That simple, powerful message came out of the World Economic Forum in January, as billionaires and high-ranking politicians gathered to discuss ways to keep our increasingly unstable climate from becoming unlivable.

Think COVID-19 is bad? In many ways, the current pandemic is a taste of what’s to come if we don’t dramatically reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions over the next 30 years. COVID-19 may have temporarily pushed talk of climate action to the margins, but the risks of a warming world remain.

Which brings us back to trees. Trees are humanity’s greatest allies in the fight against climate change, so when planting a trillion of them becomes a call to action for government leaders and multibillionaires, we can only hope they’ll follow through – even in a world currently seized by crisis. That includes Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s own pledge to plant two billion trees over the next decade.

The reality is that our forests and woodlands are already under extreme stress, whether as a result of deforestation or wildfires and disease made worse by climate change. One need only look to the recent devastation in Australia, and earlier wildfires in Alberta and California, to see we have a big problem.

In the journal Science last summer, researchers estimated that there’s room on this planet – if we exclude existing urban and agricultural areas – to restore nearly a billion hectares of tree canopy. Doing so, they calculated, could store more than 200 gigatonnes of carbon, or about a quarter of the carbon currently in our atmosphere in the form of heat-trapping gases like CO2 and methane.

Put another way, it would be like removing two-thirds of the CO2 humans have dumped into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. “This highlights global tree restoration as one of the most effective carbon drawdown solutions to date,” the researchers wrote.

Effective, yes, but let’s not underestimate the challenge.

Tree planting isn’t as simple as people might think. Tree planters, often summer students, experience a 25% injury rate, among the highest of almost any industry. Increasingly, these students are exposed to ticks and mosquitos that carry diseases like Lyme and West Nile virus.

Tree planting companies also require a lot of labour, as well as the infrastructure required to support it. The camps set up to support workers need kitchen trailers, showers, sleeping tents, portable toilets, drinking water, fuel, first aid rooms and other amenities – even satellite internet – and that comes at a significant cost.

There’s also a big shortage of labour most years because of the difficult nature of the job. Hauling around bags loaded with seedlings and constantly squatting in the sun while digging with a shovel is exhausting work, made worse by the swarms of blackflies and mosquitoes that make DEET your best friend.

It’s for this reason that folks like Bryce Jones, co-founder and CEO of Toronto-based Flash Forest, are working hard to develop new approaches to tree planting. Jones says all current reforestation efforts fall radically short of the true need. “If the tree-planting targets announced by federal governments in Canada, the U.S., New Zealand and Australia are going to be met, innovation will be necessary.”

Flash Forest, for example, is betting that drones will be an essential part of the solution. The company uses advanced 3D mapping technology and an enhanced fleet of aerial drones to plant trees 10 times faster than conventional approaches and at one-fifth the cost.

Each of its drones is operated by a pilot from the ground and equipped with a pneumatic firing device that shoots seed pods into the soil. The pods are made up of germinated seeds surrounded by a biodegradable, moisture-retaining casing that contains everything the seeds need to flourish, including beneficial acids, nutrients and fungi that promote healthy growth.

And each drone can carry a mix of pods, assuring that multiple types of native trees are planted, rather than monocultures that threaten biodiversity.

But it’s the numbers that are most compelling. With conventional tree planting, one person working 10-hour days could theoretically plant seven million trees over the course of a decade. To hit a trillion trees would require 143,000 people working non-stop – people who need to be put up in camps, fed and paid.

Alternatively, the same goal could be reached using just 2,800 aerial drones, each operated by a single pilot driving around in a pickup truck. How’s that for productivity in the age of self-isolation?

This example highlights the crucial role that automation, robotics, artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies will need to play to achieve the kind of greenhouse gas reductions needed to keep our climate livable.

Ambitious targets are welcome, but they’ll be meaningless unless we can properly harness the power of machines to make up for time that humanity has wasted.

Tyler Hamilton works with cleantech companies across Canada as an advisor with the non-profit MaRS Discovery District in Toronto. He is also on the board of the Ontario Clean Technology Industry Association.

The post Planting one trillion trees this decade? Call in the drones appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The number of people in attendance has grown substantially since 2008, which was the last time the former U.S. vice-president conducted his training session in Canada. But what stood out most – at least to those who remember the 2008 sessions – is that the content of Gore’s latest presentation is more hopeful in tone and direction.

Seven years ago, they say, more than 95 per cent focused on the climate problem – rising temperatures and ocean levels, melting glaciers, the increased frequency and intensity of droughts, heat waves, flooding, forest fires; and how all of this threatened public health, food and water supply, and as a result global stability.

“The presentation now is a lot more solutions-based compared to 2008 when I was trained,” says Corrina Serda, 19, who became a certified presenter at the age of 11. Until recently, that made this Port Elgin resident the youngest person to do so. Since then, she has given more than 180 presentations across Ontario to an estimated 60,000 people. “He (Gore) has shifted more from the science and the problems to the solutions,” she says. “People are really, really excited. They’re just really energized.”

It’s not that Gore doesn’t talk about the bad stuff. That still represents about half of the presentation, and it’s far from uplifting and energizing.

As he details the latest science explaining what’s happening to our planet, Gore’s famous slideshow reminds us of the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy in the U.S. northeast, the 2013 floods in Toronto, Calgary and Houston. We see the droughts that are killing crops and people from California to Pakistan, not to mention melting roads in India. He shares jaw-dropping images of forest fires in B.C., Saskatchewan and Russia.

A 36-degree C day in Alaska in June? An 18-degree C day in Antarctica in March? These are crazy, unprecedented numbers, he says.

