Harmonizing the Rules of Business with the Laws of Nature
Environmental Debt: The Hidden Costs of a Changing Global Economy, written by Amy Larkin and researched by Johanna Goetzel, was released by Palgrave Macmillan June 25, 2013.
The book connects the financial and environmental crises – through both causes and solutions. The book introduces the “Nature Means Business Framework for the 21st Century,” which provides a road map for connecting the Return On Investment (ROI) of business with the survival of the natural world.
The three pillars of the The Nature Means Business Framework aim to empower profitable business that, by nature, coexist with the environment. They are as follows:
(1) Pollution can no longer be free and can no longer be subsidized
(2) The long view must guide all decision-making and accounting
(3) Government plays a vital role in catalyzing clean technology and growth while preventing environmental destruction.
Larkin’s “greatest hope is that Environmental Debt promulgates new ideas into the culture that in turn change our understanding of business.” The book reveals the common ground between business, civil society, science, religion, culture and policy reformers. The ideas presented in the book take on extended life through an online forum called The Transition Agenda, hosted by RESOLVE, where individuals from a variety of sectors can discuss and engage with issues essential to our survival. No nature, no business.
Reviews of the book have been encouraging. Publishers Weekly writes: “For anyone interested in environmental and economic policy, this is a fascinating, provocative book. Brisk, bold, and blunt, Larkin is a devastating critic of current business practices, but she wants to inspire, not scold.”
A New York native, Larkin writes about local and global issues in a clear and direct way. Her years of work with Greenpeace along with her entrepreneurial experience present the short and long term impacts of environmental debt. The tone is encouraging–action is possible, and the time is now!
Amy Larkin blogs for the Huffington Post about these and other issues.
coauthored with Jody Dean–
The Bloomberg administration is coming to a close and the search for a new mayor is in full swing. In addition to the usual policy questions typically raised during a mayoral race, the 2013 candidates were offered an unprecedented opportunity to outline their platforms on food policy.
The need for more resilient and sustainable food policy and infrastructure for New York is well documented, and is the subject of a number of food systems and anti-hunger organizations. Spearheaded by the Brooklyn Food Coalition, the groundbreaking “Mayoral candidate forum on the future of food in New York City” was convened to engage the candidates in a discussion about food policy as an “economic, health, environmental and labor initiative.” Through this forum, the public and over 1,000 attendees were able to hear the position of each mayoral candidate on issues related to food policy, food access, and the future of food in New York. These topics, while essential to the health and stability of the city, are frequently left out of mayoral debates or tied in with other issues, such as education.
Of the nine declared candidates, six attended the forum, moderated by Marion Nestle, Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. The questions posed to the candidates fall under three banners: healthy and sustainable food for schools, expanding access to services and aid programs (SNAP and WIC) and labor issues within the industry. The conversation included a discussion about how best to integrate a food policy platform.
Hunger is a complex problem and it is essential that it is addressed on multiple levels. Food availability, one important piece of combatting hunger, is an issue that impacts the entire economic and social system. Food access and utilizations are factors central to strengthening the links between food, community, health and economics under the purview of the mayor. Candidates must think about the underlying factors including socio-economic status that limit food accessibility, availability of resources, and allocate more funding for social safety nets.
According to Feeding America, 2011 census data shows that the State of New York is 14.7% food insecure. Rate of food insecurity are higher, on average, in the five boroughs: in Queens, 14% of the population is food insecure. In Manhattan (Kings county) 20.4% and in Bronx, 23.3%.
All participating candidates spoke about the SNAP program and noted the overall positive impact for participants, though candidate John Castimatidis mentioned that he preferred the WIC program, which he believed was less prone to fraud.
