The first article in the series titled “Power, Pollution and the Internet” largely exposes the energy demands and associated pollution responsible to maintain and deliver instant satisfaction in the electronic age.

A data center is a facility used to house computer systems, usually many computer servers.  The facilities are typically spread over a large area to accommodate cooling requirements needed to maintain operational temperatures within the facilities.  Data centers aim to be operational 100% of the time so as not to cause outages for customers.  As a result, the servers within data centers gobble up energy regardless of whether they are processing information or waiting on standby.  According to the article, worldwide data centers use about 30 billion watts of electricity, which is roughly equivalent to the output of 30 nuclear power plants.  They can also waste up to 90% or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, due to low utilization rates of the servers.

In addition, the article highlights the use of backup diesel generators that data centers rely upon in order to limit the amount of downtime from potential power failures or a lapse in grid energy.  The author states that at least a dozen major data centers have been cited for violations of air quality regulations in Virginia and Illinois alone.  Even if a data center does not need to rely on a generator for operational power, generators still have to be tested on a regular basis to ensure functionality. In the second article in the series, the author focuses on a data center in Washington State that has 40 diesel generators located near an elementary school.  The scale of the backup operation was enough to convince the school superintendent to install particulate monitors to observe emission readings.

Industry reaction to the series of articles has been loud and swift.  Some argue the author has an outdated perception of the Internet, and chose to focus on minor uses such as emailing pictures to friends, versus focusing on how it serves a larger good by powering businesses, schools, public works, and the media.  Another primary criticism of the series is the failure to recognize the gains in data center energy efficiency since their inception.  Efforts such as The Green Grid have worked to establish baseline information on the power usage effectiveness of data centers and the water footprint of cooling efforts.  In addition, the 2012 Carbon Disclosure Project directly asks about companies’ data center activities, including specific emissions, annual electricity consumption, and power usage effectiveness of company owned data centers.  In our view, data monitoring, increasing transparency, and industry knowledge sharing is key to improving the environmental profile of data centers.

When evaluating companies operating large data centers, we prefer companies that are members of The Green Grid, actively upgrade facilities to reduce energy demands, purchase renewable energy, and report on the combined power usage effectiveness of their data centers globally.  Finally, companies that share best practices with their peers will help improve the energy efficiency of data centers across sectors and countries.

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments.  She has 10 years of experience in the environmental field.

The Skin Deep Database can be used by consumers to assess the toxicity of the ingredients in their personal care products or by investors like Portfolio 21 Investments to help assess the risk associated with particular raw materials or companies.  The database is searchable by product type (skin care, eye care, etc.), by product name, or by ingredient.  The database provides information on the health concerns of ingredients and assigns a hazard score between 0 (low hazard) and 10 (high hazard).  It also offers a data score (None to Robust) that identifies the scope of ingredient safety data contained in the database, and the number of studies available in scientific literature.

For example, one can determine that the ingredient aluminum starch octenylsuccinate carries a high hazard score of 9 out of 10, with a data score of “fair.”  Of products covered in the database, aluminum starch octenylsuccinate is present in 67 eye shadow products, 55 anti-aging products, 54 foundations, 52 moisturizers, and 47 concealers.  Unfortunately, this ingredient also shows strong evidence for human neurotoxicity and moderate evidence for developmental/reproductive toxicity.  The database organizes its search results from low to high hazard score, so consumers who are interested can find products and companies with low hazard scores.

In a similar vein, each year as summer approaches EWG publishes a guide to sunscreens to help inform the public which products are most protective and which ingredients to avoid.  In 2012, the non-profit reviewed 262 scientific studies and examined the labels of 1,800 sunscreens, moisturizers, make up and lip products with SPF ratings.  While it compiled a list of more recommended products than ever before, 75% still did not meet its safety standards.  EWG’s sunscreen guide says to look for active ingredients such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, and to use lotions over sprays or powders, along with other tips.  Sun lovers should avoid sunscreens with vitamin A, as it causes skin cancer in laboratory tests, and oxybenzone because it is a hormone disruptor and skin allergen.

EWG has a host of other focus areas and tools to inform the public on the intersection of human and environmental health.  In addition to the resources mentioned above, the non-profit provides an annual shopper’s guide to pesticides in produce, a national drinking water database, tips on cell phone radiation, a meat eater’s guide to climate change, and a U.S. farm subsidy database.  As a non-profit organization, EWG provides non-commercial, grounded, useful information that can help consumers avoid toxic substances or select better products for themselves and the environment.

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments. She has 9 years of experience in the environmental field.

