This just in: the bottled water industry is actually good for the environment. That's what Kim Jeffrey, chief executive of Nestle Waters, claims in a recent Q&A for the New York Times.
Not only do bottled water companies work hard to conserve the environment around the springs where they get their water, they also moderate greenhouse gas emissions from trucks by building plants close to the water source. Nestle is also phasing in a new bottle that uses 15 percent less plastic. Sure the industry is behind on recycling, but who isn't?
Somehow I'm not buying it. Clearly using tap water is better for the environment than bottled water. Jeffrey's other points, however, get at the real issue: people aren't buying bottled water in lieu of drinking tap water. They choose Poland Springs and Fiji water over Coke or Gatorade or Snapple. For the most part people are aware of the environmental issues with the industry, but that's not their main concern. They just want something to drink that isn't full of sugar.
Although growth in the industry has slowed, that doesn't mean people are buying less bottled water. They just aren't buying more. That seems unlikely to change anytime soon. It's going to take a lot more than global warming to convince people to just drink tap water.
Related Content:
Charles Fishman also talked to Kim Jeffrey for his article Message in Bottle, an in depth look at the bottled water industry.
That's what Serious Materials recently managed to raise for its EcoRock line of drywall set to come out next year. The reason investors are so excited about something seemingly so banal: Serious claims its drywall takes 90 percent less energy to produce than standard drywall, resulting in 98 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. When talking about an industry that creates 25 million tons of greenhouse gases each year, those numbers are significant enough to attract some attention.
"We look at it as the beginning of a new industrial revolution," says Serious president and CEO Kevin Surace. "What you're seeing is the opportunity to take everything that we do around us and get on the right side of the energy curve."
Serious Materials, a Sunnyvale, California-based company known for its Quiet Solution line of noise-reducing building materials, didn't start out with such a green agenda. After listening to builders who used Quiet Solution products, however, Serious saw an opening for more environmentally-friendly materials. Now, the company is using its previous construction experience to do what's best for the environment. "Everyone here is focused on doing that, and they're passionate about that," says Surace.
By Surace's calculations, buildings account for 50 percent of the greenhouse gases released each year in this country, when the carbon dioxide produced by the manufacture of materials is added to emissions caused by electricity, heating and cooling. In contrast, cars and trucks account for just 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. "It's not talked about because people don't know what to do about it," Surace says. Serious believes it has found a solution in EcoRock, although it doesn't claim to be able to change the entire industry overnight.
EcoRock, which matches traditional gypsum drywall in appearance and performance (but not in price), is geared specifically toward LEED buildings. While some of the larger industry players may see that as a niche market, Surace only sees continued growth. "I can't imagine a bigger space over the next two decades," he says. Surace follows the prediction that LEED-certified projects will grow from 10 percent of current buildings to 40 percent in the next five or ten years.
Surace is also banking on upcoming expected changes to the LEED standards that will put more emphasis on the environmental impact of the entire life-cycle of building materials, from production to implementation. (Rob Watson, one of the developers of LEED, is on Serious' advisory board, so the company has a pretty good idea what the United States Green Building Council has up its sleeves.)
"Everything is moving in this direction," Surace says. "I think that old-line industry may not see it, it may not be obvious, and they might not be able to do anything about it." As a relative newcomer, Serious can see those changes and execute them -- and hopefully make a lot of money in the process. "I think in this field, if you really do your duty it will pay back in spades," says Surace.
Serious' recent round of fundraising takes advantage of a growing trend in Silicon Valley for investing in eco-friendly technologies. "In the Valley here, this is all anyone is talking about," says Surace. "They will talk about Facebook's numbers…and then they go right back to, 'What are you doing in cleantech?'"
The $50 million in VC funding will go towards constructing the manufacturing infrastructure the company needs to get EcoRock on the market by mid-2008, Surace says. "We want to get enough manufacturing capacity not only to build a large company but also to have an impact on the environment."
