Climate Counts

How much do I really matter in a democracy?

admin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:44:55 +0000

With last month’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations (with much deeper pockets than yours and mine) are now able to directly support specific political candidates and issues without spending limits or disclosure, we’ve seen the upending of decades of bipartisan support for the regulation of corporate and individual campaign contributions. President Obama addressed this new ruling directly in his first State of the Union address when he argued the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

Let’s step back and digest this for a moment. 2009 has come and gone and one year into a “new” Washington, we are still facing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce that this past year contributed close to $100 million dollars lobbying against climate legislation. These dollars – which came from a sometimes unaware corporate membership – contributed to the stalling of any momentum the legislation was gaining prior to Copenhagen. Those dollar counteract the concerns of many Americans who believe such policy is necessary to change our energy and environmental future. But everyday Americans simply don’t have the kind of money of the Chamber or some of its members have to effectively “sponsor” senators.

Yes, we have voices. Yes, we have votes. But with the Supreme Court’s decision, our democracy is showing its preference for favoring corporate dollars which more often than not greatly outweigh our influence on the political process.

Still, even though the decision threatens our direct role in our democracy, the power we have as individuals is incredible. Too often we fail to realize the real power that we can have over the companies that now stand to wield such an excess of influence on our government. So in a kind of roundabout way, we can still engage in our democracy by making it clear to big corporations that big global issues – climate change and climate justice, access to clean drinking water, and poverty and disaster relief, to name a few – truly matter to us.

Every time we shop, we’re voting. Every time we eat, we vote. Every time we watch TV, we vote. The list goes on and on. So why not vote for our future? Corporations know where you shop, they know what you eat, and they know what you watch. Their business revolves around what consumers want or they fail. If we are truly committed to a more sustainable world, we should support companies that are making efforts to reduce their impact on the environment, supporting strong public policy on climate change, and engaging with us openly on their efforts to be good corporate citizens. It actually becomes a quite simple equation. If those companies know we care about the environment and climate change and demonstrate our willingness to reward them for their meaningful action, those companies will naturally become the most outspoken forces for aggressive climate action in their interactions with our government. In short, our money talks and will motivate deep-pocketed corporations to put their money to use for good.

This is all about making lemonade out of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Let’s make it work to the advantage of us, the consumers of the products and services marketed by these “corporate persons.” Let’s put increasing pressure on the world’s most well-known companies – many of them some of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases – to put their money towards the issues that matter to us.

The key is making them realize our support for their businesses is contingent upon how responsive they are to our very real concerns about global challenges like water scarcity, poverty, and, yes, climate change.

New Year’s Resolutions are a dime a dozen. Why not make 2010 a year of meaningful resolutions?

admin — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:48:31 +0000

Take a look at the 2009 Climate Counts Scores of 20 companies in the Food Products Industry.

Food Products - At a fundamental level, climate change and agriculture are two issues that are inextricably linked; risks from flood, drought, and disease all loom large over our global food systems. And the impact of those food systems themselves on climate change is dramatic; packaging of food products and the impact of waste on the environment are only growing as significant issues. Consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of their food choices and are learning that not all multinational food companies look alike when it comes to their attention to issues like water scarcity, toxicity, animal welfare, and, of course, climate change.

That said, because of consumer awareness and engagement, more and more food companies are getting the message. Ten of eleven companies in the food products sector improved their Climate Counts scores from 2008 to 2009. Unilever and Stonyfield Farm have continued to lead, both working to fully integrate climate action into business strategy and across the global value chain.

Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, General Mills, Sara Lee and ConAgra Foods each improved their scores by double digits. Significant increases in company scores resulted from a range of actions including third-party verification of company climate data, clear goals and public engagement. PepsiCo’s greatly improved reviewing of emissions and reduction goals bring them in close proximity to archrival Coca-Cola. Nestle and Kellogg also improved their scores, and with Sara Lee’s 20 point increase due to the data reported in its first-ever comprehensive sustainability report, this sector no longer has any companies that are considered “stuck” in the lowest tier of Climate Counts scores (scores of 12 points or less).

Why not tune into the truth in 2010?

admin — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:40:36 +0000

Media companies should bring words and actions into alignment.

Media - As the Western world continues to be inundated with thousands of ads daily, many of which are for “green products,” consumers may be overlooking the environmental impacts of media giants themselves.

Companies in this category, including General Electric and Disney, often have a considerable impact in many different realms. In 2009, GE maintained brands found within the large appliances, airline, electronics, and pharmaceutical sectors along with their media ownership of CNBC, MSNBC, and Bravo (it should be noted that GE sold off its media business to Comcast at the end of 2009). Their different and diverse business units all have varying climate impacts, with each subsidiary facing complex challenges. General Electric continues to rank the highest in this category, much of which can be attributed to strong carbon reduction programs emerging from its Ecomagination initiative.

