So, you want to change the world, eh? Turned off by the suggestion (visit the link, then scroll down about 3/4 of the page) to eat-less-meat and wondering just how significant the meat-emission link might be? (There’s bad news for cheese too, unfortunately.)

Reading through the current issue of WorldArk this morning (the May/June 2008 issue — not yet available online) I discovered an excellent resource to aid in determining what impact our individual food choices ultimately have on the environment. (Click on the image to the right for an enlarged view.) The site, Eat Low Carbon Diet Calculator, presents a simple interface for quickly analyzing the carbon impact of various food choices.

While I take issue with having to plop fresh fruit into an iron skillet to simulate consumption, the tool is nonetheless very helpful. For instance, I was surprised to see the significant impact of tofu and rice, though when I think through the production cycle of each, the numbers make a bit more sense. I was glad to see that locally sourced seafood remains a good source of protein, and not surprised at all to see the impact of beef. Enjoy!

A few days ago I made a post containing a pretty brash statement:

In the off chance that you are not paying attention to what is happening in the US right now, and increasingly around the world, the party is over folks. For those of you who have little adjustment to make when living standards and life styles see a reversion to the mean similar to what is likely to happen in the US housing market, I commend you. For those of you who face a much larger delta, I’d get started on making some adjustments right now.

I do not feel any differently now, but I do think some additional thoughts are called for.

First, I think it is important that people do their best to take a look at the various inputs in their lives and determine what biases those inputs may hold. For instance, if you get all of your news from a handful of television stations and/or cable channels, you might want to consider how those entities make their money.

Second, I think it is nearly impossible to find an individual, myself certainly included, that is not in some way perpetuating the problem.

While I’d like to think that the world is entirely made up unflinchingly aware and selfless people, I think most would agree that the opposite is true. We all, to varying degrees, have our “hooks.” For some, a fat salary, expense account, and prestigious job title are motivation enough to get them to do pretty much anything. For others, the very real need to simply put food on the table in front of their children each evening is essentially unavoidable. Moreover, and with a deep nod to my good friend Alan, I mention, yet again, Mr. Stanley Milgram. And then there is invariably another group comprised of individuals completely unaware of what is going on and the distinct role they play. In short, we’re all culprits, and we’re all victims.

So what is a society to do? How about its citizens? What’s the value in pointing out faults if you fail to offer any solutions?

In a post for another time, I’ll explain the irony of how I stumbled across the following excellent, though hardly complete, list of things we can all do on a daily basis. But for now, I simply provide reference (John Perkins, The Secret History of the American Empire, Plume Printing 2008, pp.323-325) and strongly encourage everyone to check out the other ~350+ pages of the book. Here’s the list:

• When tempted to engage in “retail therapy” instead jog, meditate, read, or find some other solution.
• Shop consciously if there is something you must have; purchase items whose packaging, ingredients, and methods of production are sustainable and support life.
• Make everything you own last as long as possible.
• Purchase at consignment and thrift stores where everything is recycled.
• Protest against “free” trade agreements and sweatshops.
• Write letters telling Monsanto, De Beers, ExxonMobil, Adidas, Ford, GE, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and other labor exploiters and environment destroyers why you refuse to purchase from them.
• Write letters praising Home Depot, Kinko’s, Citicorp, Starbucks, Whole Foods, and other companies that cooperate with RAN [Rainforest Action Network], Amnesty International, and other NGOs. [My note: I'm not sure I would include most of the organizations listed here in my list of companies to praise, but perhaps more recent research into their intentions and actions is warranted.]
• Cut back on oil and gas consumption.
• Downsize your car, home, wardrobe, everything in your life.
• Send money to nonprofits, radio stations, and other organizations that promote just causes.
• Volunteer your time and energy to such organizations.
• Support local merchants.
• Encourage stores to buy from local growers, producers, and suppliers.
• Shop at your local farmers’ market.
• Drink tap water (get the water company to do a better job if necessary, but avoid buying bottled water).
• Vote for enlightened school boards, commissions, ordinances, and politicians.
• Run for office.
• Insist that those who use your money–banks, pensions, mutual funds, companies–make socially and environmentally responsible investments.
• Speak out whenever forums present themselves.
• Volunteer to talk at your local school about your favorite subject (beekeeping, weaving, tennis, anything) and use it to challenge students, to wake them up.
• Discuss externalities, the costs of pollution, poor working conditions, public subsidies, corporate exemptions, and other environmental, social, and political factors that should be included in the prices we pay for goods and services but are not (discussed in Chapter 54); let people know that when we do not pay for these very real expenses we rob future generations.
• Encourage “taxes” on externalities–higher prices for gas, clothes, electricity, etc., as long as the difference pays to right social and environmental wrongs.
• Offer study groups at local libraries, bookstores, churches, and clubs.
• Expand this list and share it with everyone you know.

