The EPA published a news release last week stating that fast food giant McDonald’s is number eleven on the EPA’s 2012 list of top 50 green-powered organizations.  I was intrigued by this.  Were they re-using their fry oil to create bio-diesel to run their supply trucks?  They have a guaranteed supply of used oil, that’s for sure.  (A little Googling reveals that, in fact, McDonald’s in some foreign countries are already doing this)  A little further digging on the EPA website revealed that McDonald’s spot in the top 50 was earned through the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from U.S. wind sources.  Renewable energy certificates are tradable energy commodities representing proof that 1 megawatt-hour of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source.  Whether they are truly using green power depends on how you define “use.”  In addition to the purchase of RECs, McDonald’s has also worked on reducing energy consumption via energy efficiency initiatives and technical innovations, including the installation of photovoltaic panels and energy efficient lighting in some restaurants.

 A further look at the top 50 list revealed some interesting (to me) entries.  WalMart is number four on the list, getting 28% of their total electricity use in California and Texas stores from biogas, solar and wind energy.  Lockheed Martin is number fifteen, getting 15% of their total electricity use from solar and wind energy. Boeing of South Carolina (#36 on the list) comes in at 100% of their total electricity use from biomass and solar energy, with some generated on-site.  Carnegie Mellon University (#40 on the list) appears to actually be giving back (or buying) extra green energy, as, according to the EPA list, it gets 103% of its total electricity use from solar and wind energy, again with some generated on-site.  Leave it to an educational institution to get “extra credit.”

 While all of the entries on the list may not actually be using green energy, to me, it’s a step in the right direction.  While I’m sure the merits of using RECs, as well as what kind and how much, run deeper than this blog will get in to, the bottom line is that something is better than nothing.  While companies may strive to produce their own power or recycle/reuse their water, that is not always attainable or profitable for them.  As always, profit is the bottom line.  Until that changes (not likely) or until the company’s users push for a change (and are willing to pay for it), companies will do what they can.  So, next time you pull through the McDonald’s drive-thru for some french fries, be it in your Hummer, Smart Car or something in between, remember that a little bit of green power was used to help make them.

Sunday, April 22 is the 42^nd celebration of Earth Day. While the very early celebrations of Earth Day helped to bring about such watershed changes as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the day has continued to be important as a way to disseminate knowledge and appreciation for the environment. There are bound to be local celebrations and initiatives for you to participate in wherever you live, but there are also national and global initiatives.

A Billion Acts of Green® is an environmental service campaign started in 2011 by the Earth Day Network. It gives people a place to pledge a commitment they’ve made to help the earth. Recent entries include, “I pledge to reduce my use of products with disposable packaging.” And, “I pledge to plant an herb garden on my balcony.” The goal is to reach 1 billion “Acts of Green” by the June 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. There are currently over 980 million pledges.

This year’s push by the Earth Day Network is to Mobilize the Earth™. It is a campaign to “demand action from the world’s governments to embrace renewable energy, invest in energy efficiency, end dirty fuel subsidies, and make energy accessible to all.” The goal is to assemble the necessary support, through actions like petitions and voter registration, to present their demands at the June 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro.

Whether you plan to do something large or something simple, like turning the water off while you brush your teeth, I think it is important to remember all of these pledges and promises the rest of the year as well. Oftentimes there is a big push on a celebratory day, like Earth Day, to do something “big” or “meaningful” (the same could be said of Valentine’s Day). Unfortunately, after the excitement and fervor of the crowd is gone, so is the incentive to follow through on any pledges that were signed or promises that were made. The Earth Day Network seems to be trying to keep the spirit going, but, as always, is up to the individual to follow through on their own pledges and promises. So please, celebrate Earth Day on Sunday, but remember to celebrate it throughout the year, too.