News Corporation also improved this year, in part because of the company’s emphasis on internal educational efforts around climate change issues. Disney and Time Warner showed solid gains with Disney’s investment in renewable energy demonstrating a strong commitment to innovation. With just three more points, Disney will join GE and News Corporation in the Striding category.

After showing progress from ’07 to ’08, CBS continues to remain non-committal to concrete emissions reductions and as a result is at the bottom of the sector. Having not even calculated its emissions, Viacom remains behind CBS. Incidentally, this shows a disconnection to one of Viacom’s major audiences, the youth; as the parent company of MTV, Comedy Central, VH1 and numerous other youth-oriented media outlets that have promoted climate action, Viacom has shown little commitment to dealing with climate change in-house, while its viewers are some of the largest supporters of climate legislation.

As technology propels us into the future by fitting our universe into computers, phones, and cameras, a question looms large: what do the companies that make them do in the present for our planet?

admin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:25:57 +0000

With the highest overall sector average (65) of any sector scored by Climate Counts and all twelve companies now in our “Striding” group of companies, the Electronics/Computer sector has solidified itself as an example for other industries.

Electronics - Energy and sustainability issues are hot topics within this industry, since an electronic gadget’s life cycle (ranging from the extraction of materials, to the production, to the distribution, to the used energy, to the disposal) has such a far-reaching impact on the product’s – and the company’s — climate footprint.
	This sector has set a high standard for corporate climate leadership by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A significant percentage of the environmental impact of an electronics product – much of it tied to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions – occurs before the product is ever purchased by the consumer (e.g., the mining of ores for electronic conductors is hugely energy intensive and corrosive to the land). And since many of these products are disposed of within their first year of existence, the waste generated by electronics industry is enormous. An entire life-cycle-analysis of a product reinforces Climate Counts’ belief that corporate climate leaders must take responsibility for measuring and reducing the energy they use (including the demand they create), the waste they generate, and the emissions that result — companywide — as they create what has become an endless cycle of new products. It is a challenge that takes the notion of real innovation to a higher level.
Internet/Software - The connection between the click of a mouse and GHG emissions of the Internet/Software sector can be hard to get a handle on. But consider this fact alone: it is estimated that a modest server farm (drawing a mere 25 megawatts) uses enough electricity to power 20,000-30,000 homes. With server farms all over the world consuming millions of watts of electricity daily, much of which comes from coal, the Internet/Software industry is responsible for the output of enormous amounts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
With a 23-point jump, Microsoft overtook Google for the top spot in the Internet/Software sector. Microsoft’s largest improvement was how its strong goal is resulting in reduction of carbon emissions. eBay earned 48 additional points (the largest point increase of any company scored by Climate Counts) for similar reduction efforts along with strong support of public policy that addresses climate change. Yahoo! had a nine-point improvement due in large part to their reduction efforts around their data centers. Even with its own nine-point improvement, Amazon.com still falls short of its Internet competitors on climate leadership.

Do the clothes you buy really have an impact on climate change?

admin — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:37:50 +0000

With so-called environmentally responsible products everywhere, it’s become fashionable to be “green,” but is the fashion world confronting the realities of climate change? While boutique green fashion companies (that espouse sustainability as a key value) are growing, have the large companies that dominate the landscape improved their scores in the past year?

Apparel/Accessories - Nike continues to lead not only the Apparel/Accessories sector, but also received the highest overall score. Recently, Nike gained national attention leaving the board of the US Chamber of Commerce due to policy disputes regarding potential climate change legislation. Levi Strauss surged past Gap, finishing second in the sector. For the second year in a row, Levi Strauss was among the biggest movers, making a double-digit leap from 22 to 58 points, due in part to its leaving the US Chamber of Commerce because of climate policy disputes and setting strong emissions baselines.

Jones Apparel Group and Limited Brands made measurable efforts to evaluate and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through alternative transport initiatives and energy efficiency programs.

VF Corporation and Liz Claiborne have scored at the bottom of the sector for three years running. These companies are lagging others in their sector which have realized the need to address the risks of climate change and the opportunities to engage environmentally conscious consumers. Although progress is being made at the highest levels, the apparel sector as a whole still appears disjointed in its response to climate change.

You deserve a vacation. Why not give the planet a break too?

admin — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:52:31 +0000

Climate Counts scored a total of 16 different Airlines and Hotel companies in 2009 and came up with some interesting results. When scored on a scale of 0 – 100 points, each sector began to establish clear leaders committed to combating climate change.