He shows highways crumbling, vehicles and houses floating down swelled rivers, mudslides that have buried villages, and bridges completely destroyed by violently flowing water. “The structures we built were designed for a different era,” says Gore. “And it’s the poor who have the least ability to recover and are hit hardest.”

Gore gives us a high-level overview of what’s going on. “Warmer air can hold more water vapour,” he says, explaining that each degree F of increase expands how much water the air can hold by 7 per cent. The air is soaking up more water from lakes and oceans, but also from soil. When that rain (or snow) falls, it falls faster and harder than before. “When downpours occur, they’re bigger on average now,” he adds.

At the same time, when that moisture is pulled from soil and dumped somewhere else, it creates the conditions in some places for persistent drought and longer wildfire seasons. “In Canada the average amount (of forest) burned has doubled since the 1970s. We attribute this, and I’ll be quite clear, to human-caused climate change,” Gore says.

How this all impacts global security is perhaps the most disturbing. Some diseases spread. Food supply is disrupted and prices spike when drought and floods destroy crops and livestock, while water scarcity results when supplies dry up or get contaminated by flooding. Uprisings and conflict in India, Tunisia and Syria, among other countries, have all to some extent been preceded by food riots or water disputes.

“The impact of climate on agriculture is something we’re going to hear a lot more about,” Gore warns, pointing to research that shows how a 1 degree temperature increase can reduce wheat yields by 20 per cent by making water-starved crops vulnerable to pests and disease. “As temperatures rise, people, crops, energy systems, business and industry, animals, all need more water.”

As if that’s not enough to sour the milk in your morning corn flakes, Gore reminds us of some of the feedback loops that pose serious threats. For example, methane gas leaking from melting permafrost in Arctic tundra, an extensively studied area where “measurements are not comforting,” he says, rolling a video of scientists on a frozen Siberian lake poking a hole in the ice and lighting the emerging methane gas on fire. A torch-like flame shoots out of the hole and the scientists jump back in alarm.

Remember those mysteriously massive craters discovered last year in northern Russia? Turns out they were created by underground explosions, now believed to be the buildup of methane gas caused by warming of the permafrost, Gore explains.

Forest fires happening elsewhere aren’t helping. They’re dropping soot on snow and ice, creating a dark surface and stimulating the growth of dark algae that absorb more energy (heat) from the sun. This only accelerates melting.

“Greenland is now melting significantly faster than had been predicted,” Gore says. “We’re seeing an increased melting rate in Antarctica also.”

Down, But Not Doomed

So, you might ask yourself: Where’s the hope?

Gore admits the impacts we’re witnessing worldwide and what the science is telling us can be deflating. “It’s important to deal with the heaviness of these issues,” he tells the audience. At the same time, he adds, “You cannot allow yourself to feel despair. It’s pointless. But we have work to do. The truth is some damage is going to take place. It’s unavoidable.”

What we’re fighting to do now is limit that damage so that it’s less difficult to manage and adapt to, he explains. “The answer is pretty clear. We’ve got work to do. We can win this, but we have to be clear-eyed about what the situation is.”

From there, he starts to lift the audience, like a disc jockey playing the crowd. This is where Al Gore 2015 stands apart from Al Gore 2008.

• Pope Francis, he says, is “doing something incredible” by raising awareness and pushing for serious action.

• China, worried about political unrest because of air pollution that is reducing average life expectancy, is putting a price on carbon, tightening restrictions on coal power, and investing heavily in clean energy.

• Professional groups – from doctors to firefighters – are speaking out and demanding strong action.

• Investors, and financial authorities like the Bank of England, are waking up to the financial risks of a carbon bubble destined to burst, leading to billions of dollars of fossil-fuel assets becoming stranded. More university endowments, churches, municipalities and pension funds are divesting from fossil fuels.

• The market for green bonds is taking off, resulting in tens of billions of dollars flowing to climate-friendly infrastructure and energy projects.

• Investment in energy efficiency and smart grid modernization is way up. Cities large and small around the world are committing to becoming 100 per cent renewable within the next decade.

Gore then shows a compelling slide of coal plants in the United States that have been retired or are planned for retirement, as well as new coal plants that have been proposed but have since been cancelled. Expressed as dots on a map, there are too many of them to count.

On the topic of renewable energy, and particularly the falling cost of solar, Gore gets visibly excited. He tells us that the amount of wind power generation is 12 times larger than what experts predicted back in 2000. Solar is 62 times larger.

He throws up a line chart showing how quickly solar power is taking off. “This is an exponential curve,” he says. “When you see something like this in technology, just stand back, because it’s going to continue… solar is about to explode worldwide.”

The reason, of course, is how quickly solar costs have fallen. In many parts of the world, solar power has achieved grid parity – meaning it’s no more expensive than purchasing power off the grid. A research report from Deutsche Bank earlier this year concluded that 47 out of 50 U.S. states will cross the grid-parity barrier by 2016.

Just last week, it was reported that a Nevada utility controlled by investment icon Warren Buffett struck a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) with First Solar that will see it get solar electricity at about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, easily competitive with both coal and natural gas and far less expensive than nuclear. On that deal, a First Solar spokesperson said the trend in solar costs speaks for itself: “We expect to see more PPAs pricing out at comparable levels.”

“Nobody thought it would be possible in this timeframe, but it’s happening right before our eyes,” says Gore, pointing to the phenomenal growth of solar development in the U.S. alone. “This is really a dramatic change that should give us cause for joy and celebration, not hopelessness and despair. We’re going to win this. We just have to speed up the victory.”