Facebook is in the news again.  But this time it’s not what the social media giant is doing, but what Facebook users are being asked to do.  Stories surfaced a few weeks ago about employers asking potential employees for their Facebook username and password.  There is no question that savvy employers are using simple searches on the internet to find out what potential employees are up to.  But asking for their username and password crosses a boundary that most people are uncomfortable with, as well as bringing up questions about the legality of the practice.  Given the still shaky job market, many people feel that they have no choice but to surrender this private information in order to get a job.

All of this lands us in the murky waters of internet regulation.  Facebook released a statement warning employers against the practice of asking for Facebook passwords. Two U.S. senators are working to get this practice under control.  Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate these claims under the argument that the practice violates the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  In addition, Senator Leland Yee of California plans to sponsor a bill that would stop employers from asking potential employees for their social network passwords.

I think it’s interesting that employers are prohibited by state and federal laws from asking about your race, religion, marital status, age, or sexual preference, yet these are all things that are available in your Facebook profile.  These laws have not yet caught up with social media.  Catherine Crump, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “I think it’s going to take some years for courts to decide whether Americans in the digital age have the same privacy rights.”  I wonder if we’ll look back on this in five or ten years and think it was no big deal.  We are certainly in uncharted territory as far as social media and what may be considered crossing the line.  What seems outrageous to adults now may seem like nothing to kids who have grown up with the technology that lets them share minute details of their lives.  When they enter the workforce, maybe it won’t be such a big issue for them.  What do you think?

I read an article in The Economist last week titled “United States’ economy: Over-regulated America” that nicely articulated how I often feel when I hear or read about new laws.  Namely, that things are becoming over-complicated and in the process sometimes hurting more than they help.

There seems to be an overall trend of trying to make sure that a regulation accounts for every possible outcome of a process.  This is never going to happen, no matter how hard people try.  Every single thing cannot be accounted for, and in trying to do so, the law becomes so complex that no one can understand it.  And let’s face it, if someone wants to find a loop hole for a particular regulation, they’re going to find it.  So now you have a law that is so complex that it’s hard to tell if someone is actually in violation of it in the first place. 

In some cases, laws meant to help can actually be detrimental.  The Sarbanes-Oxley law set new standards for public company boards, their management and public accounting firms.  The law is supposed to help prevent fraud, but it has made it so difficult to become a publicly traded entity that America’s share of initial public offerings (IPOs) fell from 67% in 2002 to 16% in 2011.   This is not good news for an economy that is still on shaky ground.  That isn’t to say that some sort of law shouldn’t be in place, but maybe we need one with less red tape.

Another example is health-care reform.  There are (in my opinion) many potential benefits in this law.  However, one of the unintended consequences is the increase in the number of categories of injuries and illnesses that hospitals must use to bill insurance companies for reimbursement.  The number is growing from 18,000 to 140,000, including “…nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.” I would love to know the story behind that one.  Look, I don’t know much about health care except that it seems like it needs some major reform.  And making things even more complex and time-consuming than they already are doesn’t seem to be the way to achieve that.   Again, a good idea, but one that seems to have gotten mired down in the details. 

I think all of these enormous, nearly impossible to understand laws come from a good place.  They just get bogged down in the process.  Perhaps we need to pass a law requiring the simplification of laws.  Wait a minute…

How many people reading this have already checked Facebook today? Its allure is strong.  It’s a one-stop shop where one can reconnect with old friends, make new friends, play games, join like-minded groups, read the news…the list goes on and on.  Well, soon you will have the chance to own your very own piece of that addictive pie.  Facebook filed its Initial Public Offering (IPO) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) earlier this month to become a publicly traded and owned entity.  In a letter to potential shareholders CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “We’re going public for our employees and our investors.  We made a commitment to them when we gave them equity that we’d work hard to make it worth a lot and make it liquid, and this IPO is fulfilling our commitment.  As we become a public company, we’re making a similar commitment to our new investors and we will work just as hard to fulfill it.”  Facebook generated $3.7 billion in revenue in 2011, and could be valued between $75 and $100 billion when it goes public.