With everyone buzzing about green issues these days, MSN launched a green channel for its network of sites this week. The channel serves as an aggregator for all of MSN and MSNBC's environmental news with additional content from outside sources like Environmental International, TreeHugger.com and The Daily Green.
MSN Green contains equal parts fluff (photos of polar bears and children in the rainforest intended to tug at the heart-strings) and substance (news stories on global warming and consumption of natural resources). As can be expected from a major online portal, there's a pretty well-rounded mix of content that I think will appeal to people with various levels of interest in the environment. I'm not sure that MSN Green is going to change anyone's opinion or instigate major change, but it fulfills its use as an information provider.
Visitors to the site are invited to "Take action now!", although that basically involves taking environmental quizzes and signing online petitions. Still, the quizzes are kind of fun. I calculated my Eco-Footprint with a quiz from Conservation International. After checking that off, among other things, I recycle aluminum cans and I don't litter "in my spare time" (are there people that do?), I learned that I am an Eco-Apprentice -- I've made a good start, but I have a little ways to go.
The green channel has not really been updated since the launch at the beginning of the week, although this is just the first week and they are dealing with limited content. Overall, the presentation of the information works well and doesn't seem too dumbed down or agenda driven. However, MSN Green won't accomplish anything if people can't find it. There's no obvious way to access the channel from the MSN homepage; it appears someone neglected to add it to the channel directory at the top. Nice job, MSN.
I was a little alarmed by an article I found in the San Francisco Chronicle this week about the myriad of toxic chemicals that are used in all types of furniture. These are the beds we sleep in each night, the tables where we eat our meals, and the couches we curl up on to watch T.V. While I'm not surprised that certain household products, like floor cleaners and paint, contain hazardous substances, it's not something I ever really considered when it comes to furniture.
The dire news: there are many known toxins that are used in the making of furniture that have adverse effects ranging from extremely unpleasant odors to liver damage. For example, formaldehyde (a chemical used in embalming) often shows up in wood furniture, and polyurethane foam can contain chemicals that have been known to lead to complications of the nervous system.
That being said, I don't know that I've ever had a reaction to a piece of furniture. Sure newly lacquered furniture might smell bad for a few days but that eventually goes away. On the other hand, several of the questionable chemicals might not produce immediate problems but can lead to cancer down the road.
Like so many potentially hazardous products that are being written about these days, there is no ingredient list of exactly what goes into furniture. There is no easy way to find out either, as furniture sellers often don't know themselves. One manufacturer mentioned in the article said he could only assume how certain pieces of the furniture he constructs are made because the parts come from overseas (from China, perhaps?).
The article names several resources of varying degrees of usefulness for finding non-toxic furniture options. Greenguard has a lot of office and school furniture, but also lists home furnishings and mattresses. The site is relatively easy to navigate and has pictures of all the items. The only "furniture" I can find on Green Seal is windows and doors, and the site just lists the companies that sell certified products. Scientific Certification Systems is even less user-friendly, with only a pdf of certified products that takes some time to sort through. In short, buying chemical-free furniture is going to take some work.
Do you have a toxic furniture horror story? Should a list of ingredients or materials be mandatory for all products sold in this country?
Before the start of the NFL season, Eric Gillin, editor of Esquire.com, compared this year's New England Patriots to Communist China. At the time, he focused mainly on positives, including the team's enormous potential and the "for the greater good" mentality of its players, as the basis for the comparison. So it was only appropriate when Chairman Belichick and the Patriots, adding an ironic twist to the analogy, were caught spying on their opponents. But now, with the team squashing the capitalistic impulses of fans everywhere, it's getting downright scary.
As reported last week, "The New England Patriots have won a bid to get the names of all the fans who bought or sold -- or tried to buy or sell -- tickets to home games through online ticket reseller StubHub."