I agree with nearly all of the above. That said, I have a few quick additions to suggest:

• Turn off the television and pick up a book, go outside, talk to strangers, wonder at nature’s beauty, plant a tree, cook… anything you can, but don’t turn it on again! If you keep it up, you’ll probably go through TV withdrawal for a few weeks or months (depending on your prior dependency), but you’ll find that you have more energy, are less susceptible to manipulation (er…advertising), and are using your brain more.
• Learn a second language.
• Learn a third. A fourth. Keep going…
• Take up a creative pursuit–painting, photography, drawing–anything to get the creative juices flowing.
• If you are in a leadership position (dig deep and you’ll find that we are all leaders: parents, managers, teachers, peers, etc.) commit to teaching empathy, compassion, and the value of life-long learning to everyone who looks to you for guidance.
• Eat. Less. Meat. (Note that I did not say, “abandon meat.”) The energy you gain from eating one serving of meat (via calories) requires enormous inputs (energy) and with very real externalities (toxic waste in the form of festering feces in vast industrial farms, displaced land that could have been used to raise more efficient crops, etc.). The same equivalent in caloric content from vegetarian fare is far more energy efficient, and quite frankly, a heck of a lot healthier anyway (assumes that the meat option and the vegetarian option were both sourced locally).
• Look into what your employer is doing to positively benefit society, the environment, and the rights of all individuals. Find the negatives as well. Support what they are doing well, and create and suggest solutions to eliminate or mitigate the negatives.
• Have integrity. Do the right thing. Stand for something. Believe in yourself.

Yesterday I mentioned Peak Oil (read this Big Picture post for a good primer about Peak Oil) so today I suppose it makes sense to start into Peak Water (again, check out this Big Picture post for a good primer).

While there are plenty of economic tangents to take aoubt either issue (or indeed, from most any Peak “X,” where “X” is an oft-used commodity), I want to prompt the mental fermentation process on the following two issues:

1) Life Necessity v. Non-Life Necessity
I have some serious issues with a handful of executives and shareholders raking in the dough as a result of oil supply/demand factors (plus a few other less obvious factors), while the vast majority of the world struggles to deal with resulting price hikes as they consume the end product. That said, and I do not put this out there lightly, if I had to choose between profiting off of oil and profiting off of water, I would 100% support the oil industry.

Water is a basic and critical human necessity (i.e. you will eventually stop functioning — you’ll die, that is — if you lack access to *potable* water for long enough [say a week or two, depending on a large number of factors]). Let me say it again — mankind would cease to exist without sufficient access to potable water (at least until oil can be turned into a “water pill” by Monsanto for $100,000/20 pills — I’m being cheeky, and extremist, but hey…)

Oil is NOT a human necessity (it is, however, arguably a current societal necessity — i.e. required to maintain current standards of living and production). Humans existed for many, many, many centuries without automobiles, petroleum-based pesticides, fleece jackets, and all of the other petroleum offshoots. Oil, once sucked out of the earth, transported, refined/processed/etc., and transported again, produces or feeds and/or becomes things that are not necessities.

So, I hate to say it, but I do think that if forced to choose between making money off oil or water, hand over fist I would push oil. By extension, I think the very few things that are essential for humans to stay alive (water, food, shelter — assumes clean oxygen and a few other things such as sufficient nutritional balance of the food, but this could go on for 200 pages if I don’t focus more high-level) should be available to as many people as possible for the most accessible price possible (completely free would be fantastic, but show me an economic system that can make that happen in reality, long-term, and not just on paper…).

