When my son Tom was in third grade, I went with him on an overnight school field trip to the St. Louis Zoo.  The highlight was a walk through the zoo after dark.  As our little safari made its way from bear pits to bird cages to river otters to big cats, Tom and I noticed that we were always falling behind the rest of the group — largely because we tended to find a few things to look at, listen to and talk about that the rest of the group hadn’t noticed.  At one point, as we were catching up with his classmates, Tom looked up at me and said, “Dad, we’re good observers, aren’t we?”

Blink, blink.  Tom is spending a couple of weeks home before he leaves for his senior year of college.  (I, by the way, am now the one who has to look up at him.)  He’s maintained his healthy curiosity, along with his love and respect for the natural world, and he does a good bit of his observing these days through a camera lens:

Today, as I think about his years-ago comment at the zoo, it occurs to me that one of the most valuable roles we play as sustainability consultants is to help our clients be good observers of the world around them, and use what they see and learn to forge strategies and relationships that benefit both our planet and their bottom lines.  In tough economic times, especially, it’s all too easy for companies to focus their attention more narrowly than usual within the confines of their organizations and their industries.  It can be hard for them to step back and see the bigger picture.  One of the most valuable services we provide as outside counselors is to help companies really look outside themselves at issues or trends that may have seemed beyond their sphere — but that, if embraced in the right way, can strengthen their brands.  (And that, if ignored, can make them pay a price.)

It’s a fairly simple thought — but one with powerful implications.  At least…that’s my observation.

What surprisingly useful connection, opportunity or insight have you called to a client’s attention lately?

In the race to be “greener” than the rest, there remain people in most organizations who are skeptical of the need for a sustainable approach to business operations. “In the big scheme of things,” they might say, “we’re such a tiny contributor to global warming… why even bother?” Or even, “Who really cares what we do?”

The answer is that more people care about this issue than you might think — and they’re paying closer attention than ever before. The evidence — both anecdotal and data-based – is clear:

• Consumers are placing growing importance on sustainability as a factor in their purchasing decisions;
• Companies increasingly are demanding to know more about their suppliers’ efforts and operations (don’t take my word for it; just ask Wal-Mart);
• The opinions of NGOs that rate such things are growing in credibility and relevance;
• Investors, legislators and regulators the world over are becoming more engaged;
• Current and prospective employees alike take a company’s record of sustainability into account when they assess where they want to work;
• The media’s interest in the subject hasn’t waned in recent years, yet continues to grow; and
• The millennial generation feels even more passionately about this than generations before.

Simply put, sustainability isn’t a “fringe” issue advocated only by activists… it’s Main Street, Wall Street and everywhere in between.

A few questions for you, dear reader… Of these audiences (and the many others out there), who do you think cares the most about sustainability? Conversely, who (for right or wrong) seems to care the least? And, importantly, who do you think ought to care just a little bit more? I would love to hear your thoughts about attitudes, both inside and outside your organization.

I recently spent time at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., checking out Green Community. The exhibit, which closes on Oct. 25, touches on all facets of the sustainability movement, including its earliest moments more than 2,000 years ago.

The range of topics covered is quite impressive, from public transportation usage to smart growth in small towns. As curator Susan Piedmont-Palladino points out in the excellent video below, what we call sustainability historically was a simple and common understanding that living in balance with nature is a powerful and important part of creating strong communities.

Be sure to check out the museum’s green multimedia.

It’s a common maxim among sustainability thinkers that one size doesn’t fit all: countries, regions and communities need to think realistically about their environmental and social challenges, and develop solutions that respond to their specific circumstances.

We have seen this principle applied across the world in one way or another, but nowhere does the phrase ‘local solution’ take on greater significance than in India.

The Indian festival of Ganapati (Ganesha Chaturthi) is a case in point. During this 10-day festival, (which this year will start on the 23rd of August), the Lord Ganesh is believed to bestow his presence on earth to all devotees. A central public aspect of the festival involves the submersion of Ganesh idols of different sizes into water (lakes, rivers or the sea, depending on the location of the festival) – the original symbolism being that the idols are returned to the earth from which they came. This represents the full cycle of life in nature.

