

The Supplier Sustainability Assessment, and consequently the webinar, focuses on four key environmental areas:

• energy and climate
• natural resources
• material efficiency
• people and community

Environmental Defense Fund assisted in this effort by developing the “material efficiency” segment, which focuses on water use and waste. Other NGO contributors include Alliance to Save Energy, Carbon Disclosure Project, Conservation International and Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.

This webcast is rich in material and will be valuable to Walmart suppliers. But this webinar has wide applicability. First off, anybody involved in the manufacturing of products can learn a thing or two about how sustainability saves money. And if you’re an NGO in this industry, the webinar can serve as a great resource to you so you can then serve as a great resource to your corporate partner.

Join us on Wednesday, March 31 from 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM (CST) for the launch of the webcast, accompanied by a live question and answer session.

The webinar can be accessed here: http://walmartstores.com/sustainabilitywebinar and will remain available after the launch for viewing.

For more information on our work with Walmart, visit http://edf.org/walmart.