by Hannah Findlay
Environmental labels have been around for more than three decades now, and their popularity has been growing ever since. This shouldn’t come as a surprise taking into account that the global community has been facing many environmental challenges. However, the popularity of green labels has brought confusion, as well.
What does being green mean today?
Green labels should indicate that the product is environmentally friendly. However, with so many different green labels on the market, it’s hard to know what each of them means. Eco-labels are often confused with environmental labels, and these terms are used interchangeably in everyday language, which is not always correct. Environmental labels are an umbrella term for all labels relating to the environment, while eco-labels are a subgroup of environmental labels which identify overall environmental performance of a product, based on life-cycle considerations. What makes eco-labels different from other types of environmental labels is the fact that they are voluntary certifications which are granted by third party organizations. This aspect makes them more reliable, and less prone to greenwashing. A third party organization grants an eco-label to a product or service only if the product or service is in compliance with the criteria of the ecolabelling scheme. The awarded eco-label suggests that the product or service achieves a higher standard of environmental performance compared to average products in the same product category.
Check out the interactive infographic below and learn more about most common eco-labels, their managing organizations, and products they apply to.
By: Jeff Rutherford, Greg Von Wald, Dante Orta Aleman
Reposted with permission from Stanford Energy Journal.
It’s likely that last winter quarter you were emailed or forwarded a petition by the student organization “Fossil Free Stanford” (FFS), “a student group dedicated to pursuing climate justice and making sure Stanford's investments are consistent with its commitment to combatting climate change.” FFS petitioned for the following to be considered in the spring ASSU elections:
In accordance with Stanford’s commitment to ethical investment, the University should divest its endowment from fossil fuel extraction companies in order to avert further environmental and social harm caused by climate change.
FFS collected more than 1,000 signatures and the amendment was included on the ASSU ballot as an advisory referendum, with no legislative impact but the purpose of taking a symbolic stance. According to the ASSU election results, released April 14, 2018, the amendment passed with 65% of the graduate student vote and 70% of the undergraduate vote. In light of these recent events, the objective of this article is to start a pragmatic discussion on the goals of fossil fuel divestment and the evidence for and against this approach.
The fossil fuel divestment activity at Stanford is closely tied to a larger, growing activist movement. Though divestment in general dates earlier, fossil fuel divestment was adopted as a tactic by the US climate activist community when cap and trade legislation failed to pass the Senate in 2010. Many credit Bill McKibben’s 2012 Rolling Stone piece “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” with motivating the activist community to target the fossil fuel industry and its associated reserves. The logic put forward by McKibben is that the potential emissions of proven fossil fuel reserves are more than five times the allowable limit before 2050 for an 80% chance of staying within 2ºC (the globally agreed upon target to avoid risking a dangerously unstable climate). This carbon budget identifies an alleged inconsistency between the assets of fossil fuel companies and climate stabilization. Globally, 852 institutions have divested from fossil fuels, either fully or partially (e.g. coal only).
The case made by the fossil fuel divestment campaign is two-fold: (1) the direct effect divestment will have on CO2 emissions and (2) the amorality of investing in fossil fuel extraction companies. Materially, campaigns hope divestment will reduce emissions by making business more difficult for the fossil fuel industry. According to FFS, divestment should “diminish the overwhelming political and economic power of the fossil fuel industry” through both direct fiscal impact and social stigmatization. Divestment aims to label fossil fuel assets as bad investments and make their brands toxic through symbolic disapproval, making recruitment and policy influence difficult. These material impacts aside, FFS acknowledges that this is largely “a statement of values.” Divestment campaigns make the moral argument that institutions claiming to promote sustainability are morally misaligned with investments in fossil fuel resources. The underlying business model and product of the fossil fuel industry, the campaign asserts, poses a threat to societal well-being.
Several studies have investigated the cost of fossil fuel divestment in terms of its impact on portfolio performance and found negligible impact on financial returns (here, here and here). Based on previous studies, it appears that fossil fuel divestment can be orchestrated in a way that maintains portfolio diversity and does not impact financial returns. That being said, there is also no evidence to suggest that divestment will have any measurable, near-term impact on the fiscal performance of fossil fuel extraction companies either. The idea that even a large sell-off of shares in a company will have a demonstrable impact on the company’s share price or access to capital is unsupported. Any shares sold will be acquired at a momentary discount by an investor without the same moral qualms. Consequently, this neutral investor may not exert the same pressure on corporate strategy that a more climate-conscious shareholder may. Meanwhile, the share price and financial well-being of a company will continue to be driven by expectations of long-term profitability. As such, divestment is only effective if it shifts the long-term outlook for the fossil fuel sector.