Airlines - The Air Transport Association (ATA), which includes all but three of the twelve airlines scored, has been urging the Obama Administration to oppose an emissions tax leading up to Copenhagen. The current recession has hit the tourism industry hard with the airline industry absorbing a large part of the economic pullback. The possibility of an emissions tax expanding overhead costs has prompted the ATA to oppose universal emissions regulations. As new scientific data continues to provide evidence of the threats of climate change the window for the airline industry to respond is shrinking.

With ten of the twelve scored airlines improving their scores (five of those improvements by more than 10 ten points) the industry as a whole made some big strides in 2009. American Airlines moved up from third to first this year by reducing their emissions intensity and committing to the EPA Climate Leaders Program. By measuring its companywide impact, establishing goals, and enhancing public information, US Airways made the second largest improvement of all 90 companies scoring 43 points and vaulting itself into second place in an otherwise low-scoring industry.

Hotels - Buildings account for 39% of the energy usage and 38% of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. The US Energy Star Program estimates that on average, America’s 47,000 hotels spend $2,196 per available room each year on energy. That’s more than the average US household. Hotels can trim lighting, heating, air conditioning and water costs while at the same time slashing carbon emissions.

Hotels have significant room to improve and one leader to follow — Marriott Hotels. Marriott Hotels is the first and only company in this sector to be classified as “Striding” towards reducing its carbon footprint. With LEED certified buildings, improved supply chain management, and the expansion of efficiency pilot projects, Marriott has earned the outright lead in the hotel sector, more than doubling the next best score.

Track Copenhagen in real time

admin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:50:36 +0000

The Copenhagen climate talks are off and running! To stay current on the negotiations, we’d like to introduce you to a great widget developed by MIT’s Sloan School, the Sustainability Institute and Ventana Systems. The widget simulates the impact of proposals on global climate change. You can get the widget here: Climate Interactive — the Blog and here: The Climate Scorecard.

And be sure to join Climate Counts ED Wood Turner for live, on-the-ground interviews with Copenhagen correspondents, broadcasted Dec. 7-18th at 9:00am PST. For more information on Expedition Copenhagen, created by the Will Steger Foundation and Stonyfield Farm, and to find out how to tune in, click here: Expedition Copenhagen.

Our Third Annual Climate Counts Scores are out!

admin — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:17:11 +0000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2009
Contact: info@climatecounts.org, (603)216-3788

Third Annual Climate Counts Scores Show Economic Downturn Doesn’t
Detract from Deepening Corporate Commitment to Climate
Nike Tops List, eBay Surges and Study Shows Innovation
Driving Top Businesses as Copenhagen Talks Near

MANCHESTER, NH – Despite a sustained economic downturn, leading corporations appear to be strengthening their voluntary response to climate change. With the release of its third annual corporate climate scores for 90 well-known consumer companies, the non-profit organization Climate Counts pointed to a 22% increase in scores by 81 of the companies, as well as significant gains among those previously in the index’s lowest tier.

For the second straight year, Nike’s score of 83 points (out of a possible 100) topped the list. For the first time all of the 12 companies scored in the electronics sector and the four companies evaluated in the consumer shipping sector have now earned a score above 50 points, or what Climate Counts considers “striding” companies (in contrast with those “starting” companies earning 13-49 points and those “stuck” companies with 12 points or less). In recent years, these two sectors each have seen significant competitive energy around corporate sustainability, which appears to have had the effect of elevating scores – and substantive innovation efforts.

“Competition – the most fundamental tenet of a thriving global marketplace – will define the future of corporate climate action and sustainability,” said Climate Counts Executive Director Wood Turner. “Our scores show that companies are motivated to act when they may not measure up to other companies on their response to issues that matter to people. Climate change is certainly one of those issues, and companies in every major consumer sector have dialed up their efforts in an evolving economy to make the reduction of global warming pollution a competitive advantage.”

Climate Counts also found that the improved scores of a number of the companies it evaluates were more than just incremental. Scores surged for previously low-scoring companies like eBay (a jump of 48 points), US Airways (up 43 points to match most of the top scorers in a relatively low-scoring sector), Apple (up 41 points), and Levi Strauss (up 36 points) when many such companies became much more engaged in quantifying and reducing their impact on climate change and in supporting public policy on climate (or opposing the climate positions of groups like the US Chamber of Commerce). Climate Counts uses a 22-criteria scorecard to track corporate climate action in four key areas: measurement of impact; reduction of impact; engagement on public policy related to climate change; and openness and transparency with consumers on corporate climate activities.