An article in The Economist (Facebook: A fistful of dollars) warns that Facebook faces a couple of issues that may give investors pause.  One is how the company will continue to operate with the same level of urgency with employees who will suddenly become “paper millionaires” when the stock goes public.  The second is an issue with a broader scope and the potential for regulatory backlash.

Facebook knows a lot about its users.  And it is constantly working on ways to find out more.  The idea being that the more it knows, the better it can cater to its users' specific wants and needs.  This is a nebulous area for many people.  It’s also an area that is hard to regulate, which could cause problems for the company down the road.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has already sentenced Facebook to twenty years of twice-yearly privacy audits and has required that Facebook get consent from its users before sharing their information.  This results from a two-year investigation into Facebook for “unfair and deceptive business practices” including promising users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers (it did) and representing third-party apps as having access to only user information they needed to operate when the apps could actually access nearly all of the users’ personal data, even when they didn’t need it to operate the app.

Basically, Facebook’s greatest asset also has the potential to be its greatest downfall. Facebook is free (Their slogan: “It’s free and always will be.”), so profits have always come from display ads—chosen based on a specific user’s information to be most of interest to them.  If Facebook violates its users' trust, it risks losing access to their information as well as any potential buying power they may bring with them. I’m sure that many people and companies will watch with interest as this process proceeds.

The Costa Concordia cruise ship ran aground off the coast of Italy almost a week ago.  As the search for survivors, sadly, winds down, the efforts to pump the large reserves of fuel and oil off of the ship ramp up.  The ship is carrying around 2,400 metric tons of diesel fuel and lubricating oil…an amount comparable to a small oil tanker.  The fuel tanks appear to be intact currently, but as the ship continues to lie, half-submerged, in uncertain ocean waters, there is no telling what could change, or when. 

The method being used to remove the fuel is a process referred to as “hot tapping.”  Since the oil and fuel are so thick, they must be heated up before being removed.  This is accomplished by pumping steam into the storage tanks to make the oil or fuel more liquid.  They can then be siphoned off into a waiting tanker as sea water is pumped in to maintain the ship’s precarious balance.  This will need to be done for 13 external fuel tanks and 10 internal tanks. 

Corrado Clini, Environment Minister of Italy, said it would take about a month to extract the fuel for the external tanks but had no estimate on the internal tanks, which are much harder to access.  He also said it would be better, if the ship does sink deeper, for the fuel tanks to rupture and for the fuel to float to the top of the ocean.  While this would look scary, it would make the fuel easy to see and recover.  If the fuel leaks out slowly it would take years to clean up and create more long term damage.

No matter where in the ocean an oil/fuel spill occurs or has the potential to occur it is bad news for the environment.  But in this case, a spill would affect not only the environment, but the livelihoods of many nearby residents.  That’s because the Costa Concordia ran aground off of Giglio Island, a renowned diving site and home to diverse plant and animal species.  Tourism is the number one industry in Giglio, and residents and business owners are rightfully concerned that the cleanup proceeds quickly and cleanly.  Massimiliano Botti, owner of a restaurant in Giglio said, “If there is a massive fuel spill, we might as well close everything down, throw away the key and come back in 10 years.”  It has yet to be decided what will be done with the ship itself once all of the fuel has been removed.  It is likely that it will be cut up and hauled away for scrap—a process that will adversely affect the marine environment no matter how carefully it is done.

While there are many unanswered questions—how did this happen?, who is responsible?, what are the long-term ramifications?—what is certain is that this is a tragedy, one that could have been much worse, but also one that didn’t need to happen at all.  Hopefully the cleanup will go as quickly and smoothly as possible, justice will be served where it is due and the plants and animals that live around Giglio Island will be impacted as little as possible.

