Author: Main Feed – Environmental Defense

This is a guest post by Efrain Torres, CEO of The Payne Firm

In private equity deals, it’s often been the case that higher risks have meant higher returns.

Private equity investors often increase returns by making the tough decisions that prior owners did not want to make. These tough decisions can bring about major operational changes that improve performance and become the basis for investments.

Thankfully, there is a new approach in which taking risks isn’t the only way to yield higher returns.

Environmental performance has seldom been considered a significant lever to improve returns. In fact, most due diligence activities in the private equity world have been focused on protecting from downside risks by looking for environmental liabilities. These assessments often examined past operating practices, identified gaps in ongoing operations, and determined if latent problems affected the economic viability of a business.

The new EcoValuScreen, co-developed by The Carlyle Group (Carlyle), Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) Green Returns project, and The Payne Firm could be a major step in changing how private equity investors think about environmental performance. By considering the upside of green operational improvements early in the investment process, deal teams will be able to better understand the real value in a transaction.

There’s a compelling indirect benefit as well. Incorporating a “green lens” or an environmental perspective in the due diligence process could accelerate the rate of implementation of these opportunities. When a company realizes that it can save money by incorporating changes that reduce energy use or provide other environmental benefits, it is only a matter of time before it uncovers value in other places.

This process could accelerate the private equity industry’s efforts to unlock latent environmental capital; it’s always been there for the taking if you just knew where to look.

Maybe one day soon improving environmental performance will become a popular way to yield a higher return and be a core component of the investment thesis.

After all, making tough decisions and bringing about change is in the very fabric of private equity investing.

You can add two more important stakeholders — and unusual allies — to the growing list calling for the Senate to include strong Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) provisions in their bill: agriculture and forestry groups.

In a letter this week to the drafters of current climate legislation for the Senate, 31 businesses, agriculture groups, and environmental organizations (including EDF) asked for the bill to include agriculture and forest provisions.

REDD can help address the serious worldwide deforestation problem, the letter to Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, says,

while helping keep energy costs affordable for U.S. agriculture, forest products industries, and consumers. Protecting these forests will also help level the playing field for U.S. agriculture and forest products industries by reducing illegal logging and forest conversion in tropical countries, ensuring fair competition in wood, pulp, beef, leather, soybeans, and other global markets.

Also this week one of our partner coalitions, Avoided Deforestation Partners, joined with the Ohio Corn Growers Association in placing ads in the Washington Post: “Tropical Rainforests: A Climate Solution for American Agriculture” and “Want to Protect Farms and Ranchers Here? Protect forests there.” You can see the online version for the rest of the week on the Washington Post’s Post Carbon blog, or view the print ad at ADPartners.org.

So how did we reach the conclusion that farms and forests are critical to solving the climate crisis? EDF was a pioneer in the simple idea that if we could change the status quo and incentivize forest protection instead of forest destruction, we could reduce the estimated 15% of emissions that come from deforestation in the tropics. This idea has already received a lot of attention at the international climate negotiations and robust REDD provisions that we championed were included in the climate bill that the House of Representatives passed last June.

Read more about the letter in The Hill’s E2 Wire blog and PointCarbon (subscription required), and find the full letter here. I also encourage you to watch a video that AD Partners produced on how protecting rainforests can benefit US farmers.

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

Remember all of my earlier posts about the industry front group, the Coalition for Chemical Safety? My major complaint was, not that the chemical industry was organizing itself or even seeking support from others, but rather that it was doing so through deception: Pretending to be something it was not. Never revealing who is behind the coalition, who’s paying the bills. Never revealing it was put together by one of the nation’s premier “astroturf” PR firms. And most importantly, not coming clean about its real identity to the businesses and organizations it approaches to sign up.

Well, the Ocean Futures Society, an ocean protection group founded and led by Jean-Michel Cousteau, has just identified itself as one of the duped groups taken in by the Coalition for Chemical Safety (CCS).

In an article posted today on Huffington Post, Holly Lohuis reveals how the Ocean Futures Society (OFS) was approached to join CCS, but was never told it was a front group of the chemical industry or that the coalition was backed by interests whose positions are wholly at odds with those of her group. OFS supports, for example, elimination of brominated flame retardants, the concentration of which, Holly points out, are doubling every three years in populations of harbor seals and killer whales in the Pacific Northwest.

Says Holly: “Once I was convinced I was being duped, I withdrew OFS support from the front group and joined the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition.” She further notes: “Unlike the front group, they have nothing to hide.”