The Patriots cited team rules against reselling tickets, except through their own TeamExchange Website, and Massachusetts anti-scalping laws in a lawsuit filed against the San Francisco-based online ticket reseller last November. They argued that they had the right to know who was violating their policies, in order to take action against them, including revoking season tickets. StubHub countered by saying the Patriots' demands infringed upon the company's confidentiality agreement with its customers. In the end, a Superior Court judge ordered StubHub to turn over the names, addresses, and phone numbers of over 13,000 customers.
But all the talk of rules is sort of a joke. The Patriots have stood by their cheating coach and HGH-using safety Rodney Harrison. They've embraced "once-in-a-blue-moon" pot-smoker Randy Moss. It's clear that breaking the rules is fine by the Patriots when it's not their rules. No, this is about money -- the Patriots want more of it, and StubHub is so good at getting it that eBay paid $310 million to buy the company in January.
Still, it will be interesting to watch the booming online ticket resale market. While some states have repealed anti-scalping laws, the Patriots aren't the only team with their own exchange site. It's conceivable that other teams looking to cash in could take similar action against StubHub in the future. Or they could go the way of the Washington Nationals, who allow fans to receive bar-coded "tickets" via text message, making it impossible for outside vendors to compete with the team's online exchange.
In the mean time, InformationWeek reports an increase in Patriots tickets offered on Craigslist. It looks like the Patriots' Republic of New England has work to do yet.
Carbon dioxide belchers down under, beware. A new law passed by the Australian government will require the nation's largest businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption starting in July of next year. Officials say the public has a right to know who the country's biggest polluters are.
The law applies only to the companies and facilities that emit the highest amounts of greenhouse gases, with the intent of protecting small business from further regulatory burdens. However, stricter limits will be imposed over the course of three years to increase the number of companies reporting.
My first thought on learning about this law was that it would never work in the U.S., or it will at least take years before anything like it comes about. While some effort has been made on the state level, the national government has showed little interest in recent years in interfering with big business's role in contributing to global warming.
However, further research revealed the U.S. government has had a voluntary program for reporting on greenhouse gas emissions since 1992. Who knew? It falls under the Energy Information Administration, a division of the Department of Energy. I'm a little surprised the reports aren't more widely publicized, considering the business world's scramble these days to show environmental accountability. On the other hand, it's probably difficult to put a positive spin on being one of the nation's biggest contributors to air pollution.
In 2005, the latest year for which data are available, 111 U.S. businesses submitted estimates of their carbon emissions on a company-wide level. To put that in perspective, the Australians estimate 450 companies will report on greenhouse gas levels in the first year, with 700 reporting by 2011. I don't know the exact figures, but I imagine the U.S. has a lot more companies than Australia. Once again, the U.S. trails the rest of the world in creating policies for environmental responsibility.
Should governments mandate reports on greenhouse gas emissions? Do such reports have any effect on business practices?
The new iPhone may have won over the tech world, but for environmentalists and consumer advocates it leaves much to be desired. A report by Greenpeace released yesterday found Apple's latest gadget houses multiple kinds of toxic chemicals in parts ranging from the antenna to the headphone cables.
One substance that is particularly troubling to environmentalists is phthalates plasticisers (a toxin that makes up 1.5 percent of the plastic coating on the iPhone's headphone cables), which are known to cause sterility and other reproductive problems in mammals. Phthalates are one characteristic of the chlorinated plastic compound polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The EU placed a ban on using phthalates in toys and other children's products because of the associated health risks.
Greenpeace also found evidence of bromine in half of the iPhone's parts, suggesting the use of brominated flame retardants (BFRs), chemicals that can be harmful to the environment once an iPhone is trashed.
Greenpeace Video: Apple iPhone Tests
Although Steve Jobs asserts "Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors" in the environmental arena, Greenpeace notes the company is far behind other cell phone makers when it comes to phasing out hazardous materials. Nokia's products currently contain no PVC, and Motorola and Sony Ericsson offer phones without BFRs. Nokia and Sony also have free recycling programs for old phones. In contrast, Apple promises to phase out PVC and BFRs from its products by the end of 2008. The company has no free take-back policy for recycling phones.