It has been two years since a 7.0 magnitude earthquake leveled large areas of Haiti, including much of the capital, Port-au-Prince.  Since that time, despite billions of dollars of international donations and aid, there has been little headway made in recovery and reconstruction efforts.  Many people complain that the government is at fault.  The new president, former Carnival singer “Sweet Micky” Michel Martelly, was sworn in in May, promising to bring change to the country.  Things are starting off slow, however.  Fighting a parliament filled with his political opponents, it took him five months just to get a prime minister appointed. 

The government in Haiti is certainly not known for its strength or integrity.  This may be why, out of the billions of dollars of donations and aid that Haiti has received, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private contractors and other non-state service providers have received 99 percent of that aid.  Even before the earthquake NGOs provided much of Haiti’s healthcare and education.  The strength of these NGOs has created what an article in The Huffington Post entitled “Is Haiti Doomed to Be the Republic of NGOs?” calls an “…alternative infrastructure for the provision of social services, creating little incentive for the government to build its capacity to deliver services.”

In a statement released marking the 2 year anniversary of the earthquake, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) special envoy to Haiti, Michaëlle Jean said, “The absence of laws and regulations to standardize construction works, for want of a provident government willing to use its authority to enforce standards, this is what made nearly 300,000 people dead.”  It also seems to be playing a role in the slow pace of clean-up and reconstruction.  The Huffington Post article proposes that the Haitian government (and the NGOs that are committed to supporting it) focus on core aspects of government including security, core infrastructure and legal and regulatory reforms.  These are key areas that would greatly improve the chances of the country achieving a sustained recovery and perhaps less future dependence on NGOs. 

I recall there being much talk immediately following the earthquake that this was a chance for Haiti to really rebuild itself, and its infrastructure, from the ground up.  Two years later and it, unfortunately, is not looking promising.  I know these things are not simple tasks, and that they take time.  I hope that we can look back in two more years and say, “What a great job Haiti has done rebuilding itself!”

 The United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP17/CMP7) was held in Durban, South Africa this November 28 through December 9.  Given the tough economic times that many countries are facing right now, many people were apprehensive about the outcome of the conference and what changes it might bring to already struggling countries and economies.  The need for some kind of change is imperative, though.  The UN estimates that, given the current trajectory of world greenhouse gas emissions, 2020 emissions will exceed the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius. 

What came out of the Durban conference was an agreement by the European Union to continue emissions abatement under the Kyoto protocol.  In return, all countries, including the highly polluting developing countries of China and India, will negotiate a new mitigation regime by 2015, with the goal of making it operational by 2020.  Perhaps the biggest breakthrough of the conference was that this new emissions mitigation regime will be shared among all countries, developed or developing.  This is important, given that developing countries are now responsible for 58% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  The Durban deal also acknowledges that current mitigation efforts are not enough to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius.

Indeed, when it comes down to the people and businesses that actually need to make the changes, things are still not exactly clear.  The head of sustainability and climate change at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Jonathan Grant, said, “The agreement reached was more of a victory for the UN process, than for the global climate, or in creating a new business imperative.” “Business will shrug its shoulders over Durban and wait for direction from national capitals.”

However, even with a lack of formal regulation, some businesses are making the choice to implement changes that help counteract global warming.  Many businesses have discovered that some “green” investments, like energy efficiency and improved waste management, make commercial and financial sense.  High oil prices mean that improved energy efficiency can end up saving a business a lot of money, with the “side” benefit of being better for the environment.  According to the Carbon Disclosure Project, “59% of emissions-reducing investments made so far—mostly in energy efficiency or renewable energy—will pay for themselves in three years.”  Renewable energy, such as solar and wind energy, is attractive because the electricity generated from solar panels or wind turbines goes directly back into the business.  Businesses with operations in remote areas (such as some mining operations) can benefit from being able to provide their own electricity.  These businesses may be ahead of the game in other areas, as well.  A business with the foresight to develop or use products that consume fewer natural resources will be ahead of the game both environmentally and monetarily when the supply of natural resources dries up.