Holly calls for an “honest dialogue” between all interests that have a stake in chemicals policy reform, noting that Dow Chemical was the main sponsor of her group’s PBS Ocean Adventures television series.

She adds: “Fake grassroots groups like CCS are a distraction from the real work before us. Any group that serves to confuse the public and to dupe committed people like me is harming our chances to secure urgently needed reform of our nation's toxic chemical laws.”

Honest dialogue versus continued deception. Seems like the chemical industry has an important choice to make.

In NOAA's newly released 6th edition of Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of U.S. Marine Resources, catch shares (referred to as Limited Access Privilege Programs – LAPPs) are raised as one solution to the over-harvesting of fisheries. Citing the successes of established catch share programs, Our Living Oceans reports that the Alaska halibut fishery has seen healthy stocks with near record levels of total catch since the implementation of its catch share program.

Recognizing some challenges of implementing catch shares, the report rightly points out that policies set during the design of a catch share can address those challenges and concerns.

"Additional rules or special programs built into the LAPP either at implementation or after implementation can often mitigate any potential negative impacts."

By Justin Evans, stresslimitdesign

Greening corporate vehicle fleets is not an issue that’s particularly sexy or easy to illustrate, but doing so can play a significant role in the fight against climate change. As you can imagine, the concept of Environmental Defense Fund's green fleet program was a bit hard to put together and imagine as a minute long piece, but that was our task: to explain this complex idea in a short, unified way.

We decided to use video to tell the story – how small actions brought to scale can make enormous differences in carbon emissions and cost savings for companies – in a visually appealing and inspiring way. You can see the finished product below:

To show the process we went through envisioning and creating the video, we’ve created a mini how-to site. This site walks the reader through all the steps we took from initial brainstorming to film editing. You’ll get to see how we used tilt-shift time-lapse photography and stop-motion animation to tell the story of the power of small changes made big!

The video and message have both been very well received, which was the primary goal of this project. We're very happy to have participated in this project and even more satisfied to see our version of the story inspiring others.

So what do you think? Did we make it easy to understand and fun to watch?

The State Water Resources Control Board begins a public hearing today to determine how much water the Bay-Delta Estuary needs. The hearing has generated a great deal of testimony and exhibits. In particular, the State and Federal Water Contractors' – including, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, State Water Contractors, Westlands Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Kern County Water Agency & Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“Contractors”) – submission makes a number of interesting points. In particular, the Contractors make the surprising assertion that: “The flow-centric approaches of the past have failed and will, if continued, fail in the future.” While increasing freshwater flows for ecological purposes has been discussed and debated for many years, as the data demonstrates — it is not a strategy that has been implemented, at least not with a great deal of regularity.

Indeed to the contrary, since salmon were listed almost twenty years ago, combined federal and state diversions out of the Delta steadily increased. According to DWR’s Dayflow database figures, combined exports increased from roughly 5 million acre feet in the late 1980s to 6.5 million acre feet in 2005 and 2006 (with a dip down to a bit more than 4 million acre-feet during the drought of the early 1990s). Diversions out of the Delta did not go down from this historically high level of diversion until 2007 primarily as a result of, as DWR has repeatedly indicated, the recent drought.

For this reason, the Contractors’ conclusion that “the flow centric approaches of the past have failed,” appears to be premature. We have spent the last seven decades experimenting with how well the system does when water is steadily extracted from it. Given the broad consensus regarding the severe degradation of Bay-Delta salmon and other fisheries, its perhaps not surprising that fisheries are not rebounding after a couple of years of court-ordered minimum flows in the middle of a drought. Perhaps we should actually try providing freshwater flows to the ecosystem in a sustained and meaningful way and see what the science reveals.

One of our goals at Restoration and Resilience is to offer a better analysis of green jobs potential from conservation work than past jobs multipliers have provided. To do this, we’ll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. Today we are presenting the third in a series of posts that lay out estimates of job creation from restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit, a degraded marsh on the eastern edge of New Orleans. Bear in mind that we rely on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you at the outset to send us feedback on our methods.

In our previous two posts on the Central Wetlands Unit (CWU), we looked at the direct and indirect jobs that could be generated there from dredging and site preparation. In this post, we estimate the employment generated by installation of water provisioning systems in the basin. Based on our calculations, an $11.02 million piping project completed over a period of fifty weeks could create nearly 175 jobs in Louisiana.