To explain why we’re at an inflection point for solar and other renewables, Gore uses the analogy of how an ice cube becomes water when the temperature shifts from zero to just 1 degree C. Prior to grid parity, the solar market was the ice cube and capital into that market was frozen. With grid parity, the market suddenly melts and becomes liquid, causing capital to flow quite easily and readily.

And energy storage technologies are heading in the same direction, he says, with costs having fallen 90 per cent over the past 20 years and expected to be cut in half again over the next two years.

Together – solar plus storage – is a powerful combination that will challenge all forms of thermal power generation, from coal and natural gas to nuclear. “This is a big deal, and it’s a cause for great hope… the age of renewables is beginning.”

Near the end of his presentation, Gore gives a final jab to politicians who continue to deny and delay when it comes to climate action. How do we eliminate fossil fuel subsidies? How do we put a price on carbon in markets? “The way to do it is to put a price on denial in politics,” he says to much applause.

His final message to the group: “Don’t give up.”

For certified presenters such as Corrina Serda, who are at the gathering to act as mentors to future presenters, there’s no sign of giving up. Quite the opposite, in fact. Not only are the training sessions attracting more people, the mix of participants is getting younger.

Serda says she is most impressed that out of the 600 people attending the Toronto training session, about 100 of them – or 17 per cent – are 25 years old or younger. Just this year there have been a few nine year olds trained.

“That to me is pretty inspiring and amazing,” Serda says. “I know too many people my age who are a little cynical, so I’m always happy to see young people who are hopeful about the future.”

Compared to 2008, hope is definitely in the air. Adds Serda, “I feel more optimistic, personally.”

The post The changing tone of Al Gore’s message, and its importance appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Ironically, OPG is proposing to build two of those projects on the sites of coal-fired power plants recently taken out of service – up to 50 megawatts at the Nanticoke Generating Station in Haldimand County, and up to 30 megawatts at Lambton Generating Station near Sarnia.

Another 40 megawatts is planned for the Lennox Generating Station, a still-operating facility in Greater Napanee that’s designed to burn either natural gas or oil.

“We’re new in the world of solar,” said OPG spokesman Neal Kelly. “But what I would say is that we bring a lot of expertise in project management with a proven track record.” He pointed to recent hydroelectric projects, such as the Lower Mattagami project, which the company delivered on time and on budget.

While also new to competitive bidding, Kelly said OPG plans to “put our best foot forward” and see how the process plays out. “We’ll compete as everybody else does.”

The Nanticoke plant, which discontinued operation in 2013, was capable of generating nearly 4,000 megawatts of power and was considered the largest coal-fired power facility in North America. Lambton, about half the size of Nanticoke, was taken out of service the same year.

OPG, a publicly owned crown corporation, has historically been held back from bidding on renewable energy projects, given that its sheer size and influence were seen as unfair advantages in a competitive, open market procurement process. The company supplies roughly half of the province’s power, mostly through nuclear and large hydroelectric facilities.

In June 2013, however, the Ontario government restructured its feed-in-tariff program such that only smaller renewable-energy projects could participate. Larger project proposals, those generally more than 500 kilowatts in size, would need to compete through a request-for-proposal (RFP) process.

And in a controversial twist, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli directed the Ontario Power Authority to allow OPG to participate in all renewable energy procurement rounds. The latest round will include solar for the first time, and – whether OPG is successful or not – will finally give ratepayers a chance to see just how far solar prices have dropped in the Ontario context and without a local content rule keeping costs artificially high.

John Gorman, president of the Canadian Solar Industries Association, said he couldn’t comment on OPG’s involvement because the competitive procurement process is already underway.

But David Butters, president of the Association of Power Producers of Ontario, did say the procurement process laid out by the government has specific rules that ensure OPG doesn’t have an unfair competitive advantage over smaller, independent power producers. The association, he added, is “focused on a successful procurement, not who wins or loses.” If OPG does manage to win, it will show that they are competitive and have good locations to develop, he said.

For its three proposed solar projects, OPG plans to use land it currently owns and lease adjacent property where necessary. At both Nanticoke and Lambton, projects would partially cover areas once used to store massive piles of coal.

The province’s Independent Electricity System Operator is expected to award large renewable contracts by the end of 2015. If OPG is successful, it plans to begin construction in 2016 with an aim to have all three projects operational in the 2018-2019 timeframe.

“We’re excited to be part of this process,” said Kelly. “We’ll learn many things as we go.”

He emphasized that it’s “early days” and community consultations have just started. He also didn’t rule out future projects down the road, pointing out that OPG owns several parcels of land throughout the province – from Kenora to Cornwall and from Bruce County to the Niagara Region.

“We have footprints in many, many communities,” he said.

The post With coal plants now shuttered, OPG moves to embrace solar power appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Of the 5,537,240 square feet of green roofs installed in 2014, Toronto contributed about 775,000 square feet – or about 14 per cent of the total. Put another way, the area coverage of Toronto installations last year exceeded the combined efforts of Chicago and New York City, which ranked fourth and fifth place, respectively.

Washington, D.C., was the clear leader, installing about 1.2 million square feet, or 22 per cent of the total.

Toronto’s performance made it the first Canadian city to rank among the top five. “The Toronto Green Roof by-law of 2009 requiring green roofs on most new buildings has resulted in the permitting of more than 2 million square feet of green roofs,” the association said.

An increasing number of metropolitan areas are promoting green roofs because of the many benefits they bring, including improved urban air quality, reduction in the heat island effect in cities, improved stormwater management, and job creation.

Green rooftops are also known to increase city biodiversity and offer a way to grow herbs and vegetables for local use.

One trend that became clear in this year’s report is that the business community is getting serious about green roofs. “In a significant shift from the previous year, more square feet were installed on private projects than public,” the association said.