Thanksgiving is a time for giving thanks and spending time with friends and family.  Traditionally, it isn’t a time to think of regulations, unless maybe you’re talking about football.  But, like everything, there are regulations in place that help make your Thanksgiving a safe and happy one.  There are regulations regarding the growing and processing of many of the stars of the dinner table…turkey, cranberries and sweet potatoes to name a few.  If you’re going to hunt your own turkey, there are plenty of regulations making sure you do it safely and within the proper borders. There are also such things as sweet potato weevil quarantines and cranberry commissions.  I didn’t see any specific regulations for the classic can-shaped cranberry loaf that is part of many family traditions (mine included), but I’m sure they’re out there somewhere.

Traditionally, people also take time on Thanksgiving to reflect on what they are thankful for.  There are, again, the usual – being thankful for good friends and family, good health, a job, food on the table.  You may not be thinking about giving thanks from a regulatory angle, but there are plenty of reasons to be thankful for the fact that we live in a country where regulations on everything from air pollution to, well, turkey hunting, exist.  They keep us safe, protected, breathing reasonably clean air, and with assurances that, with the careful regulation of turkey populations, there will be plenty of turkeys available for us to put on our Thanksgiving tables for years to come.

In wrapping up this turkey-themed post, I think it would be remiss if we didn’t look at phrases with the word “turkey” in them.  Take, for example, the phrase “let’s talk turkey.”  It means to talk, in a plain and straight-forward manner, about a difficult or awkward subject.  I’m sure many of these “turkey talks” have occurred over difficult subjects in the regulatory world.  Regulations, and a business’ compliance or non-compliance with them, is never a light-hearted matter.  There are many occasions in business where it is important to talk turkey.  There is also the phrase “cold turkey,” which means to stop something abruptly.  I’m sure there are times when a business must stop an activity cold turkey or face strong repercussions.  What it makes me think of, with my Thanksgiving-minded brain, is left-over turkey and the wonderful sandwiches that can be made from it.  Mmmmm!  Please, enjoy your Thanksgiving and take a moment to be thankful for everything that you have!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are working together to examine the possibility of utilizing potentially contaminated sites, such as brownfields, Superfund sites and former landfills or mining sites as locations for renewable energy production.  The study is part of EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, which was launched in 2008 to encourage the development of renewable energy on contaminated land. 

There are 26 sites in 20 states that are being evaluated for the potential use of wind, solar, biomass or geothermal energy production.  Each site will be evaluated to determine the best renewable energy type for the site, potential energy generating capacity, economic feasibility and return on investment. 

Successful examples of renewable energy projects being constructed on contaminated sites are already in existence.  Over 20 projects have been completed and more are underway.  In 2010, a six megawatt solar array was built on a superfund site in Sacramento County, CA.  The solar array is being used to power the cleanup of the site. 

One possible site under evaluation is the West Haymarket brownfield site in Lincoln, NE.  Funds from the feasibility study are being used to look at the possibility of using the site to generate renewable wind energy.  The energy could be used to power a planned 16,000 seat arena and other civic, commercial and retail projects.  Using wind energy would make the $340 million redevelopment project more sustainable and reduce its carbon footprint.

Another site undergoing evaluation is the Round Grove Creek Landfill, part of the Municipal Farm Site that is owned by the city of Kansas City, MO.  The site offers just over 14 acres of clear, level land, located close to a public utility substation and power lines, making it an ideal site for solar energy production.  Another area of the Municipal Farm Site, the Western Portion, contains 19 acres of brownfield sites and 120 acres of vacant, clear and level land located close to power lines and railroad lines, making the site ideal for biopower development. 

The overall goal of these studies is to provide information on the best way to renew and revitalize the potentially contaminated sites while protecting public health and the environment and providing economic benefits to the communities around them, including the creation of jobs.  Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response says, “These studies are the first step to transforming these sites from eyesores today to community assets tomorrow.”