Suggestions to improve SNAP in the following ways were discussed:
1. Destigmatize assisted food aid programs
2. Extend free meals through the summer and maximize participation (a position advocated for by the Food Bank of New York)
3. Offer more opportunities for enrollment (and locations)
4. Increase the number of vendors who can process SNAP (improve technology in stores and bodegas)
Another area ripe for expansion is increased partnerships with farmers markets and CSAs to promote consumption of fresh and seasonal fruits and vegetables. Further, programs like the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program that matches money spent by SNAP participants up to $20 per transaction for the purchase of state-grown produce. The program, already in place in Michigan, could be implemented in New York stores and farmers markets. Many green markets already accept EBT in New York and perhaps green carts can also be outfitted with the technology to do so.
Several candidates, including Anthony Weiner and Bill De Blasio, spoke of appointing food czars or deputy directors of food programs who work cross-sectorally to develop programs and then partner with local groups like Justfood to monitor and evaluate progress.
The food service industry is an essential piece of the food economy in New York and as such, the millions of participants must be respected and protected to ensure safety of food and workers and foster an inclusive community where food brings us together instead of magnifies the socioeconomic divide. A large portion of the food service population cannot currently afford sufficient food for themselves or families.
Those seeking to improve the wages and wellbeing of food workers must also acknowledge that a large proportion of food-service workers commute long distances to work. The Gothamist illustrates this fact with a map with census data to show just how long commutes to jobs in the City are for many workers. They reported that in Manhattan, twice as many workers commute from another county (1.6 million) as live there (830,000). Time spent in transit is time lost for wage earnings. The economically stratified city means that there are a very few people who work where they live.
Candidates spoke of real estate changes that could help reduce the proportion of sales that go toward rent (John Catsimatidis said that in New York it is close to 10 percent while in New Jersey it is merely 1.5 percent). Changing this by increasing 80–20 housing and mixed use real estate could radically change the goods and services economy. Other interventions including the following can help in the short term:
1. Increase the minimum wage. The General Industry Minimum Wage Act has set a $7.25 wage in many states, including New York. According to candidate Sal Albanese, that is not livable wage.
2. Hire locally when possible, develop neighborhood economies to support food systems.
3. Increase educational opportunities for industry workers.
While a food policy platform was ostensibly the focus on the forum, not all of the candidates address this issue directly within their campaigns. Rather than answering the questions about hunger, school food and the food economy, many instead rolled these issues into other sectors of their campaign platforms, such as displeasure with Mayor Bloomberg’s policy initiatives or reducing the amount of money spent on healthcare.
This seems to indicate that despite the focus on food systems provided by the forum, the future of food in New York City may not yet be at the forefront of the city’s political consciousness. Historically, the work around these issues has been carried by non-profits and community groups, and that trend is likely to continue until city government embraces the idea of developing a more sustainable and resilient food system.
On several occasions the candidates spoke of the need for collaboration between government, business and civil society. Food system governance efficiency can be increased through having an open collaboration. Some candidates spoke from personal experience, including John Catsimatidis, who is the owner of Gristedes, about the advantages of larger stores and chains. Others advocated for bodegas and fresh carts to receive greater subsidies and support.In all cases, it is important to support the equitable operations of a combination of small markets (and incubator spaces, like La Marqueta mentioned by Christine Quinn) and larger chains where supply chains are clearly stated (i.e. Whole Foods).
Strategies for building a more integrated and resilient food systems will likely emerge when candidates are pushed and held accountable. Marion Nestle noted her “astonishment” that food was a taking a primary focus in the race, however there is still a lot of work to be done in addressing the underlying issues of access, healthfulness and expanding SNAP and WIC. The forum was a great occasion for dialogue. More opportunities for discussion about food economy, ecology, and political systems are essential for New York’s sustained health.
Links to each candidate’s campaign issues are available:
coauthored with Jody Dean–
[Over coming weeks, the staff of City Atlas will be presenting summaries, analysis, and public feedback on the city’s monumentalSIRR report about rebuilding and resilience, which includes lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and plans for the city in the face of new challenges from a changing climate.]