The one major caveat to the report, however, is that it’s a limited sample of North American cities. The survey data used to capture market activity comes only from Green Roofs for Healthy Cities members, and of those members only 27 of 89 supplied data.

“We estimate that the data in this report generally understates the market activity by anywhere from 25 to 50 per cent given that not all firms in the industry are members of GRHC and not all members are able, or willing, to participate in the annual survey,” it says.

“Nonetheless, the data does provide important insights into the composition of the industry.”

Given that cities that have something to brag about tend to be the ones that eagerly report data, there’s a good chance the top five identified in this report are an accurate reflection of the market leaders.

The post Washington, Toronto were N.A. green roof leaders in 2014: Report appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Many know that coal is the worst and natural gas is the best, and that somewhere in between lies oil. But if we drill down into each fossil fuel source, it’s clear emissions that result from burning these fuels vary widely depending on the inherent dirtiness of the end-market fuel and the efficiency of the power plant or engine that consumes it.

For example, explains a 2013 report in Scientific American, “producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 per cent more greenhouse-gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S.” – though that’s a generous assessment compared to some other estimates that goes as high as 37 per cent.

Same goes for coal. Anthracite, the hardest and highest quality coal, is considered the least dirty when it comes to smog-causing pollutants. But it also releases 7 per cent more CO2 per unit of energy compared to bituminous coal, which is the most popular type of coal used for U.S. power generation.

The type of power plant burning that coal is also hugely important from a climate change perspective, given that coal-fired facilities supply about 40 per cent of the world’s electricity. About 75 per cent of that comes from subcritical coal plants, compared to 22 per cent for supercritical and 3 per cent for ultra-supercritical.

That’s a big problem, points out a recent report from the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, because subcritical coal plants are the least efficient and biggest polluters of the lot. They also depend on a heck of a lot more water for each kilowatt generated.

“The average subcritical coal-fired power station (SCPS) emits 75 per cent more carbon pollution than an average advanced ultra-supercritical – the most up-to-date form of coal-fired power station – and uses 67 per cent more water,” according to the Oxford report, which is titled “Stranded Assets and Subcritical Coal: The Risk to Companies and Investors.”

The report title hints at where I’m going with this. If we’re serious about reining in emissions to prevent an average 2 degrees C increase in global warming – beyond which climate change is expected to become unmanageable and really scary – it means two-thirds of the world’s stated fossil fuel reserves can’t be burned. It also means the first casualty of fossil-fuel weaning will be coal power, and more specifically, the dirtiest of the dirty coal power: subcritical power stations.

According to the International Energy Agency, 290 gigawatts of subcritical generation need to be powered down by 2020 to avoid blasting past that 2-degree threshold.

“Since SCPSs are the least efficient and most GHG-intensive centralized generation technology, they are both vulnerable to regulation and a logical first step in any climate mitigation strategy,” the Oxford report states. “Furthermore, because subcritical plants are typically the oldest part of nations’ power generation fleet, they may also represent a practical policy choice for closure by budget-constrained policymakers looking for cost-effective emissions reductions.”

Who owns these coal plants? Are they a part of your investment portfolio? You might want to know. (See spreadsheet below).

Investors take note

The Oxford report is unique in that, as a service to investors, it identifies most of the subcritical coal-fired power stations in the world, highlights their location, and connects them to the companies – publicly traded, private, or state-owned – that own and operate them.

It’s not an exhaustive effort, but it’s pretty darn close. In all, 100 companies with the largest SCPS portfolios were singled out. Together, these companies represent two-thirds of subcritical coal generation worldwide.

Here are some interesting high-level findings:

• Government-owned companies account for 59 of the Top 100 portfolios, the biggest number of them in China.

• Of the 41 non-government-owned companies, the U.S. claims 26, followed by the EU with five and India with three.

• Measured by carbon intensity, the 20 most vulnerable large company portfolios are based mostly in India, former Soviet countries, and in China.

• A disturbing number of Indian and Chinese portfolio companies have operations in areas with the worst air pollution and that are under acute water stress.

• Chinese companies clearly dominate the worst of the worst list, followed by U.S. companies. Seven out of the 10 largest company portfolios are Chinese, while six out of the largest 20 are American.

It’s generally thought that government-owned companies in countries heavily dependent on coal are less vulnerable than publicly traded companies, but that’s not necessarily the case. “This view is being contradicted by recent policy tightening in both China and India,” the report states.

This is particularly true in China, where subcritical coal-fired power stations face a “poor outlook,” according to the report, which points out that assets in China’s heavily polluted and water-scarce northeastern region will be most impacted. “Given the young age of Chinese SCPSs and enormous size of the SCPS stock in northeastern China, this may well create a significant number of stranded SCPS assets through forced closure and impairment of profitability.”

In the U.S., subcritical coal fleets are also in trouble. It’s expected that regulations not related to greenhouse-gas emissions will result in the closure of 16 per cent of America’s SCPS capacity by the end of 2015. Proposed regulation aimed at reducing GHG emissions at the state level are expected to see $28 billion in industry value wiped out.

The upshot for investors? “There is a strong case for financial institutions to utilize the information contained in this report to evaluate the risk of companies that hold subcritical assets and, where appropriate to then screen, engage, or divest,” the report concludes.

It recommends that investors demand companies to publicly confirm their exposure to these assets, highlight assets most at risk of being stranded, and disclose how this might impact future capital expenditures.