Previous Work on Water Provisioning in the Central Wetlands Unit

Water management is critical to the long-term success of the CWU restoration project, as cypress trees and other wetland plants thrive within certain ranges of salinity and seasonal inundation. In addition, it is important from both a public health and ecosystem management perspective to ensure compliance with state and federal standards regarding tertiary treatment of water running into the basin. As such, the Central Wetlands Unit will be managed using only disinfected, treated wastewater from local treatment facilities. Plants in the restored wetland will use the nutrients in this wastewater as fertilizer for their development, lowering the compliance costs of sewage treatment for Louisiana's largest city and its eastern suburbs.

Estimating the Cost of a Water Provisioning System in the Central Wetlands

As part of preliminary planning for the Central Wetlands Unit restoration, the New Orleans-based engineering firm Waldemar S. Nelson outlined fourteen scenarios for wastewater distribution systems in the basin. At the low end, Waldemar Nelson estimated that a system discharging one million gallons per day (MGD) of treated wastewater from the Riverbend Oxidation Pond would incur a project cost of about $75,000. At the high end, the firm estimated that a system of pipes and outfall channels discharging 78 MGD into the A3 and A4 units of the Central Wetlands would cost $33.99 million (see map at right for the locations of units A1, A2, A3 and A4 in the Central Wetlands).

To estimate the maximum potential for job creation, we based our job estimates on a more ambitious design that would discharge 100 MGD into units A2, A3, and A4 of the Central Wetlands. Using cost estimates from several Waldemar Nelson scenarios, we estimated that such a project would cost approximately $11.02 million (or $13.78 million if one includes 25% contingency costs, as is common for coastal restoration projects).

The proposed system would channel 94 million gallons of treated wastewater per day from Orleans Parish and 6 million gallons per day from St. Bernard Parish through nearly 90,000 linear feet of pipes and outfalls coursing through the CWU. To handle this volume of water, the discharge system would require pipe diameters ranging from 28” (14,000 feet of pipe) to 54” (20,750 feet of pipe) for the primary headers extending from the East Bank Sewage Treatment Plant in Orleans Parish and the Munster Facility in St. Bernard Parish. The secondary outfalls from each facility’s header pipes would be 3” in diameter.

How Many Jobs Could Be Created by This Pipeline Project?

We estimate that a team of six people, consisting of one civil engineer, two civil draftsmen, and three technicians, could finalize the layout of the piping system over a period of three months. After their plans for water provisioning were completed, work would commence on both the piping system and a network of platform walkways. The walkways would provide access for construction and maintenance crews to install fixtures, check valves spaced along the pipe length, and inspect tubes for leaks. Later, the walkways would be used in the day-to-day operations of the wastewater distribution system.

We estimate that this construction work (pipe installation and platform walkway construction) could be completed by a team of sixty-six workers. This larger group would be subdivided into three sub-crews. Each sub-crew would have twenty-two workers (two supervisors, fifteen construction laborers, and five operating managers). We assume that their respective average wages would be $26.23 (supervisors), $16.91 (operating engineers), and $12.48 (construction laborers) per hour, based on Occupational Employment Statistics wage data from the Labor Department.

We estimate that the pace of pipe installation and platform walkway construction by each sub-crew would be one linear foot every four minutes, equivalent to 15 feet per hour or 120 (= 15 ft./hr. * 8 hours) feet per day, assuming an eight-hour work day. Because the three sub-crews would be working simultaneously in different parts of the CWU, the pace of installation by all three crews would be 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 ft. per hour, equivalent to 360 ft. per day.

The 43,675 feet of platform walkways would run along the length of the pipelines, but not that of the outfall channels. We assume that construction of 89,875 ft. pipes and 43,675 ft. of platforms, done by three sub-crews of 22 people installing pipe for eight hours each day during the regular work-week (i.e.) from Monday through Friday, would take 89,875 ft. * 1 day / 360 ft. * 1 week / 5 days = approx. 49.93 weeks, equivalent to roughly a year of work.

To install the pipeline and construct the adjacent platforms, the workers would need lumber, tubes, valves, work tools, and vehicles like trenchers, tractors, and dumptrucks. We estimated that the total cost of materials and machinery would be approximately $9.02 million, while the direct jobs payroll for the project would be roughly $2.01 million. These figures are shown in the below chart (at right).