“Climate Counts is one of the key external benchmarks we consider in evaluating our progress to address climate change,” said Rob Bernard, Chief Environmental Strategist from Microsoft, up 23 points in the latest round of scores. “We appreciate the work they do to provide the marketplace with a framework for assessing companies’ actions to address the pressing issue of climate change.”

John Donahoe, CEO of eBay Inc. said: “At eBay, we believe that solving the climate crisis requires business ingenuity and increased transparency. The leap in our Climate Counts score is a direct reflection of the focus we are giving to this issue as a business.”

“Our new scores show that many, many companies have begun to take their responsibility for climate action seriously,” said Turner. “But the onus is also on consumers. It’s time now for them to show business that corporate climate action does not go unnoticed. Companies will continue to see climate protection as an opportunity when consumers tell them in no uncertain terms that inaction is simply not an option.”

To augment consumer action tools on its website, Climate Counts will release an iPhone application later this year to help consumers not only access company climate scores while shopping but also send messages to those companies about their scores.

###

About Climate Counts
Climate Counts is a non-profit organization bringing consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. Launched with financial support from organics pioneer Stonyfield Farm, the Climate Counts Company Scorecard was developed with oversight from a panel of business and climate experts from leading non-governmental organizations and academic institutions. Criteria were chosen for their effectiveness at accomplishing a single goal – solving the global climate crisis. Since 2007, Climate Counts researchers have used these criteria to now rate the climate actions of nearly 150 companies (representing approximately 3,000 brands) in 16 industry sectors. Companies are given the opportunity to confirm or provide public data sources. Information on all scored companies is available at www.climatecounts.org.

Check out the NIM Screening Spectacular

admin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:02:42 +0000

This fall, our friend Colin Beavan a.k.a. No Impact Man brought his experiment of carbon-free living to the big screen. Now with the holiday shopping and entertaining season upon us, the NIM message is more relevant than ever. To keep the consumer/consumption conversation going, the No Impact Project is hosting a screening spectacular in towns and cities across the country. If you haven’t seen the documentary already, check out the Screening Spectacular widget here: http://noimpactproject.org/movie/spectacular/ or pass it along to your friends.

No Impact Week: The Input/Output Dilemma

admin — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:37 +0000

Climate Counts is thrilled to be supporting No Impact Week, a new campaign launched by our friends at the No Impact Project with support from the The Huffington Post. Our Executive Director Wood Turner was featured on last night’s No Impact Week webcast with “No Impact Man” Colin Beavan. Tonight, be sure to catch the 9 pm Eastern webcast with 350.org’s Bill McKibben.

Consumerism. It’s a term that, like it or not, defines our culture. And to an extent, it should. So many of our basic needs are tied to consumption; we need food, we need water, we need oxygen, we need basic clothing and shelter. For that reason, the concept of “living without an impact” doesn’t really assume we’re opting out of all consumption completely. Instead, it’s about being more thoughtful about how we consume and considering whether we might be able to consume less and, as the No Impact Project suggests, whether that change in consumer habits might actually contribute to a happier, more connected way of life.

Yesterday’s No Impact Week challenge was for us to think differently about the way we shop. For some of us, that means finding alternative options to buying items that are brand new and honing in on what it is we truly need. Today’s challenge focuses on part two of that process: reducing our trash. I like to think about Day 1 and Day 2 of No Impact Week in terms of our own personal input/output: if we input less into our lives (stuff), we have less to output (trash).

But, back to those basic consumer needs – the things we need to buy to get by. Some of those things will result in trash, in the form of packaging or food wrappers. (Check out NIM’s helpful list of ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle here). Our weekly trash might be a negative output, but what if our negative output could also have a positive impact? Meaning, what if we could use our necessary consumer choices to send a message to companies that we care. We care about our impact, and we want big business to care too. We’re working to reduce our own impact on climate change and the natural systems that support us. Certainly, corporations can do a better job reducing theirs.

Climate Counts scores companies on their climate action – what the world’s largest corporations, which own and operate thousands of the brands we interact with on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, are voluntarily doing about the climate crisis. The scores let you see which of the biggest companies are doing the most to lead their sectors and the marketplace on this issue. So when it comes to those necessity purchases, you have the power to use your dollars to support those companies that reflect your own concerns about climate change. Climate Counts gives you the power to “raise your voice” directly to these global corporations through e-mail and Twitter. (Visit company pages on the Climate Counts site to start e-mailing or tweeting about the choices you’re making).

So while you’re evaluating your weekly purchase and disposal habits, deciding where and how you can reduce your impact to improve your quality of life, remember that paring down your daily pile of trash is really the first step in your high-impact “no” or “low” impact life. If we’re all committed each day to doing one thing, collectively we can do so much more when it comes to influencing better corporate citizenship and more sustainable public policy.