2) Limited Resources, Increasing Consumption
If the above didn’t ruffle your feathers too much and you are still reading, check out the graphic to the right that Barry includes in his Big Picture post (click on the graphic for a larger version — credit: WIRED SCIENCE, Peak Water, PBS, The Big Picture).

Study the, “How much water does it take to make a…” side of the graphic and then tell me honestly if you do not see some startling issues. First and foremost, take the energy available in one orange (62 calories) and plot it against the energy available in one hamburger patty (279 calories) and you get an approximate 1:5 relationship. Now plot the water requirements to produce each item to find that ratio and you get a 1:50 relationship. (Note that this is before you factor in all of the other resources required to produce the orange and burger respectively, from the grass to feed the cows [or the land used to produce the orange tree] all the way down to the processing and packaging of each food item.)

If you are not following me, let me be blunt: As water becomes more precious, diets and consumption habits will most likely need to shift out of pure necessity (note that if water becomes more expensive, so should that patty of hamburger meat, or those designer blue jeans).

And if you are still with me, what are the various ethical implications that are floating out in the ether related to these two issues?

- - -

A conundrum indeed…

A film about urban sprawl and peak oil might seem a bit off topic for a business ethics and corporate social responsibility blog, but if you see the connection and/or have an interest in either subject, I highly recommend you check out a fantastic documentary, The End of Suburbia.

If you need some help finding the bridge between this blog and the focus of the film, look no further than the endless forced expansion of the consumer’s appetite for more consumption (homes, cars, clothes, decorations, kitchen gadgets, high-tech gadgets, and so much more) by companies in the pursuit of increasing shareholder return. What’s a homebuilder to do when money is pouring in and competitors are continuing to put up ostentatious and resource-binging skyscraper homes (a.k.a. “McMansions”) at a frantic rate 100 miles out from city centers and lining up 0% down ARMs for the self-delusional nouveau-rich (a.k.a. the negative net-worth and heavily debt-laden soon-to-be or currently former middle class), even if they know deep inside that their business plan is not sustainable long-term (say, when the right crop of inflation and credit turmoil pops up…)? Build more houses of course!

Why not? they ask. Their competitor over at ABC CrazyBig Homes is churning them out like cans of tasty and completely nutritious meat on an assembly line earning a fat bonus each period, and watching their company’s stock price skyrocket. Who cares if the system comes crumbling down later as long as I get mine, they rationalize.

In the off chance that you are not paying attention to what is happening in the US right now, and increasingly around the world, the party is over folks. For those of you who have little adjustment to make when living standards and life styles see a reversion to the mean similar to what is likely to happen in the US housing market, I commend you. For those of you who face a much larger delta, I’d get started on making some adjustments right now.

Even if you are not slightly interested, I say bite the bullet and watch it anyway. Here’s an overview of the film to whet your appetite:

“Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness.

“Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.

“But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary.

“The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today’s suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? And what can be done NOW, individually and collectively, to avoid The End of Suburbia?“

Rather unpleasant news today regarding the Justice Department and corporate accountability: In Justice Shift, Corporate Deals Replace Trials

Here’s a clip:

“In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.

“Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.”

I am sure there is a slight possibility that this less public and less invasive method of evaluating potentially fraudulent or otherwise criminal activity by corporations, and the subsequent nearly invisible and prone-to-abuse-and-self-dealing mechanism for monitoring them thereafter, might actually prove successful in holding them accountable…

Um, NO.

Be sure to read the full article. The following is just a whiff of how meaningless this approach really is:

“Firms have readily agreed to the deferred prosecutions, said Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has studied their use, because ‘clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them.’

“Some lawyers suggest that companies may be willing to take more risks because they know that, if they are caught, the chances of getting a deferred prosecution are good. ‘Some companies may bear the risk’ of legally questionable business practices if they believe they can cut a deal to defer their prosecution indefinitely, Mr. Khanna said.

“Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

TAGS: CSR | Social Responsibility | Monsanto | Ethics | Fraud | Justice Department

Mosey on over to the New York Times today and check out Gardiner Harris’ article about cigarettes, cancer, cancer studies, donated research funds, foundations, and a whole mess of vested interest and rotten bologna (smoked, rotten bologna, that is): Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study.