Converting the labor hours into full-time equivalents (FTE) of 2,000 work-hours per year, we estimate that pipe construction in the Central Wetlands Unit would create 67.4 FTE direct job years in civil engineering and construction. Using the 2006 RIMS II employment multiplier for waste management and remediation services (2.687 jobs), and adjusting its impact down 6% for changes in wage levels, we estimate that an additional (2.687-1) * (1-0.06) * (67.4) ≈ 106.8 indirect and induced job years would be generated at pipe manufacturing firms, lumber yards, and other industries supporting the project.

With a total budget of $11.02 million and approximately 174 (≈ 174.2 = 67.4 direct jobs + 106.8 indirect/induced jobs) FTE job years stemming from the project, we estimate that the jobs per budgeted $1 million ratio would be 174.2 jobs / 11.02 ≈ 15.80. This is less than the cumulative employment/budget outlay ratio from dredging (28.96 jobs per $1 million) that we estimated in the previous post on the Central Wetlands Unit. However, it is in line with employment/spending ratios for other green economic activities like building retrofits, estimated at 16.66 jobs per $1 million by researchers from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).

With water and mud in place, the foundation for the restored wetland will be established. However, the most visual demonstration of its health will be the growth of trees and grasses, which will in turn encourage the return of local fauna. In our next post on the Central Wetlands Unit, we will look at how many jobs could be generated from tree planting and related horticultural work in the basin.

We’ve set up this blog to deal mainly with water supply issues. But sometimes, something so ridiculous comes along that we just can’t resist bringing it to your attention.

Such is the case with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed revisions to the state’s all important water quality standards. These standards govern how much pollution is allowed in our rivers and streams. In theory, under the federal Clean Water Act, all our rivers and streams are supposed to be fishable and swimmable. Of course, we have not yet achieved that goal, though substantial progress has been made over the last several decades.

But now, TCEQ is proposing to undermine much of that progress. University of Texas law professor Tom McGarity says it best in a opinion piece in the Austin American Statesman: 

"The recent proposal by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to downgrade the state's water quality standards for most of the surface water in the state should trouble all who believe they have a right to swim, fish or simply wade in a cool Texas stream without the risk of contracting a gruesome waterborne disease."

Essentially, TCEQ is proposing to allow certain rivers and streams to have higher levels of bacteria—the kind of bacteria found in sewage and animal waste. As Professor McGarity explains:

"TCEQ plans to change the standards for the vast majority of Texas rivers and streams from the current "contract recreation" designation, which allows only 126 colonies of E. coli bacteria, to new designations that would allow 206 colonies in some "swimmable" waters and up to 630 colonies in waters used primarily for fishing and boating."

Sound good to you? If not—or even if it does—McGarity’s piece is definitely worth reading. If you are concerned about TCEQ’s proposed actions, contact your state legislator and let them know you want to keep all Texas waters fishable and swimmable!

Here are a few items that might be of interest to those of you that follow vehicle fleets. Automotive Fleet has an article this month about the cost and emissions savings that some fleets are achieving via telematics. Among the fleets that it highlights are:

• Walgreens-OptionCare, who have been able to cut fuel consumption by 10% since working with Donlen to adopt a telematics solution.

• LKQ Corporation used the PHH telematics platform to decrease accidents, increase productivity (driver stops per day), and tackle driver speeding and idling.

Garfield Clean Energy has posted presentations and resources from its recent workshop on opportunities to reduce fleet emissions in government fleets.

Earlier this week, the San Jose Mercury News ran an editorial with the headline “Repealing AB 32 Would Be a Disaster for California.” 

AB 32 is California’s groundbreaking global warming and clean energy law, and repealing the law is exactly what a cadre of polluters and opportunistic politicians are trying to do. And what a disaster it would be.

California has long been the cradle of innovation, a place where the best ideas take shape and where cutting-edge solutions to our most vexing problems are unleashed. Our state is also where people go to build a better future for themselves and their children, to find a world-class quality of life and a healthy environment where they can prosper. 

That’s why AB 32 is a quintessentially “California” idea, a ‘triple win’ policy that is putting California at the forefront of the largest economic opportunity of the 21^st century estimated to be valued at $2.3 trillion globally. Here's how:

1. The first win is economic: thousands of new jobs will be created by clean energy companies and millions of dollars will be saved by using less energy and more efficient technologies. 
2. The second win is on national security: California’s push for cleaner, homegrown fuels will help catalyze our domestic energy market and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
3. The third win is environmental: a cleaner, healthier environment and a transition to sustainable sources of energy, such as sun and wind, that don’t pollute or run out. 