Over the years, the original clay idols have been gradually replaced by those made of Plaster of Paris, a gypsum-rich product that is much cheaper, lighter and easier to work with than clay, but considerably less environmentally friendly. The festivals have also become more colourful, the idols being decorated with chemical paints (containing oil, lead, mercury, cadmium and several other non-ecofriendly additives) as well as plastic flowers, incense, camphor and so forth.

As a result, once a year, the waterways of India become choked with any number of substances and effluents. Making matters worse, the country’s growing affluence has led to more and larger idols being created every year.

But India’s environmental conscience is also growing, and recent years have seen increased activity in this area. Several initiatives have sprung up to address the problem, including campaigns to once again use clay (or biodegradable substances such as papier maché); encouragement to immerse the idols in tanks or buckets at home; and recycling of idols from year to year.

Governments are also getting in on the action. Local authorities in some areas have tried to mandate the use of eco-friendly idols, while others have banned the immersion of idols altogether in public waterways. And while there has been some resistance from conservatives and others who see these initiatives as an attempt to make idols more expensive (and take the festival out of the hands of the ‘common man’), more and more Indian families are making the choice to go green with Ganesh.

Ganapati is a popular festival, and it is taking time for the green message to spread. But India is capable of moving with tremendous speed when it so desires, and I am optimistic that, within a few years, this most local of eco-movements will result in a green Ganapati for generations to come.

London's £1 million artificial leaf project to create clean energy

Last week it was announced that scientists at Imperial College, London, are looking to develop an ‘artificial leaf’ through a £1 million project that will attempt to copy photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis, the process where plants use sunlight to convert water and carbon dioxide into sugar, is the most effective solar energy conversion process on Earth.

Researchers believe that mimicking parts of it could be the ticket to a limitless supply of clean power, a must if we are to slow down climate change and contend with rising fossil fuel prices.

The untapped possibilities of the sun’s rays are huge, with the energy contained in the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth in just one hour reckoned to be enough to power human activity across the globe for an entire year.

With many solar power systems developed to date proving to be too expensive compared with fossil fuels, the Imperial College team is aiming to find a more efficient and cheaper alternative source of energy to combat climate change.

Currently the team is focused on working out exactly how leaves use sunlight to make useful molecules. Once this had been established, the aim is to build artificial systems that mimic this process in order to generate clean and limitless sources of hydrogen and methanol. These could be used in fuel cells to make electricity or directly to power super-clean vehicles.

According to James Barber, project leader at Imperial College, if artificial photosynthesis systems could use approximately 10 per cent of the sunlight falling on them, they would need to cover less than two per cent of the Earth’s surface in order to produce the energy the world is expected to consume by 2030.

While the artificial leaf project is many years away from creating commercial products, it is hoped the project will help position the UK as a world leader in sustainable energy.

Greetings from London, where there are plans afoot in the Government to introduce a food labelling scheme that would tell all consumers in the UK whether our food is environmentally friendly or not.

In an ideal world, the labelling advice would tell us how far food has travelled “from farm to fork,” how it is packaged, whether chemicals and pesticides were used to make it, details on animal welfare — all in an easy-to-read format. Packaging would feature symbols, much like the traffic light labels used already in UK supermarkets to show how healthy the product is.

If only it were so clear cut.  A recent article in the Sunday Times highlighted the pros and cons of this scheme — obvious benefits are that the consumer can decide for themselves whether they want to purchase items, such as meat or fruit products that have come half way across the world, and can pass their own judgement on eating endangered fish. Increasing their buying power will in turn encourage, if not oblige supermarkets to supply environmentally friendly food.

Yet, with all of this contributing to one environmental label, it will be immensely difficult to measure all the elements and produce labels that are faithful to the facts. Especially when it is imperative not to confuse the customer nor cost the manufacturers more to package.

This opinion is backed by Richard Dodd, of the British Retail Consortium, who said: “Labelling isn’t a magic bullet for these sorts of objectives. There is already a mass of information on products and a lot of competing demands for more. There is a danger of actually confusing people rather than helping them make choices.”