The post The dirtier the coal power, the quicker the death appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Police reports confirmed more than 25,000 Canadians from all walks of life took to the streets of Quebec City on Saturday afternoon to protest the Energy East pipeline and urge more investment in renewable energy. Most of those who attended wore red coats, shirts and hats — including red-capped police officers — to symbolize the rising temperature in a thermometer, an image that was captured from aerial shots of a roundabout in front of Quebec’s legislative assembly.

The march, the largest climate-themed protest in Canadian history, came three days before Canada’s premiers meet in Quebec’s capital for a climate summit. On Monday, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is expected to sign an agreement with Quebec on a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on carbon emissions that exceed government-set limits.

Greenpeace Canada, Nature Québec, Environmental Defence and other organizers of the Act On Climate march want provincial leaders to reject the Energy East pipeline project, arguing that efforts to expand the output of the oil sands are incompatible with the actions needed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and keep climate change in check.

Smaller marches also took place Saturday across the country. Joanna Kerr, executive director of Greenpeace Canada, said Canadians are making it clear that they want action on climate change. “Our provincial leaders must do what’s essential by supporting renewable energy and not tar sands pipelines,” she said.

At the heart of the discussion is a contradiction in policy that few political leaders in Canada have been courageous enough to publicly acknowledge: the simultaneous push for growth in Canada’s oil patch and for a reduction in the country’s emissions. Environmental leaders say both can’t happen at the same time — something has to give.

As Alan Rusbridger, the soon-to-depart editor of the Guardian newspaper, wrote last month: “There are trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels currently underground which, for our safety, simply cannot be extracted and burned. All else is up for debate: that much is not.”

It’s a reality that Quebecer Anne Avril, marching with her chihuahua Nina stuffed inside her coat, hopes will begin to sink in for other Canadians. “I’m here in support of renewable energy,” she said, adding that it was “inspiring” to see so many people arrive from across Canada for the march. Is public momentum behind that message building? “I hope so,” she said. “We need to send that message to the government.”

The crowd was energized and reflected Canada’s full geographic, ethnic, and demographic diversity. An estimated 100 buses arrived in the city from as far away as Northern B.C., Edmonton, Toronto and Fredericton.

“Whoa!” tweeted U.S. environmentalist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben after seeing photos from the event. “Canada is fully awake, I think.”

Whoa! seeing pics of a huge climate march in Quebec! #ActOnClimate @defendourclimate Canada is fully awake, I think (thanks Mr. Harper!)

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) April 11, 2015

Families walked hand-in-hand with toddlers sitting on shoulders. Many walked their dogs along the route, or pushed a family member in a wheelchair. Aboriginal children walked with elders as they beat on drums. Students chanted in unity. Musicians played their instruments, and some people dressed up as clowns. It was chilly and grey, but there were smiles all around — even for one woman who walked the 2.5 kilometre route in high heels.

“I guess we’re all environmental radicals,” said one student walking within the sea of red.

(Photos: Tyler Hamilton; thermometer shot courtesy of Act on Climate)

The post Record-breaking 25,000 hit Quebec City for climate march appeared first on Corporate Knights.

That’s the conclusion of a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration titled “Drivers of U.S. Household Energy Consumption.” Specifically, it estimates that energy efficiency has offset consumption growth by 70 per cent since 1980, with per-household energy use dropping by 24 per cent and declines per square foot falling by 43 per cent.

“Gains from energy intensity improvements would have been larger if it were not for consumer preferences for larger homes and increased adoption of home appliances and electronics,” according to EIA economists. “In this period, the average home size grew by about 20 per cent. With increased square footage came adoption of more and larger devices such as more televisions, with larger screens and new or expanding end uses such as computers, networking equipment and home entertainment devices.”

Specifically, the number of households increased by 33 per cent and total floor space grew by 52 per cent. The EIA estimates that without the energy efficiency improvements that took place over the years, U.S. homes would have required another 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units of energy in 2009, the equivalent energy in 162 million tons of coal.

The results raise an interesting question: How much of the increase in home size and device use is because of energy efficiency? In other words, without observed improvements in energy efficiency would U.S. home sizes still have grown, on average, by 20 per cent and would every room be filled with a TV, computer, game box and smart phone all connected via in-home wireless networking?

The answer depends on how much weight you put into the so-called rebound effect, also known as the Jevons paradox. The argument here is that energy efficiency reduces the costs of manufacturing, purchasing and using products, and therefore drives more consumption and energy use.

As I pointed out recently, groups such as The Breakthrough Institute, an energy think tank based in California, believe the rebound effect can erase a majority of the gains achieved through energy efficiency. In a blog post last October, Breakthrough analyst Alex Trembath argued that such a position is supported by a recent report from the International Energy Agency, which concluded, in Trembath’s words, that “ efficiency rebounds can and do reach at least as high as 60 per cent.”

The American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) counters this argument, suggesting the rebound effect averages about 20 per cent. “The truth is that for 40 years energy efficiency has had a dramatic effect on worldwide energy consumption,” ACEEE executive director Steven Nadel wrote. “In the United States, if we were to use energy today at the rate we were in 1974, we would be consuming more than twice the amount that we are actually using.”

The reality probably lands somewhere in the middle.

The post Energy efficiency in the house: Dissecting the Jevons Paradox appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Lindt. Nestlé. Toblerone. Villars. Frey. Favarger. Cailler. The list goes on. And in places such as Geneva, the chocolate isn’t just for eating. Several spas in the country let clients bathe in a bubbling tub of liquid chocolate, no doubt a sold out offering on Valentine’s Day.

Chocolate, quite simply, is at the heart of Switzerland’s international brand and reputation as a global commodities hub. The Swiss are the biggest per-capita chocolate eaters in the world, with each citizen consuming 12 kilograms of the treat annually – about the weight of a large cocker spaniel, and nearly twice as much as the average Canadian.

