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 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…).

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

As consumers, how we exercise our choice through spending money has a significant impact on the future decisions made by the companies we support. If we choose to give money to Company A for Product X, we are essentially communicating that Product X and Company A are filling a need for us, and in a manner that we find acceptable given the cost of Product X. In other words, you are not just buying that T-shirt for $15, you are casting a vote, supporting a company, and supporting an industry. This, of course, should not be news to anyone, nor is it a complex or unique perspective.

I tend to forget the above, and I imagine most other consumers do as well, any time I am just a bit too caught up in the weekly hem and haw of life. Sometimes, after a long day, I forget to scrutinize the label of a food package — I really just want to fork over some money, get home, and take my shoes off for a minute. So if it is quite easy for me as a consumer to slip every once in a while – was that coffee organic and Fair Trade, or just organic? – I imagine the rest of the consuming public is just as susceptible to wavering in their product scrutiny, if they are even inclined to dig deeper in the first place.

…On to some good news…

I found an interesting release via CSRWire this morning, which gave me a little bit of comfort that I might not have to be so fastidious when I shop someday. Wouldn’t it be nice if the majority of products (or all, if we can really dream) were produced in the most ethical, humane, and responsible manner and the only thought you have to give one product vs. another is whether you like its color?

The release, from REI – a company I wish I had more opportunity to support (…just how much camping and recreational gear can I reasonably fit in our house?) – notes that the company will be using a new label to identify products it sells that are “eco-sensitive.” What exactly does the label signify? Here’s a clip from REI’s site:

“As a company, industry and society, we are recognizing the need to tackle the challenges of ’sustainable’ products. From materials to production processes to transportation, there is a lot to do, but we believe that through innovation and creativity it is possible to design affordable outdoor gear and apparel that delivers quality, functionality, great style and better environmental performance.

“REI’s eco-sensitive program is a first step. By identifying better materials and offering a description of the benefits (and drawbacks) of these fabrics we hope to help consumers make informed choices and become more educated on the issues of ‘green’ products. We have started with an emphasis on fabrics with a high percentage of renewable, recycled and/or organic fibers.”

“Neat, but why is that a big deal,” you might think. I think it is important because it is a step in the right direction. I am just as big of a proponent of education initiatives, as I am of companies offering greater socially responsible options to its customers. It appears that REI will manage to provide its consumers with both. Rather than just stashing some brochures on the wall, or including a few green products in their mix, they are making a push to notify and educate their patrons and also provide them with more socially responsible consumption choices.

While I think it is great when a retailer offers something like Fair Trade coffee along side regular coffee, I rarely see the retailer take the next step and educate the people that scamper by the product. (I see this at Costco quite a bit — there are a number of Fair Trade and organic products available, priced quite well, but little to no information provided as to what those designations mean. To the consumer, if they are unaware and do not take the time to read the package, the products are simply another choice, and often just a few cents more expensive.)

I’ll try to visit a few REI locations over the next few months to see what I think in person, but from a concept standpoint, I think the idea is quite positive.

TAGS: REI | green | sustainability | CSR | social responsibility | eco-sensitive

I was browsing through the news this morning and noticed a somewhat catchy article title: If Good Ethics is Good Business, What’s the Problem? …nothing groundbreaking implied, but still an interesting topic in my book. So I clicked through and started to read. Just two sentences deep, and I was already questioning my decision — did the author just imply that Fortune 500 companies and tanning salons as having similar ethical issues? (Evidently, they do, but it was still a rather odd correlation to hear without having expected it.)

Despite my misgivings, I continued to read, and am very glad that I did. The article, written  by Frank C. Bucaro for a magazine called Looking Fit, is actually a very good overview of why business ethics are important for companies of all sizes, not just the massive ones. Bucaro touches on ethical dilemmas, code of ethics, maintaining proper ethics trainings, and promoting ethical behavior by acknowledging and praising it when it occurs. Again, nothing groundbreaking, but well thought out and well put. If you have a minute or two, and can read while in your tanning booth, I recommend checking it out.

Research and Markets yesterday released a new book called Ethics, Psyche and Social Responsibility. The book explores the employer/employee dynamic and how elements such as the company’s social responsibility impacts that relationship. From the release:

“This important book considers the psychological aspects of organizational life, particularly in the context of firms’ ethical behaviour and its implications for corporate social responsibility. The authors consider the effects of corporate activity and change on individuals, not just in their working lives, but also in their family and social lives. They address a diverse number of topics from a variety of theoretical standpoints in an ongoing attempt to redress this neglected field of research.”

The topic certainly sounds interesting, though I have not had a chance to read or otherwise preview the text. At roughly $99 for the hard cover, I think graduate school courses may be the book’s primary market.

TAGS: CSR | Social Responsibility | HR | Psychology | Organizational Behavior | Retention

Via Triple Pundit (Firms With CSR Policy Thrive), there is more evidence that companies which prioritize corporate social responsibility tend to do quite well. Here is an interesting snipped from the post:

“…the studies show that sustainability front-runners tend to create sustained competitive advantage, having outperformed the general stock market by 25 per cent since August 2005. Of those, 72 per cent have outperformed their peers over the same period.”

Take a few moments to read the United Nations Global Compact release referenced in the Triple Pundit post as well: Groundbreaking Studies by the United Nations, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company Show Benefits of Corporate Responsibility.

CSRwire today has a release from SustainableBusiness.com that presents the first positive news I have read regarding the real estate industry in some months: Real Estate Industry Quietly Embracing Green Development, Progressive Investor Reports. Following are a few interesting snippets:

“In an analysis of the industry, Progressive Investor reports that 41% of the 300 U.S. real estate investment trusts (REITs) are actively pursuing energy efficiency and green building upgrades and another 27% plan to do so.”

Those figures are a bit too low to be firmly optimistic, but promising nonetheless. Several factors were cited for the increased interest in incorporating green design into real estate:

• Higher energy costs
• Lower cost of “building green” than in years prior
• Increasing client/tenant preference for green buildings
• Noted increase in high-profile clients establishing green corporate headquarters (Bank of America, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, and others mentioned)
• Increasing mandate for green building
• Preemptive attempt to flush non-green and/or older and more inefficient properties from portfolios by real estate firms

TAGS: CSR | green building | REIT | sustainability | sustainable design | green design