All of this remains to be seen, as the Government department opens a consultation on the future of our food this week. One thing’s for sure – whatever the merits of this kind of scheme, changing weather patterns and the demographics of our world population could have a dramatic effect on our food supply in the future, where we will be looking for ways to produce and import enough food for our burgeoning population. Perversely, this might become much more important than what’s environmentally friendly or not.

It takes just eight minutes for sunlight to travel to the earth from 93 million miles away at a speed of 186,282 mph. And within one hour, more sunlight will have fallen to the earth than what will be consumed and used as energy by the world’s population in the course of a year (www.facts-about-solar-energy.com). Still, more than two billion people live without electricity.

Today, the majority of the world’s energy is created through non-renewable fossil fuels. Combined, coal, natural gas and petroleum make up for nearly 80 percent of earth’s total energy sources. Renewables, such as photovoltaic energy, account for just 18 percent (www.mt.gov). Photovoltaic energy is created when sunlight is converted into electricity – most commonly through a photovoltaic cell (PV) made of silicon alloys. The non-mechanical devices convert solar energy directly into electrical power and their use makes a significant impact on the world’s consumption of non-renewable energy sources. According to Solar Energy International (www.solarenergy.org), a one kilowatt PV system that produces 150 kW per month helps prevent 150 pounds of coal from being mined, 300 pounds from CO2 from entering the atmosphere, 105 gallons of water from being consumed and keeps NO and SO2 from being released.

Photovoltaic cells capture sunlight and convert it directly into electricity. They range in size from one to 10 centimeters across and can be connected into larger constructs to generate more power. Source: www.ecofriend.org

Photovoltaic cells are more commonly known as solar cells and the electricity they generate is used for the same purposes as non-renewable energy sources depending upon the size of the photovoltaic system. Photovoltaic cells generate a direct current – like batteries, and range in size from one centimeter to 10 centimeters across (www.eia.doe.gov). (For commercial applications, the direct current must be converted to alternating current power using inverters). With such a small size, the cells generate a low power output and are generally put together into weather-resistant modules. For a further increased energy yield, the modules can be crafted into arrays. The size of the array directly affects the amount of power generated. Larger arrays can be used to provide electricity to homes or power communications equipment.

Discovered by Bell Telephone researchers in 1954, photovoltaic cells were first used to power U.S. space satellites (www.eia.doe.gov). PV cells consist of two layers semiconductors – one positively charged and one negatively charged – that create tension (www.alternate-energy-sources.com). Their use remains a constant in smaller, common applications such as wrist watches and calculators. However, anyone who has used a PV powered calculator can guess the complications that can arise from using PVs to generate power. The absence of sunlight significantly affects a photovoltaic system’s ability to create energy for all applications. This means that climate conditions can prohibit satisfactory performance by larger outdoor solar array systems.

The number of photovoltaic systems installed increases each year. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the systems are designed for easy expansion, low maintenance, high durability and generate no waste products or pollution while in operation.

For more information about photovoltaic energy, check out these sites:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/yago90.html
http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html

Or take a look at a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that highlights opportunities for businesses to use photovoltaics:
Photovoltaics and Commercial Buildings – A Natural Match

Hi again from Brussels.

Don’t worry — by “clouds” I don’t mean that summer storms are coming in to ruin your holidays in the sun. Rather, the title is connected to the development of cloud computing technologies which have raised the interest of the European Commission as a tool to reduce carbon emissions.

The guru of the Europe’s information society, Commissioner Viviane Reding, delivered last month a detailed speech on the future technological steps to be undertaken by the EU on the track of the economic recovery. She said the use of cloud computing could, “by helping to improve the efficiency of IT solutions, lead to electricity savings in computing activity of up to 80%.”

Not only would cloud computing  be able to boost energy efficiency, but it is also a key element to improve the competitiveness of European SMEs. In fact, using cloud computing, small and medium-size enterprises would no longer need to buy and maintain technologies or IT applications and services. Web based services can make businesses more productive by shifting from fixed costs (i.e. hiring staff or buying PCs) to variable costs (i.e. you only pay for what you use).

It seems like something is meant to come out from the Commission’s top hat in the direction of helping the deployment of cloud computing technologies — better to keep our eyes open, there undoubtedly will be interesting business opportunities.