While many actors, including the United Nations Environment Program, called for a final agreement with specific targets, Rio + 20’s final agreement, called “The Future We Want,” is largely without teeth.   The agreement lacks enforceable commitments on all biodiversity, poverty elimination, and social equity issues.  For example, specific to oceans and seas, language from the agreement calls for “support to initiatives that address ocean acidification and the impacts of climate change on marine and coastal ecosystems and resources.  In this regard, we reiterate the need to work collectively to prevent further ocean acidification, as well as enhance the resilience of marine ecosystems .  . .We commit to intensify our efforts to meet the 2015 target as agreed to in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation to maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield on an urgent basis.”  In effect, the nearly 50 page agreement lacks any firm sustainable development goals but resolves to establish an intergovernmental process to develop goals based on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

Outside of formal political negotiations, there were numerous side agreements crafted and unveiled by the large corporate presence at the conference, as well as other partnerships.  Corporate promises earned much media attention, including Microsoft’s announcement that it would become carbon-neutral by 2013.  In another example, Femsa, a Latin American soft-drink bottler, said it would procure 85% of its energy needs in Mexico from renewable energy.  And a group of development banks, led by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and others, will provide more than $175 billion to support sustainable transport in developing countries, including promoting public transportation and bicycle lanes over road and highway construction in the world’s largest cities.  Ban Ki-moon announced more than 100 commitments had been taken by governments and companies under his Sustainable Energy For All initiative.  Specifically, $50 billion was committed to objectives like doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030.  In sum, the United Nations reported nearly 700 voluntary commitments by stakeholders represented at the conference.

While these commitments may be viewed as a silver lining to the Rio + 20 conference, overall the conference lacked global leadership to direct meaningful change that sets the world on a path of true sustainable development.  Greenpeace said the gathering was a “failure of epic proportions.”  David Suzuki, a geneticist and environmental activist, may have said it best in an interview with Democracy Now, “A meeting like this is doomed to fail because we haven’t left our vested interests outside the door and come together as a single species and agreed what the fundamental needs are for all of humanity. So we’re going to sacrifice the air, the water, the biodiversity all in the sake of human political and economic interest.”

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments. She has 9 years of experience in the environmental field.

Rio + 20 has two themes:  a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development.  The conference is focused around these two themes under seven priority areas: jobs, energy, sustainable cities, food security, water, oceans, and disaster readiness.  The Earth Summit in 1992 closed with adoption of Agenda 21, a blueprint to rethink economic growth, advance social equity, and ensure environmental protection.  The expectation is that governments attending Rio + 20 adopt practical measures for implementing sustainable development.

In advance of the summit, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published its fifth Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5) report.  The report assesses what it considers the 90 most important international sustainability objectives.  GEO-5 indicates that only four have seen substantial progress: eliminating the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, removal of lead from fuel, improving access to clean water, and increasing research to reduce marine pollution.  Some progress was shown in 40 goals and little or no progress was detected for 24 goals, including climate change, fish stocks, desertification, and drought.  According to the UNEP, this is evidence that global treaties need to have quantifiable targets in order to succeed.  As a result, the agency is calling for specific targets at the Rio + 20 Conference.  As the UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner says, “GEO-5 reminds world leaders and nations meeting at Rio + 20 why a decisive and defining transition towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient, job-generating Green Economy is urgently needed.  The scientific evidence, built over decades, is overwhelming and leaves little room for doubt.”

While it is clear much work needs to be done to strengthen our global environment, political realities may impede significant progress.  In May, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that negotiations leading to the Rio + 20 conference had been “painfully slow.”  According to an article in The Guardian, it’s been difficult to engage world leaders.  With President Obama focused on his re-election and European leaders focused on the financial crisis, negotiations have been left to personnel without the political power to make decisions that would result in a breakthrough agreement.  According to the article, Ban Ki-moon said that negotiations were bogged down in narrow national interests, overshadowing the need to set the world on the right track for sustainable growth.  For some, this has painted the Rio + 20 conference with skepticism and it is questioned if significant progress can come of the meetings.

While political realities have the potential to overshadow the conference, there is in fact opportunity.  Governments, the private sector, and civil society have an opening to establish global targets recognizing the ecological limits of the planet and work to establish initiatives and incentives that operate within those boundaries.  Indeed, the long term health and viability of the planet is at stake and it will take true leadership to let go of myopia and create a path that looks beyond the next election cycle or annual earnings report.

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments. She has 9 years of experience in the environmental field.

The legislation establishes a high-level climate change commission, a climate fund, and mandatory emissions reporting and registry.  The bill aims for a 30% reduction in emissions growth measured against a “business as usual” pathway by 2020, and 50% by 2050 (below 2000 levels).  These goals will not reduce absolute emissions but instead reduce the rate at which emissions rise.  To achieve these goals, the bill also requests the country’s energy ministers to develop a system of incentives by 2020 that favors the use of renewable energy.  In addition, it establishes goals for increasing electricity generation from renewable sources, including an aspirational target of 35% of electricity generation to come from renewable sources by 2024.