Despite this ‘triple win,’ AB 32 is under attack by, not surprisingly, the oil industry.

Case in point: two oil companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. are funding a California ballot initiative sponsored by Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Marysville) to delay AB 32 until the state's unemployment rate–currently at 12%–is below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. This has happened just three times in the last 30 years. They are using discredited economic reports to make their case to the public.

These out-of-state special interests want to get off Scott-free and continue to pollute our environment–for which we are all paying a price—rather than joining California's burgeoning clean energy economy that will grow jobs and protect our health.

So, it's special interests against public interests. A majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening and want government to fight it. A recent poll by Frank Luntz found that American people are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment. In the Golden State, 66% of Californians support AB 32.

And those who favor a clean energy economy are a geographically and demographically diverse group of business leaders, scientists, health experts, economists, community and religious leaders and environmental groups. 

California's climate policies over the last 35 years have saved consumers billions of dollars and put thousands of people to work. The state has also been able to attract the majority of venture capital investments made in the U.S., and we are home to five of the top clean tech cities in the country with more green jobs than any other state, by far.

Consider that Silicon Valley, which made its first great fortune powering the computer industry and the Internet age, has a leading role in the global competition to develop renewable energy and other clean, green technologies. Clean tech is poised to be the valley's third great wave of innovation — not just the next big thing, but perhaps the biggest thing ever. Confronting the peril of greenhouse gases and climate change happens to be a "multi-trillion-dollar business opportunity," according to the San Jose Mercury News. And, John Doerr, "one of Silicon Valley’s best-known venture capitalists" says that clean tech is the "biggest economic opportunity of the future.”

But the special interests fighting AB 32 would rather we leave these immense economic and health benefits on the table and watch while countries such as China and the E.U. beat us at our own game of innovation and increase their lead in the race for the new economy. 

California's clean energy sectors are the fastest-growing part of our economy. There's a lot at stake. And we have a huge opportunity to dramatically grow our economy today and well into the future. 

A group of more than 900 mainstream small businesses, business associations and business leaders have joined the fledgling California Business Alliance for a Green Economy and are organized around a fundamental belief in its benefits:

"California’s aggressive clean energy policies have proven to be economic drivers for more than three decades. Efficiency standards passed in the seventies saved consumers over $56 billion, and generated 1.5 million jobs with over $45 billion in payroll. The passage of AB 32 has generated green job growth that has been increasing even as the rest of the economy has contracted. Moving forward with AB 32 will help pave the way to California’s economic recovery."

AB 32 is a cornerstone of California's economic future. The opportunities for creating jobs, healthier communities and new industries are tremendous. A broad coalition of Californians is taking up the fight to make sure California’s new economic engine stays on track.

Got an old water right lying around that you are not fully using? Love fishing and want your kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it as much as you have? Or, more with the times, need some extra cash? EDF has just published a new guide to help you explore leasing, selling or donating water rights to preserve instream flows, a technical way of saying keeping water in our streams and rivers for the benefit of fish and wildlife.

Making flexible use of the almost 22 million acre feet of surface water that has already been permitted in this state is going to be a necessary part of future efforts to preserve the ecological health of Texas magnificent rivers and streams. As we develop flow standards through the Senate Bill 3 process, voluntary conversion of existing water rights is going to be an important tool to meet those standards. This is particularly true for those rivers, mostly east of Interstate Highway-35, where much of the surface flow is already allocated to various uses, at least on paper.

Senate Bill 3 provided expressly that instream use can be voluntarily added to existing water rights and that existing water rights can be voluntarily fully converted to instream flow. The guide explains the rationale and process steps behind these conversions. Leases, sales and donations of water rights for instream flow purposes are becoming more common throughout the western U.S., in many cases via a “water trust” that has funds to make such transactions possible.

While Texas has had a state Water Trust since 1997, it only has 3 water rights and no money to buy or lease rights from willing sellers. We'll dive into this issue in future Texas Water Solutions posts, so stay tuned

The recent Work Truck Show in St. Louis, Missouri featured many lower-carbon options for the vocational truck market. Environmental Defense Fund staffers Jana Holt and Jason Mathers took advantage of the Ride-and-Drive event to hitch a lift on some cool trucks.