Fleishman-Hillard had a unique opportunity in July to help The Northwest Earth Institute (NWEI) - a recognized nonprofit leader in the development of educational programming designed to inspire sustainable behaviors at the individual and organizational levels – launch a new discussion course designed especially for business called Sustainable Systems at Work.

As Jeff McIntire-Strasburg points out at Earth & Industry, most companies take a top-down approach to sustainability, with management issuing “green” directives for employees to implement.  It gets the ball rolling, but it doesn’t necessarily drive innovation or bolster employee engagement.

Sustainable Systems at Work is a five-week course designed to bridge that gap using information, education – and, most importantly – discourse to arm employees with the knowledge they need to build a culture of sustainability within the workplace.

I can attest to the benefits, having personally participated in one of the NWEI’s guided workshops earlier this year.  This workshop provided a terrific learning and sharing experience for employees throughout our building, and helped FH Portland reinforce many of its sustainable business practices.

If your business or group is looking for a unique and proven way to engage people around sustainability – from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down – I encourage you to give NWEI a look.  In all, NWEI offers eight discussion courses that have been adopted by more than 110,000 people in a variety of settings, including business, higher education, government, neighborhoods and faith-based communities.  A number of major brands – including Starbucks, Intel, Nike and Microsoft – have participated in NWEI courses.

(Note of disclosure:  I have more than a personal interest in this…Fleishman-Hillard is recognized in the “Acknowledgements” section of Sustainable Systems at Work as one of several organizations that provided support, insight and direction to the course development.)

To order a copy of this new discussion guide, or to learn more about NWEI’s educational programming, e-mail NWEI.

Two weeks removed from moving from my downtown St. Louis apartment where I lived for two years to a nearby neighborhood, I’m finally settled into my new digs.  I loved my old place and I enjoyed living solo.  But, I’m saving considerably on rent by moving to a lower-cost neighborhood and having a roommate.

My motivation to move was “green”… money, that is.  I sheepishly admit I didn’t consider the sustainabilty implications of my move until after the fact.  Albeit late, I decided to use a carbon footprint calculator to calculate the impact associated with each place.

First, though, is my personal take on some key “green” matchups between the old and the new. Which is more sustainable?

• Recycling: Sadly, neither place offers curbside recycling.  Recycling at my old place involved a 27-floor elevator ride down, driving to the closest recycling location in St. Louis, and another elevator ride up.  Now, I still have to drive, but recycling is much closer… and no elevator rides.  Verdict: The new place.  It’s closer to a recycling drop-off, which means less driving and likely more consistent recycling.  And, climbing one flight of stairs in lieu of a 54-floor roundtrip elevator ride knocks out some energy use.
• Home energy use: My new place is about twice the size of the old one.  That extra space means increased energy consumption in the unit, but I’m sharing that energy with my roommate.  I’m trying to save energy and money by doing the simple things — unplugging appliances and turning off lights – when they’re not being used, which should lead to long-term energy savings habits.  Verdict:  The old place, at least for now.  Hopefully my increased focus on saving energy will help close the gap.
• Getting around:  My old apartment was just blocks from my office, so for two years I walked to work; the move added a five-mile roundtrip drive to my commute.  But, stairs have replaced long elevator rides (my friends and I once did a rough calculation that I have spent at least two, maybe three days of my life in that elevator… ugh).  I’m also much closer to social and shopping opportunities, meaning less time on the road.  Verdict:  The old place… I think, considering the extra five miles of driving per day.  Unfortunately, accurately calculating elevator energy use very difficult, making it tough to factor that into the equation. 

Now, personal opinions aside, let’s actually crunch the numbers (drumroll, please).  As suspected, the calculator tells me that my new place adds about two tonnes to my carbon footprint.  I hate to see that, but I take some solace in being about five tonnes below the national average. 

There are resources available if you’re thinking of moving and the “green” factor – as in sustainability - is a priority.  And, there are resources for those, like me, who want to “green” their current living space.  If you’ve moved recently, take a shot at calculating your “before and after” carbon footprint.  I would love to hear what others come up with, and why.