The General Law on Climate Change also phases out fossil fuel subsidies and as the sixth largest oil exporter in the world, cutting fossil fuel subsidies may have been a concern for some.  However, state-owned Petrõleos Mexicanos is the sole oil producer in Mexico and according to the 2011 World Energy Outlook, Mexico’s oil production has declined over the last decade and is projected to continue to decline due to the slow pace of new developments.  Some legislators see promise in the opportunity for reducing development and reliance on fossil fuels.  As quoted by the BBC, Porfirio Munoz Ledo of the center-left Democratic Revolution Party and chair of the Foreign Affairs Commission said, “Mexico is aware this is the end of the oil era, so we need to implement this fiscal reform – and if we go through it, we’ll be able to do without this oil.”

Finally, the bill requires international financial support to deliver its goals, as is mandated in the United Nations climate convention.  The Cancun summit agreed to establish an international Green Climate Fund that is supposed to provide much of that support.  However, details of the Fund have yet to be finalized and it is a long way from receiving the promised funds.  Certainly the limited growth of the global economy has reduced the coffers of all nations, likely making them less willing to submit promised monies to such funds.  Whether Mexico would get the financial support it plans on is questionable.  Beyond financial support, some worry that enforcing the bill may prove to be difficult.

While all laws face implementation challenges, the fact that Mexican legislators created the political will to pass comprehensive climate change legislation is both encouraging and a model the U.S. will hopefully follow in the short term.

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments. She has 9 years of experience in the environmental field.

The panelists critiqued the general trend toward short-term investing; for example, in the 1980s the length of an average stock investment was five years, whereas today it is only five months.  In another example, a panelist recounted attending a recent conference where Chief Financial Officers from various corporations were queried about their investment horizons.  The majority said their horizon is less than 1 year, some less than 1 quarter.  As investors have become more focused on the short term, the challenge is to develop a system that rewards longer-term thinking while incorporating broader environmental and social issues into investment decision making.

Areas for improvement suggested by the panelists include clarifying the legal framework for fiduciary responsibility. Most often, fiduciary responsibility focuses strictly on financial attributes without consideration of environmental or social concerns.  We believe fiduciary responsibility should incorporate environmental and social issues in order to comprehensively evaluate both risk and opportunity within sectors and companies.  Traditional investment analysis underestimates the long-term opportunities and risks associated with ecological limits.  As long term investors, we conduct fundamental research that combines traditional investment information with environmental research.  This process identifies companies that are innovative, competitive, and that are creatively responding to ecological limits.

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments. She has 9 years of experience in the environmental field.

Raising Elijah describes the domestic routines of family life with young children and how they are linked to public health issues.  The book explores a range of issues, from increased exposure to chemicals like phthalates, which have been linked to asthma, to the toxicity of play structures built from pressure treated wood, which have been shown to leach arsenic.  In the U.S., there are over 80,000 chemicals on the market and little is known about their effects on human health and the environment.  In addition, less is known about the safety of these chemicals in combination with each other.  Steingraber focuses less on pointing fingers and more on a broken system that fails to regulate dangerous chemicals:  “…give me federal regulations that assess chemicals for their ability to alter puberty before they are allowed access to the marketplace…give me chemical reform based on the precautionary principle.” Her commitment to creating regulations that protect consumers can be seen as an example of environmental justice.  Indeed, consumers with less knowledge and/or financial ability to purchase alternatives should not have to unknowingly expose themselves and their children to toxic chemicals.

Alternatives do exist, but are not yet mandatory or mainstream.  Voluntary programs for business such as the EPA’s Design for the Environment  (DfE) can be utilized in concert with the precautionary principal to develop chemicals and mix chemical formulas with less environmental impact.  DfE focuses on chemistry and identifies safer alternatives, while the precautionary principle is a form of risk analysis that aims to ensure a higher level of environmental protection.  Used wisely, programs and guidelines such as these can help break a legacy of toxicity and help to usher in an era of responsible environmental design.

There is increasing demand for safer chemical products and some companies are responding.  We are encouraged to see companies adopt policies that prohibit the use of substances listed as persistent, bioaccumulative, or highly toxic; potential carcinogens; mutagens; or reproductive toxins.   In our world of increasing population and declining ecosystem services, we believe chemical companies that formulate non-toxic substances, facilitate the reduction and reuse of chemicals, and create products that have environmental benefits for the end user will have a competitive advantage.

Emily is a Senior Research Analyst with Portfolio 21 Investments. She has 9 years of experience in the environmental field.