Watch our video below:

For more information on our work with trucks, visit http://edf.org/greenfleet

It’s been difficult to avoid the coverage in the media about the holes being poked in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the latest attack, this one on the part of the report that says drought can be very damaging to the Amazon forest, gets it blatantly wrong.

The Amazon forest, the largest remaining tropical forest in the world and home to enormous biological and cultural diversity, stores about 100 billion tons of carbon. In recent decades, the Amazon has become a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, as clearing forest for agriculture and cattle ranching have increased. Globally, emissions from deforestation now account for about 15% of total global emissions annually — more than all emissions from transportation worldwide — and between 2000 and 2005, 60% of the deforestation in the world happened in the Amazon.

Since the mid-1990s, scientists have observed that in dry years, particularly El Niño years, forest regions that were always too moist to burn have been catching fire, killing trees and increasing carbon emissions . Most climate change models predict that unless global greenhouse gas emissions are substantially reduced in coming years, forest in a large part of the southern and eastern Amazon risks large-scale dieback, releasing large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and replacing the forest with savanna.

A new study lead by the World Bank, which includes experts from five international modeling groups and is independently reviewed by a blue-ribbon panel of international scientists, confirms these results. The group looked at the effects of climate change, deforestation, and fires under different global emissions trajectories and found that if fossil fuels remain predominant in the global energy matrix, and deforestation attains 20% of the Amazon biome (it’s currently at 17%), 40% of the rainforest would be lost by 2025. And by 2100, climate change alone would reduce the Amazon forest by two-thirds. In other words, the Amazon appears to be approaching a tipping point, after which large part of the ecosystem could collapse.

People I talk to who live in the Amazon forest, like rubber tapper leader Manoel Cunha and indigenous Chief Almir Surui, say they are already seeing the effects of climate change. Important forest species no longer flower or give fruit in the same season they previously did, droughts bring out-of-control forest fires, and rains fall out of season. They are worried about the future of the forests they depend on for their livelihoods.

It is then, in this light, stunningly poor judgment that Boston University issued a sensationalistic press release misrepresenting a recent scientific article by BU scientists Samanta et al. in Geophysical Research Letters as discrediting an IPCC statement on the Amazon and climate change.

In the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Samanta et al, used satellite data to check earlier findings that the Amazon got greener during the 2005 drought, rather than browner, as was expected. They found that those previous results could not be replicated using an improved data set and that the Amazon in 2005 was neither greener nor browner than in non-drought years, so the previous results were incorrect. The article’s conclusion – that the old study didn’t really show that the Amazon is more resistant to drought than people thought – is actually a solid contribution to the remote sensing literature on forest carbon cycles.

It’s not clear how we got from here to the conclusion reported in the press and across the blogosphere that the study shows that the IPCC was wrong — but it wasn’t by using logic or science. Boston University’s recent press release titled “New study debunks myths about Amazon rain forests”, claims that Samanta et al.’s article disproves the IPCC’s affirmation that large part of the Amazon is drought sensitive. But the article does nothing of the kind.

The article does not address any of the field surveys on the effects of drought that found greatly increased tree mortality, or large-scale rainfall exclusion experiments showing the same effects, or any of the modeling results. It does not consider that what happened in a single drought year may be much less important than what could happen with increasingly frequent droughts. It does not raise the mutually reinforcing effects of climate change, reduced rainfall, deforestation and fires. It does show that one series of data from one, mid-resolution satellite sensor, didn’t detect any measurable difference in the spectral signature of Amazon trees during one drought year.

One positive that has come out of the press release’s drastic mischaracterization of Semanta et al.’s article and corresponding news coverage is the quality conversations incited about the findings in the IPCC report. I’ll conclude with a portion of a statement yesterday by 19 leading scientists who conduct research on Amazon forests, climate, and/ or fire released, which called the BU press release “misleading and inaccurate”.

There are multiple, consistent lines of evidence from ground-based studies published in the peer-reviewed literature that Amazon forests are, indeed, very susceptible to drought stress… [and] the main conclusion of the IPCC statement – that Amazonian forests are very susceptible to reductions in rainfall – remains our best understanding of the data available at the time of the IPCC report and also today.

The USCAP family has grown again.

Weyerhaeuser, one of the world's biggest timber and paper products companies, announced today that it has joined the United States Climate Action Partnership.

That brings USCAP's membership to 29 companies and NGO's. The widely diverse members have all banded together to support passage of strong climate and clean energy legislation in Congress.