The climate analysis section includes this photo, a reminder that NYC has flooded in the past. (Photo NYT)
Extreme events often prompt questions that begin with “why?” Why now? Why me? Why here? Due to the chaotic nature of the climate system, there is no simple answer to these questions. Part of the answer, though, can be found by examining past climate trends and projections for the future. Extreme events like Sandy cause huge impacts, the most jarring being the loss of lives and the displacement of people from their homes. There are also massive monetary costs associated with rebuilding. We will all bear the burden of these costs, through taxes and resource reallocation.
The Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) report offers targeted suggestions for policymakers regarding the development of more resilient systems for New York, in order to make the impacts of extreme events and climate change manageable rather than catastrophic.
In time and with the increased political gravitas delivered by this extensive report and ongoing discussion around it, the conversation can shift from “why did this happen to us?” to “how can we adapt and rebuild responsibly”? This refocused question allows us to move forward and is made possible by understanding the chronic hazards faced by the city and the potential impacts of extreme events, whose frequency and severity are likely to increase with the changing climate.
The full report includes a climate analysis section (hi res pdf) that documents the impact of historic extreme weather events and provides a context for future climate scenarios, along with the projected costs. The SIRR utilizes climate models developed for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5). The AR5 concludes that “long-term changes in climate mean that when extreme weather events strike, they are likely to be increasingly severe and damaging.” Despite the extreme and historic nature of the event, Sandy was not the first storm to cause significant damage. The timeline below illustrates other coastal storm events with major impacts on New York City. As with Sandy, the effects of these storms were experienced all along the Eastern Seaboard.
The vulnerability of the city to coastal storms is nothing new, but as previously noted, climate change will exacerbate the situation by worsening extreme events and chronic conditions. As indicated in the IPCC AR5, over the past century sea levels in New York City have risen over a foot, while simultaneously temperatures are increasing. The scientific consensus is that these trends will accelerate and this is highlighted in the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) 2013 climate projections, which were included in the SIRR report.
Source: NPCC
In addition to these chronic hazards, another vulnerability highlighted in the SIRR is the city’s use of outdated Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM’s), which show the percentage of land that lies within the so-called “100-year” and “500-year” floodplains. At the time that Sandy hit, the FIRM’s had not been updated since 1983, though in 2007 the City formally requested that FEMA update the maps to include the last 30 years of data. The lack of updated maps left the city with an inaccurate view of the percentage of land at risk for flooding and the areas that flooded during Sandy were several times larger than the floodplains outlined in the 1983 FIRM’s. The SIRR emphasized the importance of regularly updated maps to assist with adaptation and mitigation strategies for coastal flooding.
The climate analysis section also explained the frequently misunderstood classification of a “100-year” or “500-year” event. Classifying an area as part of a “100-year floodplain” indicates that there is a 1 percent chance of a flood occurring in the area in a given year and that experiencing a 100-year flood does not decrease the chance of a second 100-year flood occurring that same year or any year that follows. Following these calculations, Klaus Jacob writes in the June issue of Scientific American that, “the chance of what had been a one-in-100-year storm surge occurring in New York City will be one in 50 during any year in the 2020s, one in 15 during the 2050s and one in two by the 2080s.” The city is now working again with the NPCC to develop more accurate “future flood maps” to assist with the rebuilding, planning and adaptation efforts.
The climate analysis section concludes with specific, forward-looking initiatives for planning along New York City’s 520 miles of coastline, including a network of floodwalls, levees and bulkheads to protect buildings and inhabitants. More than encouraging “emergency preparedness,” longer-term scenario planning will be necessary in order to adequately safeguard New York and its growing population. Further, climate projects need to be regularly updated in order to adequately inform decision making.