But the luxurious days of bathing in a plentiful pool of chocolate may be coming to an end if predictions of a global cocoa supply shortage within the next five years come true. Last fall, Swiss-based cocoa manufacturer Barry Callebaut warned of the potential crisis – a big deal, considering the company processes nearly a quarter of the world’s cocoa beans. Company chief executive Juergen Steinemann called it a “serious concern” for the $117 billion (U.S.) global industry.

Two years earlier, the world’s largest chocolate maker, Mars, sparked anxiety among chocolate lovers when it said the industry could face a million-tonne shortage of cocoa by 2020. It also drew attention to the economic and environmental pressures faced by cocoa farmers at a time when demand for chocolate, particularly in developing countries such as China, India and Russia, is expected to grow by 30 per cent within the same timeframe. “It’s just not sustainable,” the U.K. president of Mars said.

To be clear, it’s not like Valentine’s Day will come to a sobbing halt, or for that matter Easter – which by the way is the top-selling chocolate occasion. It means that as demand rises and supply struggles to keep up, the amount and quality of cocoa in what we call chocolate will decline, replaced by imitation fillers. Alternatively, the price of higher-quality chocolate is expected to rise sharply.

A need for sustainable approaches

Switzerland is an interesting case study when it comes to rethinking the way the chocolate industry operates and interacts with cocoa suppliers.

Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana are the biggest cocoa suppliers in the world, representing 36 per cent and 22 per cent of global supply, respectively. They’re also the two biggest suppliers to Switzerland.

“Both face production bottlenecks that threaten cocoa exports in the coming years,” according to the Earth Security Index 2015, a report put out by London-based consultancy Earth Security Group.

“Swiss-based multinationals must go beyond traditional development and CSR approaches to think more creatively about business model innovations that will help smallholder farmers capture more value from the global chocolate market.”

There are many reasons for the bottlenecks in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. As Earth Security’s report points out, cocoa trees planted a quarter century ago have hit their production peaks and the land they grow on is no longer as fertile as it once was. “Without large-scale rehabilitation of land and trees production is likely to drop.”

Climate change is also taking its toll, and will continue to do so. Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns are affecting the availability of suitable land for growing cocoa trees and increasing the risk of disease.

The bottom line: it’s hard these days to farm cocoa, let alone eke out a living, with roughly 90 per cent of world supply grown on relatively small, family-owned plots. Most farmers are operating well below the line of poverty, forcing them to rely on child labour to lower costs. Alternatively, they abandon cocoa altogether in pursuit of more profitable crops, such as rubber or palm oil.

“Chronic poverty and poor labour conditions are driving an exodus from cocoa farming, just as a new generation of farmers must take the reins of production,” the report states.

The industry hasn’t been blind to these problems. In fact, it has taken some important actions. The largest 13 cocoa-dependent companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars on sustainability programs, and through an initiative called CocoaAction, have worked with the World Cocoa Foundation to support thousands of farmers.

But efforts so far don’t go far enough. This has many industry observers calling for more innovative approaches, which some smaller and newer chocolate makers are proving can work. London-based Divine Chocolate, for example, has emerged as a successful fair-trade chocolate company that shares ownership directly with the cocoa farmers it relies on.

The company was founded in 1998 as a partnership between Twin Trading, a U.K. fair trade company, and the Kuapa Kokoo cocoa farmer cooperative in Ghana. Cooperative members collectively owns 45 per cent of Divine Chocolate and, on top of being suppliers also get a dividend from the company’s profits. The company, which counts Body Shop among its investors, also devotes 2 per cent of its revenues to farmer education.

Earth Security says this kind of increased integration with farmers is proving so far to be a sustainable model that’s driving positive change in the industry. “However, in order to reach the needed scale, similar innovations must be replicated by the larger players in the industry.”

The value of certification 

For now, the approach to sustainable cocoa production – and specifically, to combat forced and child labour – has been through compliance with sustainability standards, which have experienced strong growth over the past few years. There are four major standards that dominate the cocoa market:

• The Rainforest Alliance Certified seal assures that the cocoa has been grown and harvested using environmentally and socially responsible practices.

• Fairtrade-certified cocoa assures that no forced or child labour is used by cocoa farms, no agrochemicals are used, and that farmers, through membership in a local cooperative, never get paid less than the minimum floor price for cocoa, which assures they make a profit and don’t get taken advantage of by intermediaries.

• Organic-certified cocoa must be produced using natural methods, meaning farmers must adhere to a regime of regular crop rotation that relies on manure fertilization. This assures growing soil remains healthy and productive. Needless to say, no synthetic or toxic pesticides are permitted.

• UTZ Certified farms must used responsible agricultural practices, have a safe and healthy work environment, never use child labour, and meet a minimum standard for environmental protection.

These voluntary sustainability standards first began to appear in the late 1980s, but started to build some serious momentum in the late 1990s. Growth is expected to build, given that major chocolate companies Hershey’s, Ferrero and Mars, together representing nearly half of the confectionary market, have said they will source all of their cocoa supply sustainably by 2020. Which standard they will adhere to, however, is unclear.

To date, the most successful has been the UTZ Certified standard, which represents nearly 15 per cent of the share of global cocoa production, followed by the Rainforest Alliance certification at about 10 per cent. Organic and Fairtrade are far less popular, both sitting at 3 per cent of global production. This is likely because of the higher premium they fetch for farmers. For example, the premium for UTZ Certified cocoa is around 5 per cent, compared to about 18 per cent for organic cocoa.

