An Allegory about NIMBYism

Remove contaminated soil.
Restore the aquifer to drinking water quality.
Replace air strippers that vent to the atmosphere with carbon filters.
Redevelop properties to bring in new tenants and raise property values.

What do these objectives have in common?
Throughout the history of a particular Silicon Valley Superfund site, these goals have been supported by the community, responsible parties, and regulators.  And at face value, they each appear to be protective of human health and the environment and benefit the neighboring community.

Only more recently has the concept of sustainable remediation been used to look at cleanup programs from a holistic viewpoint, and examine the collateral damage that some remedial decisions can cause, even those that appear to be protective.

In the 2008 Optimization Evaluation reports prepared by Northgate, Geosyntec, Weiss, and Schlumberger, we found that annual carbon (CO2) emissions related to the operation of five treatment systems at the Silicon Valley Superfund site ranged from 42 to 281 metric tons. For comparison, the EPA estimates that the annual CO2 emissions from a typical passenger vehicle are approximately 5 metric tons.

In a 2010 economic analysis of 25 San Francisco Bay Area Superfund sites, Northgate staff, Maile Smith and Scott McLaughlin found that although concentrations of groundwater pollutants had been greatly reduced, contaminant removal rates were insufficient to reach cleanup goals.  Furthermore, we found that the benefits of groundwater cleanup were reduced by the cross-media (e.g., water to air) pollution impacts of the remediation programs. The study indicated that the collective pollution reduction achieved by the cleanup programs at these sites is less than the pollution generated by the production of goods and services required to operate and maintain the cleanup programs themselves.

And this week the Center for Investigative Reporting published an article on the journey of the groundwater pollutants from that particular Silicon Valley Superfund site, illustrating the pathway that pollution takes after it is pumped from the ground and filtered through those carbon vessels.

“There’s really no such thing as throwing something away,” said Environmental Protection Agency spokesman Rusty Harris-Bishop. “You’re always throwing it somewhere.”

It's an interesting tale, and certainly highlights the potential collateral damage that can occur when we collectively decide, "not in my backyard."

Read the complete article here:  http://cironline.org/reports/cleanup-silicon-valley-superfund-site-takes-environmental-toll-6149

Voluntary CSR Reporting Can Boost Your Company's Worth

Going Green: Market Reaction to CSR Newswire Releases
Paul A. Griffin, UC Davis, and Yuan Sun, UC Berkeley
January 29, 2012

A new study conducted by Paul Griffin of UC Davis and Yuan Sun of UC Berkeley shows that greenhouse gas emissions and carbon-reduction strategy reporting can lift a company's economic value.

Companies currently report most of their greenhouse gas, carbon, and CO2 emissions information to interested parties voluntarily, either directly or through various non-governmental channels (although the public will soon have access to standardized carbon emissions data collected by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board).

The researchers analyzed ten years of voluntary news releases, tracking disclosures and subsequent market responses for 84 companies that released their emissions information via Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire. They found that stock prices jumped approximately one-half a percent over five days, with smaller companies seeing a bigger boost of just over 2 percent. Using a matched control sample set, no statistical change in stock price was detected for companies that did not disclose carbon information.

The study concludes that voluntary green disclosure decisions produce positive returns to shareholders, and that shareholders of smaller companies with limited public information availability benefit the most from voluntary green disclosure, since in this setting investors have less access to competing information.

Read the study for all the details, and some additional insight from the authors on the Daily Climate.

San Francisco's Green Energy Claims Questioned - The Bay Citizen

null (via The Bay Citizen)

Mostly Good Intentions, Though...

Poll: Sometimes it isn't easy being green
H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, November 17, 2009

A survey released today suggests people have largely embraced recycling and are inclined to turn down thermostats to save energy. But it also indicated that some paths toward a greener Earth aren't as easily undertaken.

The telephone poll, conducted for The Associated Press and NBC Universal, tries to gauge attitudes about the environment. It found that 60% of those surveyed felt either a "great deal" or "a lot" of personal responsibility to protect the environment, while 37% rarely, if ever, even thought about the environmental impact of their actions.