Weyerhaeuser joins such "strange bedfellows" as Shell Oil, Duke Energy, PepsiCo, General Electric, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy– and, of course, EDF.

In a statement, Weyerhaeuser CEO Dan Fulton said:

The role of forest fiber in a low carbon economy will depend on the public policy concepts under debate in Washington, D.C. … we believe our membership [in USCAP] will help positively position sustainable forestry, biomass and forest products in these important policy discussions.

EDF is always happy to welcome another ally in the fight for a strong climate policy. We don't always agree with Weyerhaeuser — or the other USCAP companies — on every issue. But the fact that such divergent voices all agree on this issue underscores how vital a climate bill is to our entire economy.

More details are in the New York Times and The Hill.

Tomorrow morning,March 19th, we expect to start our day with the release the National Academy of Science report on Delta Fisheries Protection. As we've blogged before  the nation's highly reputable scientific panel will analyze the science behind plans (otherwise known as the Biological Opinions) that outline among other actions, the timing and volume of water that can safely be pumped out of the Delta for cities and farms while preventing the extinction of endangered species, such as salmon.

We continue to be cautiously optimistic that science will win out over the politics in the Delta. The results of this report will be critical to our work on the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan which is using the Biological Opinions as a foundation of protections to build off of for the long-term protection of species.

As this report is reviewed and analyzed by stakeholders and policymakers, it will be critical that the science is interpreted and communicated appropriately. For an important look into the role of communicating science and its role in policymaking in the context of this study, read a blog post by our resident expert Rod Fujita.

We'll keep you posted on tomorrow's report release.

In an effort to further reduce water use, San Antonio Water System (SAWS) proposed a new rate structure to the City Council on Wednesday that would penalize high-volume users while rewarding those who use less. The new rate structure will reduce rates for normal households, using 7,000-8,000 gallons per month, while increasing rates for the top 7% of all users by 13.8%. SAWS is hoping that the change will impact behavior, causing high users to use less. Saved water can reduce the need for a utility to find new supply or build new infrastructure, which can be very expensive. 

Last November, Austin implemented a long awaited fifth tier for customers using more than 25,000 gallons a month. Unfortunately, many Texas cities do not have a conservation oriented rate structure. Hopefully, these cities can learn a lesson from their neighbors as an effective way to save money and save water.

Starting today, one of the world’s largest private equity firms – The Carlyle Group – will look for opportunities to improve operations and create value through environmental innovation during the assessment of potential acquisitions. Carlyle’s new environmental due diligence process – called EcoValuScreen – is the result of a collaboration between Carlyle, EDF, and The Payne Firm and has the potential to transform due diligence practices at Carlyle and across the private equity industry.

Before acquiring any new corporate asset, private equity firms conduct a “due diligence” process – which typically considers only environmental risks and liability (e.g., contaminated groundwater cleanup) – to assess a company’s value. Using this new approach, Carlyle will now identify opportunities to improve operations, reduce costs, and strengthen the market position of target companies through steps like improving energy efficiency, reducing material inputs and waste generation, and developing environmental products and services before an investment decision is made. Most importantly, the highest impact opportunities will be incorporated into the management plans for Carlyle’s portfolio companies.

This early-stage approach sets a new standard for the industry and expands the mindset on environmental due diligence from downside risks to upside opportunities.

Moving forward, EDF will work with Carlyle to implement the screen in its U.S. and Europe buyout funds (which represent about $30 billion in assets under management), make refinements as necessary, and share lessons learned with other leading firms at edf.org/duediligence.

As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, today’s announcement builds on our pioneering work with KKR to develop the firm’s Green Portfolio Program that is currently helping to measure and manage environmental performance at 20% of KKR’s global portfolio companies. We view these two collaborations as complementary initiatives that combine to help improve business and environmental performance at different stages of the private equity value chain. We look forward to both becoming standard practices for value creation across the industry.

Guest post by Kate Robertson, Energy Efficiency Specialist for Environmental Defense Fund and author for the Texas Green Jobs Guidebook.

In this challenging economy, Texans are looking for rewarding careers that can put them on the path toward financial stability. However, many are unfamiliar with the opportunities offered by the growing green economy, which is why I wrote the Texas Green Jobs Guidebook. This guidebook is designed to be a resource for job seekers, career advisors, policy makers and anyone else interested in the potential for green jobs in Texas.