That said, both organic and Fairtrade cocoa have experienced rapid growth over the past few years. The International Institute for Sustainable Development predicts that Fairtrade certification will continue along this trend, “particularly in light of public commitments by Cadbury and Hershey’s to source Fairtrade cocoa in the coming years, which will likely lead to reductions in the gap between supply and demand in the coming decade,” according to its State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014.

Certification may not be a panacea, but industry watchers say it’s a laudable start, perhaps paving the way to more creative business models like that pioneered by Divine Chocolate. Other attempts at addressing a feared cocoa shortage involve genetically modifying cocoa plants to grow in harsher conditions, resist pests and disease and increase their yield.

This may be part of the answer, but beyond concerns about the safety and health issues related to GMO products, the bigger worry for chocolate makers and lovers is that these new super-variety of plants will produce inferior tasting chocolate, the same way GMO strawberries – while larger and more robust – tend to be flavourless and lacking in the rich redness of wild strawberries.

As you savour chocolate treats this Valentine’s Day, ask yourself: How much flavor are you willing to sacrifice? And how much more would you be willing to pay for sustainably grown cocoa and responsibly produced chocolate to satisfy your chocolate cravings?

One thing is for sure: bathing in chocolate in Geneva is going to get mighty expensive.

The post What is the future of chocolate? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

When the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its “Global Risks 2014” report last January in advance of its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, it named the “worsening wealth gap” as the year’s biggest risk.

To outside observers, WEF is in many ways the embodiment of that global risk. It is the annual gathering of the world’s super rich, peppered with artists, academics and scientists to boost discussion and enlightenment. About 1,700 private flights are scheduled to swoop down on this Swiss resort town over the next few days, with each return flight costing an estimated $28,000.

Free food will be plentiful, the parties will be lavish, and for those without a hangover, mindfulness guru Jon Kabat-Zinn will lead each morning off with group meditation.

WEF’s “Global Risks 2015” report, released last week, cites international conflict and the world’s growing water crisis as this year’s biggest risks. Income disparity didn’t even make the short list.

Does this mean the wealth gap is narrowing? Quite the contrary. A report released this week by Oxfam International says the problem is getting worse.

Oxfam warns that by 2016 the planet’s wealthiest 1 per cent will control just as much – if not more – of the world’s assets as the 99 per cent combined. Indeed, since 2009 the 1 per cent has expanded its slice of the wealth pie to 48 per cent from 44 per cent. Oxfam contends it will reach, and possibly surpass, 50 per cent sometime next year.

To be fair, if the WEF picked the same No. 1 global risk every year the headline-framing press release would quickly get stale. The reality is that there are, in any given year, many global risks competing for international attention and most of them get discussed in Davos. In fact, the WEF did address the wealth gap ahead of its meeting this week with the release of a 14-point plan of action that tackles everything from minimum wage to corruption.

Elitist as it is, WEF is effective at getting the planet’s wealthiest, brainiest and most politically powerful under one roof for a few days. Bill Gates, John Kerry and happy guy Pharrell Williams won’t solve the world’s problems in one week, but the occasion shines a light on these problems and allows for a sharing of information and commitment that can inspire action, hard as it may be to measure.

WEF is also an occasion that others can piggyback, drawing attention to their own research and causes. The Oxfam report is one of dozens expected to be released during the week. The United Nations Environment Programme, for example, will release a report called “Pathways to Scale,” part of an inquiry into designing a more sustainable financial system. The report will outline how banks, bond markets, and institutional investors can, with the right tools and policy, help redirect the flow of capital to achieve long-term sustainable development.

For 10 years now Corporate Knights has launched the annual Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies in the World ranking from Davos, where we also host an executive roundtable dinner. The dinner is an opportunity for leading business, finance and economic minds – from George Soros to Sir Nicholas Stern – to discuss ways of making capitalism more sustainable. This year’s topic is how to create a favourable investment climate to price carbon.

On Friday morning, Corporate Knights and the Schulich School of Business at York University will host the final round of the second-annual CK-Schulich Business for a Better World MBA case competition, which this year is aimed at making pharmaceutical giant Novartis a sustainable leader among its peers.

Teams from the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University and Schulich have travelled to Davos to present their business plans in front of a live judging panel. The winning team will take home a $6,000 prize.

Throughout the week, Corporate Knights will file reports from WEF on issues that fall within our sustainable business mandate. We will pay particular interest to discussions around climate action, including a Thursday morning session titled “Closing the Climate Deal,” which is expected to build consensus and momentum toward reaching a global emission-reduction plan in Paris this December.

Many of the WEF sessions will be webcast live, including those with a focus on environmental and social issues. We’ve listed some of those sessions below in case you’d like to tune in. You can search for these on the WEF website, put them in your online calendar and schedule email reminders:

Wednesday 21 January

09.00 – 10.00 (3 a.m. EST)

The New Energy Context

How are technological, economic and geopolitical changes shaping the future energy landscape?

10.00 – 10.30 (4 a.m. EST)

What’s Next? A Climate for Action

Through a powerful visual narrative, Nobel Laureate Al Gore reveals what’s next for climate in 2015.

14.30 – 15.45 (8:30 a.m. EST)

The Geo-Economics of Energy

How are energy producers and consumers adapting to increasing uncertainty?

Dimensions to be addressed: Demand and supply uncertainty; Market volatility; Geo-economic shifts

Thursday 22 January

16.30 – 17.30 (10:30 EST)

Closing the Climate Deal

How can a comprehensive global climate deal be achieved in 2015?

Friday 23 January

09.00 – 10.00 (3 a.m. EST)

The BBC World Debate: A Richer World, but for Whom?