Other results:

• 72% were very likely to recycle cans and bottles
• 63% were very likely to turn down thermostats
• 62% were very likely to buy energy-efficient appliances
• 59% were very likely to use cold water for clothes washing
• 59% were very likely to buy recycled paper products
• 65% said it's more difficult to use less energy than to use less water
• only 23% were very likely to eat less meat

NBC Universal's sponsorship of the poll was related to their Green is Universal week of programming about environmental issues.

Read the complete article here.

Northgate's Carbon Footprint

We do indeed have one, but how does it compare?
Maile Smith, November 13, 2008

Earlier this year I calculated Northgate's first, i.e. baseline, carbon footprint. We will update our carbon footprint analysis annually. Our carbon footprint is one way to measure the impact of our operational activities on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide. The guidance for this analysis was the "Greenhouse Gas Protocol", developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute. I also used a companion document called "Working 9 to 5 on Climate Change: An Office Guide".

The organizational boundary for the study encompassed our Oakland and Newport Beach offices and all full-time employees. The operational boundary encompassed:
–Scope 1 direct emissions from company car use
–Scope 2 indirect emissions from office electricity
–Scope 3 indirect emissions from employee commuting, business travel (car and air), and paper use

Measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide (1,000 kg), Northgate's 2007 carbon footprint was:
–Scope 1 direct emissions = 8.0
–Scope 2 indirect emissions = 60.2
–Scope 3 indirect emissions = 158.7

So how do we compare to other environmental consulting firms that have reported their emissions to the California Climate Action Registry? One annual emissions report for a large, nation-wide firm reported no direct emissions (i.e., no company vehicle use) for 2006 for their US operations. Their Scope 2 emissions from energy use was 2,623 tonnes. Another large, multi-national firm reported 107 tonnes of Scope 1 emissions and 165 tonnes of Scope 2 emissions for their California operations. It is unclear if either firm accounted for employee commutes or travel in optional or de minimus emissions calculations. This makes it difficult to compare apples to apples, as Northgate's baseline appears to comprise elements that the others do not.

Is there room for improvement? Definitely. Aside from keeping the lights on, the largest contributors to our carbon footprint are employee commuting, paper use, and airline travel (in decreasing order). And although many Northgate staff already use public transportation, we should continue to encourage mass transit use as well as carpooling, biking, and walking. We have already made strides to increase the recycled content of our paper, and efforts are underway to reduce paper use overall.

Carbon Footprints of Six Everyday Items

Everybody's talking about it. But what exactly is a carbon footprint? And how is it calculated?
Jeffrey Ball, Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2008

What are the carbon footprints of some of the common products we use? How are they calculated? And what surprises do they hold? The Wall Street Journal looked at six everyday items -- cars, shoes, laundry detergent, clothing, milk and beer -- and the numbers that go with them.

The CO2 equivalent emitted by the manufacturing, shipping, storage, and use of the following items:
Car (Prius?) - 97,000 pounds
Timberland's Winter Park Slip On Boot - 121 pounds
Tesco Laundry detergent - 31 pounds
Patagonia Talus jacket - 66 pounds
Aurora Organic Dairy 1.2 gallon milk - 7.2 pounds
Six-pack of Fat Tire Amber Ale - 7 pounds

To help you put it in perspective (from the International Energy Agency):
The US emits the equivalent of about 118 pounds of carbon dioxide per resident every day.
Annually, that's ~20 metric tons per US citizen.
The average US citizen emits about five times as much CO2 compared to citizens of the world at large.

Read the complete story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122304950601802565.html

Commuter Survey

I am in the process of calculating Northgate’s baseline CARBON FOOTPRINT.

That’s right... We have one. And we don’t know what size of sandals we need for that upcoming vacation in Cabo.

So, please take a few minutes and complete a brief survey about how you get to and from work.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Rb107Zj1sDZrJOT8jMYBWw_3d_3d

Thanks!