One objective of the divestment campaign is to drive the perception that fossil fuel extraction companies are bad investments in the long-term and their resources will become stranded assets in a low-carbon economy, however it is not apparent that this is the case at present. In a future scenario with sharp declines in oil demand or after implementation of an appropriate price on carbon, this may be the case. Citing “a financial risk we do not want to take in the context of real assets”, the University of California has chosen to gradually reduce investments in fossil fuels, and if there is significant financial risk, then divestment is an objectively sensible financial strategy. However, politically treating all fossil fuel investments as toxic assets will not change the facts of demand. Though the share of fossil fuels in our energy mix will gradually decrease, given the amount of demand that currently exists for fossil fuels there is no imminent threat of these resources becoming stranded assets. Fossil fuels constitute over 80% of current global energy supply and, though the International Energy Agency projects renewables will dominate energy capacity additions through 2040 (see “New Policies” scenario), fossil fuels are still expected to meet the majority of energy demand. Further, some industries such as shipping, aviation, metals, and chemicals have few-to-no low-carbon primary energy alternatives at present. The overwhelming consensus in the energy community is that this energy transition needs to occur and is not happening fast enough, however there is tremendous inertia built in to the global energy system that must first be overcome. In order for fossil fuel companies to become bad investments, there would need to be dramatic declines in demand or the passage of restrictive supply-side policy measures (production quotes, supply bans, etc.). Through stigmatization, divestment seeks to apply social and political pressure to catalyze these greater changes in consumer behavior and policy, however it is not obvious that this indirect approach is the most effective strategy.
The climate activist community considers the practices and business model of fossil resource extraction companies unethical and amoral, placing it at odds with the well-being of society. For example, investments held by Stanford Earth in fossil fuel companies may be perceived as being “hypocritical and antithetical to the school’s stated mission of ‘solv[ing] the enormous resource and environmental challenges facing the world.’” In addition to the carbon content of the fuel itself, activists often reference the complicated and duplicitous history fossil fuel companies have had with climate change. Most famously, Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977 and, until very recently, maintained a public position that humans were not to blame. Fossil fuel companies have been known to routinely cast doubt on climate science as their business model depends on the extraction and exploitation of carbon-based fuels. By not acting swiftly and immediately on the issue of climate change, fossil fuel companies increased the risk of future climate disaster in order to increase profits today. These practices are one reason why fossil fuel companies are often compared to historical targets of divestment, the South African apartheid regime and the tobacco industry. These divestment campaigns are viewed as successes as they achieved their goal of catalyzing enough social and political pressure to make the desired cultural and economic changes. The apartheid regime actively abused human rights and tobacco companies produce an addictive, carcinogenic product that provides no benefit to society. There is no doubt that the fossil fuel extraction industry produces a resource that contributes to global climate change. But this resource also serves a bona fide purpose that it would be naïve to ignore. The feasibility of operating our energy system without fossil resources is still a fiercely debated topic among experts today.
There is no debate that given our emissions trajectory, there is extreme urgency to transition to cleaner energy resources as quickly as possible. However, even in the most radical transition scenario, the fossil fuel industry will exist at least in part to fuel the transition. Energy-dense fuels are needed to produce steel required to manufacture wind turbines, and until storage is available at scale, the flexibility of natural gas complements the variability of renewables on the electricity grid. According to Stanford professor Mark Zoback, “It’s not natural gas instead of renewables, it’s natural gas until renewables are of a scale that we can stop burning gas as we originally stopped burning coal.” Regardless of how short this window may be, some fraction of the fossil fuel reserves will need to be developed. Stanford both invests and partners with fossil fuel companies in research endeavors to decrease emissions (e.g. carbon capture and sequestration, energy systems optimization, life cycle assessment, etc.). By stigmatizing the fossil fuel industry, Stanford may risk damaging partnerships with these companies. Many industry partners have been valuable research collaborators through involvement in programs like the Global Climate and Energy Project. The fossil fuel industry understands that the energy sector is in transition. Ten of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies are now members of OGCI (Oil and Gas Climate Initiative), which commits to “the direction set out by the Paris Agreement on climate change, supporting its agenda for global action and the need for urgency.” Stanford´s Founding Grant calls to “promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization.” Stanford is uniquely positioned to serve as a catalyst of the energy transition, one component of which can be exercising that influence to ensure resources are developed in a way that minimizes the environmental impact.
