Sustainability Blog

Puma's Radical Transparency

Written by Robert Kuhn Monday, 13 February 2012 15:00

Puma recently released its first-ever "Environmental Profit and Loss Account" report, which undertakes to estimate the financial costs of the environmental impacts from Puma's operations and those of its supply chain partners. It's a fascinating look inside the activities of a consumer giant. It shows that Puma estimates that over 90% of the costs associated with environmental impacts from being Puma (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water impacts, air pollution) occur outside of its own operations (Puma estimated costs through the first four tiers of its supply chain). That's not all that surprising. What is surprising however, is that Puma spent the time and resources to get at this information (albeit, through estimates and modeling) and then making that information available to all. That's a big leap forward in transparency and shows that putting financial costs estimates together for externalities can be done (yes, it's not the same as publishing proprietary data). Kudos to Puma ... and a valuable lesson to others who seek to move the ball forward in understanding environmental impacts better, reporting them out and advancing sustainability.

Is Fracking Safe?

Written by Robert Kuhn Friday, 09 December 2011 18:05

The New York Times reports that the U.S. EPA has preliminarily concluded that fracking activity in rural Wyoming has likely contaminated fresh water supplies in that area. The EPA learned of the possible problem in 2008 when residents reported a strange smell and taste in their well water. After drilling test wells, the EPA found high levels of benzene (a carcinogen), surfactants and other chemicals tied to the fracking process. So now the EPA is reviewing its findings, discussing them with the fracking company and trying to conclude whether there's a problem that requires a response. There's also the question of whether the contamination is likely tied to the region's unique geology and that other areas where fracking occurs won't experience this problem because their geology keeps contaminants away from water sources (usually, aquifers).

Fracking's a hot topic, for sure. As the Times says, it has "triggered a modern-day gold rush" because it represents an opportunity to get a more domestic fossil fuels for our energy needs. I guess my question would be: can't we have a simultaneous modern-day gold rush around alternative energy?

Water, Water Everywhere (?)

Written by Robert Kuhn Monday, 28 November 2011 18:34

Lately, I've been devoting more and more time to water issues in my practice. From answering client's questions about minimizing water impacts to developing and delivering Webinar content on Sustainable Water Management, it's been a water-filled Q4 2011. So it was with great interest that I came across a recent Economist article talking about the severity of water issues in South Asia. Consider the following:

• South Asia's growth rate adds 25m people per year to the region ... equal to the population of North Korea. And all these people need potable water.
• As many as 60 - 80 new dams will be built in the region in the next 20 to 30 years to increase the region's available power supply. These dams will forever alter the water equation in the region.
• 77m Bangladeshis were poisoned last year by arsenic, as they dug deeper and deeper wells to find potable water and water for irrigation.
• India and Pakistan, already bitter rivals, are on a collision course over the water in the Indus ... simultaneously taking contradictory actions to lay claim to this Himalayan-sourced lifestream.
• Speaking of the Himalayas, a recent Dutch study said that shrinking glaciers will cut the flow of water to the Indus by 8% by 2050.

I could go on, of course. And you say "but that's over there, not here." Well yes, that's true ... water is often a local or regional concern. But apart from the impacts that result from the political/social instability related to scarce resources, there are far-reaching impacts from water concerns related to how water gets "embedded" into products and services that are sold and distributed globally. If you buy a product sources from South Asia, the water situation of that region is (to a greater or lesser degree) "embedded" in that product. And if you operate a business in that region, you have real cause for concern about the water situation.

So it's no wonder I'm focusing a lot on water ... H2O is the up-and-coming CO2.

EPA, Air Pollution and (Whose) Reality

Written by Robert Kuhn Friday, 07 October 2011 17:50

Yesterday, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency proposed that it would relax the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for 10 of the 23 states to which it is intended to apply, but that proposed rollback wasn't good enough for some conservative voices. The EPA has estimated that the rule, first published in July of this year, would save as many as 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital/ER visits and 400,000 cases of acute asthma in the U.S. per year. So, that's "reality" #1. Less pollution = better health. The conservative voices say that now is not the time to burden already-strained industry with additional regulations. They say these regulations are "job killers" that would further imperil the weak economy in the United States. So there's a different reality ... "reality" #2.

There might be a bit of truth in both realities, I think. But what's missing from the argument in each reality is a common theme: sort-term vs. long-term thinking. Better health is a relatively long-term phenomenon (especially since the Rule won't kick in until 2014). Jobs are generally a short-term concern. Problem: the lack of an articulated energy policy in this country means we don't have consensus on where we stand as a nation on this spectrum. I'll grant you that the needle may shift from time to time, but there's really been no discussion of this aspect of environmental regulation. Without it, both "realities" exist on equal footing in a policy context and that's a bad thing.