Better than the article, perhaps, is the one sentence overview of th article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times:

“The revelation that a researcher’s study was underwritten by a tobacco company has caused an appearance of bias.”

You think? Really? How could a study about lung cancer, receiving funding from a massive cigarette company, possibly have any bias? Deeper into the article, Dr. Jerome Kassirer sums up the issue nicely:

“Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest, said he believed that Weill Cornell had created the foundation to hide its receipt of money from a cigarette company. ‘You have to ask yourself the question, “Why did the tobacco company want to support her research?” ‘Dr. Kassirer said. ‘They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that’s outrageous.’”

The latter part feels like a bit of conjecture, though I do not disagree in the slightest. Further down, Harris notes:

“Corporate financing can have subtle effects on research and lead to unconscious bias. Studies have shown that sponsored research tends to reach conclusions that favor the sponsor, which is why disclosure is encouraged. The tobacco industry has a long history of underwriting research — sometimes through independent-sounding foundations — to make cigarettes seem less dangerous.” (emphasis mine)

Interesting stuff.

A recent writeup in the New York Times discussing a Harvard Business Review article makes the case that it depends, but overall, there is not much of a link between corporate behavior and performance. What is intriguing is that the authors state that while there is a weak correlation between good behavior and positive returns, bad behavior produces a much more prominent and consistent correlation.

I have not had a chance to read the HBR article yet, but the data and conclusion are not terribly surprising. In a system where profit-maximization is an obligation and niceties such as social responsibility are considered a kind of goodwill cake-icing (by most), social responsibility, if focused on, tends to default to either a risk-management or pubic relations initiative. Not a great endorsement, it would seem…

That said, if social responsibility is in its infancy (which I believe is the case), the data is not so alarming. When sales are strong, money is flowing in, bonuses are fat, and times seem good, most companies tend to celebrate and ponder how to further push the envelope. But an interesting thing happens along the way… One short-cut tends to lead to another. One decision where profit is prioritized over principle tends to lead to another. A legal problem that isn’t noticed today can probably be put off another day, right? How about another week? Okay, maybe next quarter or fiscal year (Hey! Look at our roaring stock price!!). The house of cards invariably collapses and suddenly everyone starts crying foul.

It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, doing the right thing could be a better choice (you know, if your objective is long-term profit maximization and not short-term fat bonus maximization, or some other selfish shenanigan…).

I received somewhat expected, but nonetheless very sad news this afternoon. My grandfather, a man I only recently had the opportunity to reconnect with, has passed away. It is odd sometimes the way the cards fall.

I love and miss you Grandpa.

A colleague of mine, the ever-generous and thoughtful Steve Poftak, forwarded a few “crappy food” alternative resources to me this morning. The first, a very interesting farm that delivers produce to specific pick-up stations in the Boston-area, would certainly offer a solution to my can’t-get-out-of-the-city-to-get-good-produce conundrum. The second, an editorial in the New York Times from yesterday by Michael Pollan, has some very timely tidbits, which certainly compliment the content of his book (I include a few meaty clips below). And the third is another Pollan article, yet again in the New York Times, and also worthy of a read.

Here are a few clips from Pollan’s editorial in yesterday’s New York Times:

“Americans have begun to ask why the farm bill is subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils at a time when rates of diabetes and obesity among children are soaring, or why the farm bill is underwriting factory farming (with subsidized grain) when feedlot wastes are polluting the countryside and, all too often, the meat supply. For the first time, the public health community has raised its voice in support of overturning farm policies that subsidize precisely the wrong kind of calories (added fat and added sugar), helping to make Twinkies cheaper than carrots and Coca-Cola competitive with water. Also for the first time, the international development community has weighed in on the debate, arguing that subsidized American exports are hobbling cotton farmers in Nigeria and corn farmers in Mexico.

“…We would not need all these nutrition programs if the commodity title didn’t do such a good job making junk food and fast food so ubiquitous and cheap. Food stamps are crucial, surely, but they will be spent on processed rather than real food as long as the commodity title makes calories of fat and sugar the best deal in the supermarket. We would not need all these conservation programs if the commodity title, by paying farmers by the bushel, didn’t encourage them to maximize production with agrochemicals and plant their farms with just one crop fence row to fence row.