Are existing growth models failing to deliver jobs and address income inequality?

10.30 – 11.30 (4:30 a.m. EST)

Tackling Climate, Development and Growth

What resources and commitments are needed now to tackle climate change, development and growth?

12.30 – 14.00 (6:30 a.m. EST)

Employment: Mind the Gap?

Remuneration for top jobs continues to increase while mechanization and offshoring have eroded middle-wage jobs. Inequality in capital and income are on the rise and the trend shows no signs of abating. With 42 million people striving to join the workforce every year, is this trend reversible?

– What are the long-term concerns for youth in this tough market?

– What solutions could alleviate this trend in the short term?

– How can the labour market be re-organized? – Is globalization driving inequality?

18.00 – 18.15 (noon EST)

Sustainable Development: Demystifying the Facts

A thought-provoking presentation by Professor Hans Rosling that reveals the surprising trends shaping today’s world.

18.15 – 18.45 (12:15 p.m. EST)

Sustainable Development: A Vision for the Future

A discussion with Bill and Melinda Gates on catalysing action on the new Sustainable Development Goals

18.30 – 20.00 (12:30 EST)

Should Business Lead the Social Agenda?

Complex global problems are often left for international organizations and government to solve. As a result, we have failed to meet challenges such as the Millennial Development Goals. Businesses play an increasingly important role in the global system, and face growing pressure from millennial consumers and employees to align core operations with social impact. Can businesses help to find a solution to global challenges, and should these challenges really be tackled by businesses?

– Is business doing enough?

– Can business solve social problems and make a profit? What models exist?

– Do other stakeholder groups need to rethink their traditional roles?

Saturday 24 January

11.00 – 11.30 (5 a.m. EST)

An Insight, An Idea with Mario Molina

A conversation with Nobel Laureate Mario Molina on communicating the science behind climate change

15.30 – 16.30 (9:30 a.m. EST)

The Diversity Dividend

How can organizations embrace diversity to drive innovation and sharpen their competitive edge? Dimensions to be addressed: Paths for women in power; Ensuring LGBT inclusion; Diversity beyond borders

The post Private jets converge on Davos appeared first on Corporate Knights.

I am a member of and, until recently, sat on the board of the ZooShare Biogas Co-operative, which is building a digester unit at the Toronto Zoo that will turn zoo animal manure and organic waste from nearby grocery stores into biogas. That gas will be used to generate electricity for Ontario’s power grid.

These are all great projects, but they are also big projects that require substantial investment and a consistent supply of waste material, which must sometimes be trucked in from long distances. On the other hand, I’ve long thought of the potential for smaller digesters that could be used, for example, by schools, hospitals, apartment and condo buildings, and even individual households.

Why not? If homeowners can install solar panels on the rooftops of their houses, why can’t they have a micro biogas unit in their backyard? If, as consultancy Navigant Research says, “biogas remains a vastly underutilized resource,” then shouldn’t we look beyond landfills, wastewater treatment plants and big cattle farms?

The two young founders of Israeli startup HomeBioGas are doing exactly that. Yair Teller and Oshik Efrati have designed a backyard-sized biogas machine that turns organic kitchen waste, garden waste, and pet droppings into pressurized renewable gas, which can be hooked up to a gas barbeque or burned indoors for heat. The system, called TevaGas, also produces a clear organic liquid fertilizer than can be spread on gardens.

Instead of having waste shipped to a central location, the idea is to extract and use energy from organics at the source. The company claims that its TevaGas units are capable of generating enough gas to cook three meals daily, assuming ideal conditions where all household organics and pet waste are put into the system.

“We are addressing two markets segments,” said Ami Amir, the company’s head of marketing and business development. “Underserved, off-the-grid, urban and rural communities, and more affluent environmentally conscious and aware homeowners.”

The unit comes with a built-in food shredder and can be connected to a garden hose, allowing for easy washing off of plates. There is also a crank to allow for manual mixing, a hydroponic biofilter to reduce odors, and a chlorine filter to neutralize pathogens in the fertilizer that is produced.

It’s estimated that 2.7 billion people worldwide live in communities considered “off-grid” and without access to clean energy or proper garbage disposal services.

Not all of them can benefit from these small biogas systems, however. Amir said the outdoor units are designed to work in warm climates, meaning they become less effective as temperatures outside begin to drop. “In field trials, we found that after an acclimatization period, bacteria still produce gas, albeit at a lower rate, at an average ambient of 10 degrees to 15 degrees C,” he said.

In other words, they might work great during a Canadian summer – beyond that, not so much. The market for such a product in southern U.S. markets, on the other hand, would appear ripe. And it goes without saying that the closer one gets to the equator the more sense it makes, both practically and economically, to purchase a system.

The Caribbean is an ideal example. The government of the Dominican Republic recently purchased 50 TevaGas units as part of an island pilot project. The aim is to tackle the problem of waste management in small villages, while at the same time reducing deforestation. It turns out villagers are increasingly cutting down trees for wood heating. Converting food waste into gas on site is expected to take pressure off island forests.

If the pilot project proves successful, the island has plans to purchase more units as part of a larger island program.

HomeBioGas also has a larger system called SymbioGas that’s being targeted at hotels, industrial kitchens, hospitals and army bases. Alternatively, multiple TevaGas units can be installed side-by-side and scaled up or down based on the supply of organic waste.

Both products are shipping, and the company is currently growing its network of international distributors. As for cost, test units in Israel can be purchased for $2,000 each, but are likely to cost north of $3,000 once the product becomes more widely available.

The post Biogas: Coming to a backyard near you? appeared first on Corporate Knights.