The decarbonization of the energy system is an enormous challenge, the math is terrifying, and the risks are huge. Divestment may serve as a symbolic action stigmatizing the fossil fuel industry, in the hopes of catalyzing enough social pressure to force political action. Perhaps divestment can serve as one piece of the puzzle in mitigating climate change. Furthermore, if divestment is pursued, the capital may be re-allocated towards investment in companies that are more aggressively accelerating the energy transition. However, Stanford may be more effective at affecting change through meaningful collaboration rather than political stigmatization of an industry. Finally, political capital is likely better spent on actions which have direct effects on carbon emissions or the value of fossil resources by shrinking demand. Examples include encouraging an internal carbon tax, energy efficiency investments, electrification of transport on campus, and procurements of low-carbon electricity. Overall, your stance on the issue of divestment will depend on your position on several questions: Can divestment catalyze the necessary social and political pressure to cause precipitous declines in demand or enact meaningful policy change? Are fossil fuel companies an adversary with an amoral business model which ought to cease to exist, or are they a partner which is required, at least in part, to fuel the energy transition?
Jeff Rutherford is a PhD student, and Greg Von Wald and Dante Orta Aleman are Masters students in the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University.
by Becca Nelson '20 and Deirdre Francks '20
On February 27th, Pacific Gas and Electric CEO Geisha Williams delivered a forward-thinking lecture on climate change for the 6th Annual Schneider Memorial Lecture. Geisha Williams is the CEO and President of PG&E and the first female Latina CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. Ms. Williams begin the lecture by emphasizing the crucial role climate scientist Steven Schneider played in helping PG&E take action on climate change. She asserted that “[Schneider] made a difference in my decision to join PG&E ten years ago.”
“We are living it. Climate change is here,” Ms. Williams began as she discussed how climate change is currently affecting California. She described how PG&E is taking action on mitigating climate change through innovation. Around 80% of the energy PG&E delivers to its customers comes from sources that emit zero greenhouse gases. In 2003 PG&E used 11% renewable energy, but they have transformed their energy to now be 33% renewables, triple the 2003 amount. Ms. Williams emphasized that PG&E would continue to implement transformative and innovative changes in order to combat climate change, including drastic emissions reductions and contributing to a low carbon economy through a modern, digitized electric grid. Williams asserted that new clean energy technologies will be best optimized through integrating these technologies into an electrical grid that promotes connectivity. She also emphasized the importance of equity in promoting sustainable energy, explaining, “If we create an energy future of have and have-nots, it won’t work...A clean energy future has to be accessible and affordable for all.” Ms. Williams further elaborated that a smarter electrical grid would help promote electric vehicles by enabling an increase in more widely available public charging stations.
Geisha Williams explored the policy implications for a sustainable energy grid in California. She discussed the challenges that arise when rapid technological innovation in the energy sector outpaces the infrastructure of regulatory policies. Ms. Williams argued that an effective policy infrastructure is crucial to supporting investment in clean energy. California laws currently have a policy of inverse condemnation where if a power line falls as a result of extreme weather, the energy company has legal liability and becomes the insurer. With the recent wildfires in California, this policy has posed difficulties for PG&E. Ultimately, Ms. Williams called for a “collaborative approach involving policymakers, communities, and industries”.
Geisha Williams discussed her personal journey and career path. As a child, she immigrated to the United States from Cuba. She was inspired by her parents who worked multiple jobs. “I grew up believing in hard work and anything was possible if you had the courage to pursue it”, Ms. Williams said. Early in her career, Ms. Williams shared with us that the becoming CEO never occurred to her, as she said, “Women didn’t run big companies back then. Latina woman? Immigrants? Come on.” However, a conversation with a mentor changed her perspective when he asked “Why not you?” in terms of running the company in the future. Ms. Williams gave advice for how to be a woman leader in a male-dominated business sector by stressing the importance of doing quality work, not being defined by obstacles, and being respectful of others, while also demanding respect. She concluded the lecture with a rousing call to action, asserting that we all have the potential to be leaders and innovators in taking action on climate change.
by Alex Li, '21
The Bay Area has one of the most diverse public transportation systems in the world. On the plus side, such a system works decently well at meeting the needs of its local citizens. On the down side, the system is incredibly hard to navigate across systems, and across the bay. This is probably most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Bay Area has no real unifying transportation diagram. I’m sure most of you have heard about BART and Caltrain, but fewer know about San Francisco’s robust Muni streetcars, or San Jose’s extensive VTA light rail.