Advocating that we “plan ambitiously,” the SIRR report suggests that mitigation efforts require buy-in from policy makers, planners and insurers and civil society. Cynthia Rosenzweig, NPCC co-chair, makes the salient point that adaptation plans cannot succeed “without taking the voices of neighborhoods into account.” In order to best address questions of “why me,” vulnerability must be analyzed at multiple levels and the resulting plans backed by financial investment for addressing the continued threat of climate change. Above all, the SIRR report emphasizes that building capacity for resilience requires accurate data to assess the potential impacts and the tools and financial resources available to implement solutions.
The full report can be found here, and is a marvel of lucid explanation: it’s a self-contained, benchmark work that integrates climate and urban planning for the most populous city in the world’s largest economy.
Additional Reading:
–Coastal subsidence also plays a role in NYC coastal vulnerability. Providing historical analysis and vivid maps, Mark Fischetti’s Scientific American article explains how North American glacier retreat began over 20,000 years ago and little by little, has resulted in the eastern U.S. landmass sinking as the crust adjusts to the unloading.
–The question of whether or not rebuilding after natural disaster has been hotly debated since Sandy. Tom Ashbrook tackled this question in a February 2013 On Point Podcast.
– Our interview with Klaus Jacob, who also raises the question of rebuilding in areas that will become increasingly endangered over time.
Interview with Joe Aldy who was special assistant to President Barack Obama for energy and environment, and represented the White House during climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancún, Mexico, in 2010. He stepped down last December and now teaches public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School.
Q: Kyoto Protocol commitments by industrialized nations will run out next year. Does Kyoto have a future?
A: Kyoto doesn't necessarily disappear, but the idea of splitting the world into developed and developing economies on this issue seems destined to disappear. More than half of emissions are coming from the developing world. If we don't adjust to that, then everything we are negotiating and all of the actions that will be driven by these negotiations will be inadequate to the challenge of climate change.
The solipsism of business and the Théâtre de l'Absurde of governments are exacerbating this divide. Both business and governments need to be held accountable for their actions. This means commending the progress of leaders and calling out laggards who disrespect nature and disadvantage people. Adjusting to the changing environment means that every decision must be a mindful one because the planet cannot sustain ignorance and we cannot suffer fools.
"We're continually looking at just about any opportunity for someone to buy a sandwich, wherever that might be. The closer we can get to the customer, the better," Mr. Fertman says, explaining that it now has almost 8,000 Subways in unusual locations. "The non-traditional is becoming traditional."
But how do you get there? The road to 100 percent renewable begins with establishing the goal for your organization, measuring your current mix of electricity sources (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric), and assessing the potential for generating renewable energy on-site or nearby. The next steps include implementing energy efficiency projects and investing the financial savings to develop your renewable energy program. Along the way, consider purchasing Green-e certified RECs to mitigate your existing carbon footprint and continuously monitor for new local or remote opportunities for directly harnessing renewable energy.
I’m excited that you’re here!
I encourage you to look around, make suggestions and by all means contribute. I plan to share my musing on how our actions effect the natural world and examine leverage points for change.
My blog is called “Johanna’s Hot Spots” and it is about climate change, your life and other things that get me hot and bothered.
Thank you.
Twenty US companies have agreed to take more account of environmental issues, such as water use and greenhouse gas emissions, as a result of investor resolutions, in a sign of increased pressure on industries such as power generation and oil and gas production.
Of those resolutions - which included calls for actions such as investigating the threat of the loss of water supplies or aligning executive pay to environmental performance - 20 have now been withdrawn because the companies satisfied the investors' demands.
Mumbai-based Alok is selling its textiles to clients with contracts based on cotton prices in the range of $1.80 to $1.90, Agarwal said. The retail price of a towel may rise by as much as 40 percent because of cotton jumping to above $2 from $1 in September, he said.
Higher cotton prices are also prompting several companies to use more man-made fabrics, Agarwal said. The commodity's share of the global textile market will shrink to 20 percent by 2020 as mills switch to polyester and other chemical fibers to remain profitable, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee.