“And the government would not need to pay feedlots to clean up the water or upgrade their manure pits if subsidized grain didn’t make rearing animals on feedlots more economical than keeping them on farms. Why does the farm bill pay feedlots to install waste treatment systems rather than simply pay ranchers to keep their animals on grass, where the soil would be only too happy to treat their waste at no cost?”

Good stuff, manure processing and all.

TAGS: sustainable | organic | agriculture | consumption | consumer | supermarket | food

As a fair warning, if you do not want to question your eating, food purchasing, and general consumption habits in any way, I would stop reading this post. On the upside, I am in the middle of my research, so this post will be more or less half-baked…

Let’s start with a few resources to check out, in a reasonable order of review:

1. Beef Sold At Sam’s Club Being Recalled — the brief beef article that set me off this morning
2. Cargill Meat Solutions recalls ground beef — the most recent press release (as of this morning) listed on Cargill’s website (note that this release does not pertain to the preceding article, and indeed, the relevant release has yet to be issued — it is, however, related to a relevant but earlier recall)
3. For an added dose of fun, check out Cargill’s In the News page, which contains, “A selection of headlines from sources featuring Cargill and its businesses.” Interestingly, only one article appears this afternoon, trumpeting the work ethic of Cargill’s CEO.
4. Hmmmm…that’s funny, because I found a ton of articles in the news about Cargill running a Google News search (saved in the linked PDF to preserve the list that appeared at the actual time of my search), and somehow managed to miss the ‘work ethic’ article among the slew of beef-quality articles (maybe I’m blind, but here articles 1-10 in the “Cargill” search results: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 — nope, no mention of “work ethic”).



5. Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma — My wife bought me The Omnivore’s Dilemma for my recent birthday, and I have been dying to complete it the past week or so. I was hooked a few pages in, but seem to only find time quite late in the evening to hunker down and flip the pages (unfortunately, I have also discovered that I am not as young as I used to be — no more all-night reading binges for me). That said, the book (so far) is fantastic. It is very well written, well-researched, and captivating to boot. I have always been a bit put off by our system of consumption as it pertains to the treatment of animals (if you have the stomach for it, I would suggest you review this post) but until recently I think I was fairly naive to the full extent that agricultural policies and economics ultimately impact the health and welfare of say a cow, chicken, or ultimately, my children. Pollan has certainly done his part to open my eyes a bit — who knew that bag of organic lettuce was so dangerous?…
6. Supermarket Secrets - Dispatches (part one, and part two) — I watched both segments last night and found them to compliment all of the above quite nicely. Of note, the segments pertain primarily to British agricultural/supermarket issues (with a brief digression to Spain). That said, barring a few variances in regulations between the US and Great Britain, it is fairly safe to assume that one would find similar environments behind the cheap food in US supermarkets (as well as those of most any industrialized nation).

If your head isn’t spinning with a mix of disgust and disillusionment by the time you make it through all of the above resources, I would be very interested in hearing why not.

To be honest, I am struggling with what to make of all of this data and what possible solutions there are to mitigate the negative impact of mass consumption through my own purchasing and consumption habits. Barring a purchasing partnership with a slew of sustainable (note that I did not say “organic” — Pollan’s book has a lot to do with that) farms and the elimination of pleasantries that support companies such as Cargill (hmmm, no more corn syrup, corn-fed livestock, or even most soy-based products…), I am more or less at a loss. Moreover, given where I live (smack in the middle of Boston) purchasing food from sustainable farmers (funny, I haven’t seen any set up a stand in the city anytime recently) is a bit of a hassle. It seems that I can either drive out to the county (spewing exhaust into the environment), take public transportation (more or less producing the same pollutants), or find some way to have it shipped to me (again, with the same relative impact to the environment). Regardless, none of the solutions seem ideal.

In short, I am in that mid-perturbed stage where I do not have many answers but plenty of fodder for cynicism. I’ll do my best to transition to solutions as soon as possible an will be sure to post any that I come up with.

TAGS: Cargill | sustainable | organic | agriculture | consumption | consumer | supermarket | food | animal rights | PETA