The issues of creating a more unified Bay Area transportation network is much about creating a more seamless network and having agencies come together in planning the future of the Bay Area (I’m looking at you, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)). However, a unified map can do wonders in the public perceptions of the system. After all, the transit map is often the first interaction you have with any rapid transit system. So I’ve put together a system map for the Bay Area:
As opposed to the current system map by the MTC (there’s a really good reason why this isn’t really used):
As you can see, the system is decently comprehensive (though broken up by many agencies). As the Bay Area increases in population, it is imperative that the system continues to move more people and improve its service. But it won’t move any more people unless people like opting to commute without a car. I’m not saying that cars are not useful or that they aren’t necessary, but rather, the more trips that are taken without a car, the more people the current system can move. In addition to getting 30 minutes on a bus/train for yourself, you also (generally) reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage denser urban land development, increase funding (and service improvements) to transit agencies and reduce the cost of your commute (in energy and in money).
So next time you leave campus, consider taking a trip without a car. Every trip saved is a walk, bike, and ride away to a more sustainable world! Happy commuting!
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me at email@example.com (or if you just want to chat about urban transportation systems).
by Cara Pike, guest blogger from Climate Access, a nonprofit pursuing equitable climate solutions
For many, virtual reality conjures extreme video gaming or fantastical journeys into other dimensions from the comfort of your couch. But immersive, 3D experiences are now being used to prepare doctors for surgery, design airplanes, and engage Americans on climate impacts.
This week, Climate Access launched the Look Ahead - San Francisco campaign in partnership with the City of San Francisco. The campaign is centered around the Look Ahead virtual reality app, which offers a first-person look at future sea-level rise in three locations in San Francisco – the Embarcadero, Mission Creek and Heron’s Head Park – and how these sites could benefit from climate solutions. Available for download onto smartphones and tablets the Look Ahead app downloads provides a 360-degree tour that includes key landmarks, infrastructure and recreation points being used by virtual people.
The view of some of San Francisco’s iconic landscapes submerged under water is arresting. But the Look Ahead app isn’t just about visualizing risk. The interface also shows a range of potential responses and makes it easy for users to sign up for more information, take steps to reduce risks from flooding and help cut carbon emissions.
Climate leaders who are unfamiliar with the potential of VR should see it for themselves. (Download the Look Ahead app via Google Play or the Apple App Store.) Last year I visited Stanford University where they are studying the effect of virtual reality on public perceptions and behaviors. Their research shows that VR can increase environmental concern and motivation and promote altruism. On the other hand, violent VR experiences can lead to more aggressive behavior. That’s why it’s important to understand what’s emerging and how VR can be used to promote social good as well as avoid harm.
Look Ahead – San Francisco builds on earlier efforts to test the use of virtual reality in climate communication. We led projects in Marin and San Mateo County, where VR viewers were installed near locations at risk from sea-level rise. With the help of Dr. Susanne Moser and Christa Daniels of Antioch University, we found that VR can increase concern around climate impacts like sea-level rise and the will to act. Thousands of communities members checked out the viewers and shared their concerns and support for action via the VR platform – information that county officials used to shape local resilience plans.
Virtual reality is soon to become mainstream and potentially as disruptive as the introduction of the internet and social media. The day after the launch of Look Ahead, the sale of VR headsets hit a new high of one million sold just over the last quarter. Are you ready for the new reality of virtual reality?
For more information on the Look Ahead - San Francisco campaign, visit www.lookahead-sf.org. Follow us on twitter @lookaheadsf or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/lookahead.sf.1
Welcome to our blog!
This is a forum for students to share their writing on intersectional environmental topics, curated by Students for a Sustainable Stanford. Writers of all backgrounds, abilities, and perspectives are welcome.