I found that the opportunities for water resources-related green jobs are growing fast, as you might imagine. Since Texas is the fastest growing state in the U.S., demands on our water system are at an all-time high. Coupled with growth are problems such as severe drought, which affected all or part of the state in 2008 and 2009.

Cities across the state are taking action to conserve water in the following ways, and generating jobs in the process.

• With San Antonio taking the lead in water conservation, other cities are beginning to develop plans for conserving water and recycling wastewater.
• Water conservation is also a critical component in the electricity sector, as evidenced by its designation as a critical component in Austin’s Pecan Street Project, which will begin demonstration projects of potential technologies in 2010.
• Although cities use approximately one quarter of the water in Texas, irrigated agriculture consumes 60 percent and manufacturing 10 percent.
• Another issue for water is increased water loss through leakage from old pipes, and many Texas cities have policies to perform water audits and replace old pipes in the coming years, based on the age of pipes.

As supplies become scarcer, increased conservation measures will be necessary. And with those measures, come green jobs.

If you want hard copies of the report to distribute or have any questions, let me know or leave a comment.

Below are charts of the various green water-related jobs available in Texas, including job descriptions, salary ranges and education and experience requirements. Click on each job for a larger view, or read this section of the report.

We're looking for a Temporary Communications Associate to work with us (from April through August) on our social media strategy and to help us develop and manage this summer's Climate Corps project. Apply by March 23!

Job Description
The Associate will join a fast-paced, dynamic, nationwide team in EDF’s Corporate Partnerships and Marketing Communications programs to assist in 1) conceiving and implementing a growth plan for EDF’s established Innovation Exchange social media presence and 2) managing communications activities for Climate Corps, an innovative summer fellowship program that places talented students in leading companies to develop actionable energy efficiency plans. The Associate will be responsible for a wide range of communications and project management activities including participating in online communities; finding, developing and managing stories and videos for the Innovation blog; conducting blogger research and outreach; engaging with and maintaining internal information tracking systems for our program’s 50+ fellows and companies; performing research and analysis related to energy efficiency in buildings; and contributing to the strategic planning for the future of Climate Corps and EDF’s broader social media presence.

This position will require a high degree of relationship management, involving coordination between EDF’s program staff, internal marketing and communications team, the Climate Corps fellows and host company contacts to ensure timely and well-vetted content.

Job Significance: Improving energy efficiency in buildings is the single most cost-effective way to combat global warming. EDF developed Climate Corps to overcome organizational barriers hindering the adoption of energy efficiency investments. The Summer Associate will be critical to helping EDF make the business case for energy efficiency and increase the awareness of the program in the media.

For general information about working at EDF, please view EDF’s Internship Guidelines.

Qualifications
• Familiarity with a wide range of social media tools, including forums, blogs, podcasts, video and Twitter
• MBA candidate (preferred)
• Familiarity with corporate sustainability issues (preferred)
• Demonstrated professionalism in speaking with company managers and/or directors
• Excellent interpersonal, written and verbal communication skills
• Project management and cross-functional experience preferred
• Ability to take initiative and work independently
• Ability to think strategically and creatively
• Strong organizational skills and ability to work simultaneously on multiple projects
• Experience writing for publications and/or blogs a plus

To Apply
Application deadline: March 23, 2010. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis – PLEASE APPLY PROMPTLY. E-mail cover letter and resume to Ms. Julie Stofer at [email protected]. Please send the cover letter and resume as separate attachments, labeled as follows: EDF-Communications-[your last name]-Cover and EDF-Communications-[your last name]-Resume. In your cover letter, highlight aspects of your experience that are relevant for this job, including volunteer service, and explain why you are interested in working with this organization. AA/EOE.

Our inaugural EDFix module has focused on the Commons, with calls about governing the Commons, sharing green patents, bottom-up problem solving of global problems, life cycle cost analysis and most recently a dive into sharing data among health care institutions. Our guests have been stellar.

Shortly we'll shift to a module about the green opportunities in vehicle fleets, but before we do, let's see what insights about our interactions with the Commons we might apply to organizational strategy.

Our guest for this next call, Silke Helfrich, brings deep insights about the Commons from a German perspective. She first got our attention with this Commons Manifesto and a simpler post on Shareable.net. We'll focus this call on Silke's article "The commons as a common paradigm for social movements and beyond" and discuss why and how the concept of the Commons might matter to sustainable business.

Please join us on Monday, March 22, 2010 at noon ET (9am PT) for the call:

• 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: