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.

There is increased pressure, both legislatively and socially, for companies – and not just those in the EH&S sphere – to decrease their carbon footprint and implement more “green” workplace policies. Most employers can implement something as simple as a recycling program with little trouble, but few are willing to take on the expense of installing solar panels in their office space, for example. So what’s a company to do that wants a reduced carbon footprint at minimal cost, and with benefit to the bottom line?

One possible solution is implementing an employee telework initiative. According to the Telework Research Network, half-time telework (defined as employees working remotely 2-3 days a week) can accomplish the following:

• Reduce Gulf Oil imports by 45%.
• Save 281 million barrels of oil worth $22 billion in oil imports.
• Reduce carbon emissions by over 51 million metric tons a year (the equivalent of taking all of New York’s commuters off the road!)
• Reduce office energy consumption, roadway repairs, urban heating, office construction, business travel, and paper usage.
• Reduce road wear and tear (and associated repair costs) by 112 billion miles a year.

In addition,

• 70% of employees report they would see their companies in a more favorable light if they helped them reduce their carbon emissions.
• 24% of employees say they’d take a pay cut of up to 10% to help the environment.

Sun Microsystems reported that 19,000 U.S. employees (approximately 56% of their workforce) participated in their Open Work Program and avoided producing 52,000 tons of CO₂-equivalents emissions in 2008 by driving less often to and from work.

AT&T’s telework program enabled the employees who participated to avoid 175 million commute miles per year, with annual fuel savings of approximately 8 million gallons and a net reduction of 76,273 metric tons of CO₂-equivalents emissions per year.

A telework initiative also can be a way to cheaply implement some Clean Air Act requirements, as well as ADA accommodations for disabled employees.

How can you, as an employer, simply and easily initiate a telework program for your employees? There are many free resources available:

• The Telework Research Network has a Telework Savings Calculator so companies can quantify the potential cost savings
• ValleyMetro – the public transportation provider for the Phoenix metro area – has multiple tools available, such as a Cost-Benefit Analysis, sample telework plans and policies, and a free webinar. 
• The State of Arizona, long a proponent of telework policies, also has free online training available.

Maybe it’s easy to be green after all!

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?

If you happen to be one of the many people who like to catch up on the daily news over dinner at home in front of the TV, you may have had a nauseating experience in the last week as you bit into your hamburger or meatloaf.  “Pink slime” has been all over the news, even though it isn’t a new phenomenon.  Many Americans were first exposed to the disgusting details on the show Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution in early 2011, and the slimey ball has been gaining steam ever since.

“Pink slime” is the stomach-turning phrase used to describe “lean finely textured beef,” a filler made from beef trimmings and commonly treated with ammonia hydroxide. If you’re checking your package of grocery store ground meat, don’t expect to see “pink slime” in the list of ingredients.  Labeling regulations don’t require manufacturers, packagers or sellers to list the filler as a separate ingredient because it is made from beef itself and is a “process,” not an ingredient.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that it would allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to opt out of receiving beef that contains “pink slime.”  While the official opinion of the USDA is that lean finely textured beef is safe, demand and a public outcry over the debate led the USDA to allow schools to choose.  Following the end of existing contracts for the current school year, schools will have two choices: the existing, lean meat containing “pink slime” or ground beef that is higher in fat but doesn’t contain the controversial filler.

The USDA isn’t alone in taking a side in the “pink slime” debate, your favorite fast-food staples from McDonald’s, Burger King and Taco Bell won’t contain the filler as of earlier this year either. If you’re cooking at home, you’re not quite off the hook. Estimates that haven’t been confirmed by the USDA show that up to 70% of ground beef sold in U.S. grocery stores could contain “pink slime.”  Since labeling regulations don’t require the inclusion of the filler product, consumers will have a hard time identifying pure, unadulterated beef. 

Do you feel like you have been misled about the real content of the food you’ve been eating?  Do you trust the USDA’s opinion that “pink slime” is safe? 

It is that time of year again.  A hint of spring is in the air, there is the sound of birds singing in the mornings carrying a feeling of the warm weather to come.  Another sign of good things to come is the opening of baseball spring training camps.  All of those players who have hibernated for the winter show up in places like Florida and Arizona to get ready for another season of challenge and fan enjoyment.

We at Citation, being headquartered in Scottsdale, have a tradition of taking all staff who wants to go to an afternoon spring training game.  The planning for the outing starts months in advance and gives baseball fans like me and my wife the chance to have our own little spring break each year.  This year we are going to a Diamondbacks vs. Angels game.  Being from the east coast, and more specifically from the New York area, my wife and I happen to be die hard Yankee fans, but that doesn’t matter.  Going to the stadium, eating a few hot dogs and maybe drinking a beer or two will be a lot of fun.

So, you are probably saying by now, what does any of this have to do with rules and regulations?  Well, as I reflected on why many of us like the game as much as we do one fact came to mind, that of the constancy of the game itself.  The rules as set down by Alexander Cartwright back in 1845 (and I bet many of you thought I would say Abner Doubleday – who by the way I thought really was the inventor for the first 50 years of my life) haven’t really changed much since those early days of the game, and I think that is a prime reason for the sport’s popularity.

The rules are fair to both the offense and defense and thus the game is not tilted to one approach or the other.  The consistency of the rules allows for measurements to be made and thus year to year comparisons as well.  Half the fun of watching the game is to delve into the stats and make the comparisons between now and then.

That is not to say that there has not been controversy over the years, and it was usually caused by a rule change.  I was a young kid when Roger Maris hit 61 home runs to break the home run title held for many years by Babe Ruth.  I witnessed many heated discussions amongst my family, many of whom could not accept the fact that Roger could hold a title they claimed he was only able to achieve because of a rule change (the number of games played in a season). The asterisk discussions we were so involved in during the 1990s regarding steroids and statistics actually started back in 1961.

To balance the consistency of the basic game rules are the cultural differences that each of the baseball clubs have.  These cultures seem to just grow into themselves.  You have the business-like demeanor of the Yankees to the more free flowing, anything goes Oakland A’s.  It is these team differences that make each of us gravitate to the team that probably best matches our own approach to life.  To augment what I am trying to say here I would refer you to a column recently written by David Brooks, New York Times columnist, who has an excellent piece on how we pick the teams we root for, titled “Hey, Mets! I Just Can’t Quit You.”

So, thanks baseball, for following good and consistent rules played by a diverse collection of teams that will bring us again this year lots of anguish, anticipation, hope and despair – but most of all fun.

In this year of political positioning it seems to be very popular to decry regulation as onerous and unnecessary.  I believe that there is a race to the bottom in this particular subject and those that profess this course of action just don’t accept the facts.  Those who believe that the free market will take care of all things through its own built-in mechanisms should look at an example of smart regulation that affects each of us every day.

 In the March 12, 2012 issue of Time magazine there appeared an article titled “Safer Passage.”  The gist of the article was primarily to show that traffic deaths have fallen to all-time record lows.  The lead of that article stated that, “America’s roadways are safer than ever.  The latest data show that traffic fatalities are at the lowest level since 1949 and that the death rate based on miles traveled is the lowest in history.”  Now, this great achievement didn’t happen by accident and it sure didn’t happen because free market forces were solely at work.

The article had a graphic that indicated the major milestones from 1952 to the present day that lead to achieving the lowest death rate in history.  As I scanned the list there was a definite mix of private industry innovation, such as the Daimler-Benz 1952 patent for the crumple zone to absorb collision energy or the patent for the child safety seat in 1962, and government regulation, such as the federal legislation that cars be outfitted with seat belts in 1967 and the regulation for the requirement for energy absorbing steering columns in 1968.

I must admit that I am old enough to remember the debate back then as to whether the auto industry could survive if it were forced to install seat belts in every car.  So I went to the archives of the New York Times to see if my memory was correct.  I found an article dated April 26, 1966 which reported on the auto industry “abandoning its fight against any Federal standards.”  The article went on to say the auto industry requested that if standards were to be introduced that the feds be directed to “collaborate with state motor vehicle authorities in an effort to achieve a consensus that will result in Federal and state standards being as uniform and complementary as practicable.”

Industry working together with regulatory bodies to set a minimum level of safety seems to have been the optimum and maybe the only way to achieve the goal of reducing needless death.  Private industry could invent the seat belt but could not enforce its use, however, the government could.  I know that I am treading on the libertarian view that government should not force an individual to wear a seat belt but I will reserve that discussion for another blog post.

By the way, there is a third element to this reduced death achievement and that is us, John Q. Public.  When people get passionate about a problem they typically form together and search for ways to find a solution.   An example in this case is the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).  These folks are passionate about finding ways to bring information to the general public about the danger of driving while intoxicated and advocating for regulations to punish those that do. 

I think this example has shown that when you put all three of these approaches to work you can achieve some fantastic results.  When you get into your car today you can feel assured that you are far less likely to die in a traffic accident than you were in 1950, even with all of the additional people on the road.  A success that we should replicate in many other areas.

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…

Everyone has their vices. People are hooked on everything, from tobacco and alcohol to caffeine and sugar.  You may think your “addiction” to sugary treats and junk food is harmless compared to the others, but is it really harmless? Not according to Dr. Robert Lustig in a journal article that became big news recently. 

Dr. Lustig labels sugar a “toxin” in his article, and compares it to things like alcohol, saying that sugar is also fine in moderation, but dangerous in large amounts.  Unfortunately, large amounts seem to be the norm for most Americans, who consume about three times as much as they should on any given day. The average adult should be limiting added sugar to 6 to 9 teaspoons per day, but the average intake today is closer to 22 to 34 teaspoons per day. That extra sugar breaks down to about 2 cans of soda and a candy bar. The article cites statistics that show millions of deaths annually linked to the growing obesity pandemic. Sugar is often a contributing factor to the newly popular noninfectious diseases that are contributing to those deaths, including diabetes, heart disease and cancer. 

The article also offers a potential solution for our sugar-crazed population, regulating or taxing sugar. The price of cigarettes has skyrocketed in the past several years, but you can still buy a candy bar for less than a dollar.  A person must prove that they are at least 21 years old to buy alcohol, but a 5-year-old can spend their hard-earned $.50 on a cookie from the bakery. If sugar is just as dangerous to our health, should it be subject to the same types of restrictions?

This isn’t the first time a “sin tax” has been proposed for some sugar offenders.  In 2009, a Federal three-cent tax on sodas and other sugary drinks was proposed as part of the plan to pay for President Obama’s proposed universal health care plan. Estimates at the time promised the tax would generate $24 billion over a four-year period. As expected, the proposal was strongly criticized by the beverage industry and others, who claimed that the tax would disproportionately affect poor Americans and would be ineffective in lowering consumption.

The state of Washington was also a recent battleground for this issue.  An additional tax was imposed on soda, candy and gum in 2010 but was repealed soon after following a major campaign by the soft drink industry.  The industry reportedly spent more than $14 million to support a ballot measure that was eventually approved to overturn the law. Washington’s law also brought up additional issues that are likely to arise if plans move forward to tax and regulate sugary products like candy.  The definition of “candy” covered by the law didn’t extend to anything that contained flour, leaving out anything with wafers or cookies involved. 

It is hard to deny that obesity is a problem in the United States, but would extending a “sin tax” to unhealthy food and drinks make a dent in that problem?

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.