While it has not issued an official release, an Apple spokesperson told PC World that the iPhone complies with the latest standards on the use of hazardous substances and reaffirmed the company's commitment to voluntarily phase out toxins by the end of next year.
This is not the first time Apple has been in the green seat. In 2006, Greenpeace launched the Green My Apple campaign, because the company had been the least responsive to the organization's pressures to create more environmentally friendly products. Finally, in May, Apple responded by becoming, "A Greener Apple," but Greenpeace leaders felt that the iPhone would have been the company's first opportunity to prove exactly how green it was becoming.
What the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED ratings did for sustainable building design, a consortium of organizations is now trying to accomplish for landscapes and other outdoor spaces. The Sustainable Sites Initiative was unveiled last week at the American Society of Landscape Architects Expo as a joint project by that organization, the University of Texas at Austin's Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanic Garden.
Although the idea has been in the works for a couple of years, it's still in its preliminary stages. The first report on what exactly will be expected of landscape architects who choose to follow the initiative's guidelines will be released November 1st. However, the LEED creators have already signed on to include the finalized guidelines in their rating system in the future.
The Sustainable Sites Initiative plans to incorporate everything from open spaces as large as national parks to sites as small as city plazas. (I wonder how the park outside our offices at 7 World Trade Center would measure up.) Each site will have to take into account water usage, soil quality, types of vegetation used, construction materials, and the impact on humans. Like the LEED system, the initiative anticipates different ratings depending on each site's level of "green-ness."
The initiative's website is filled with interesting (and disturbing) facts about the impact of manmade outdoor sites on the environment. For example, lawn maintenance in this country requires the equivalent of 200 gallons of water per person each day. Moreover, 5,000 non-native plants first used in landscape designs have infiltrated natural eco-systems, accounting for 85 percent of invasive plant species in this country.
Guidelines for eco-friendly outdoor spaces are something that never really occurred to me, but after seeing the Sustainable Sites Initiative it really makes sense. We'll just have to wait and see if this is something that catches on and people are actually interested in following.
For the inside story behind the LEED standards, check out The Green Standard? from the October issue.
Well, that didn't take long. When the New York Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs Monday night, the baseball season, for all intents and purposes, ended.
Forget the battle between Arizona and Colorado, in an NLCS that promises to draw about twelve viewers east of the Rockies. Not to mention those upstart Indians -- who took down the Yanks -- or a Red Sox team that seems the clear favorite to win its second World Series in four seasons.
No, the story in baseball is now all about one man. One agent, to be exact, who seems to believe he is the first in history to represent a deity.
Scott Boras, the high-powered agent for several stars including Yankees third-baseman Alex Rodriguez, is already pushing up his asking price should A-Rod decide to opt out of his contract.
As CNBC's Darren Rovell reported yesterday on his sports business blog, Boras believes A-Rod is worth at least $500 million over the next 10 years. That's almost double his current $252 million deal, which was signed after the 2000 season and remains the most expensive in baseball history.
My initial reaction was that Boras must be out of his mind. But Rovell got him on the phone later in the day and came away impressed by his logic. Basically, he says, team-owned regional sports networks have changed baseball's economic landscape:
Before A-Rod, the YES Network never did better than a 3.2 rating. Since A-Rod came to the team, the network has seen its ratings rise to a record 4.7 this season. Since no significant position player has been acquired since Rodriguez joined the Yankees in 2004, Boras says he can contribute the ratings rise -- as well as the turnstile rise, by the way -- to his client being on the team…
…YES, which was given an initial value of $850 million upon launch in 2001 is now said to be worth about $3 billion.
While I remain dubious that A-Rod is the sole reason for the network's growth -- afterall, YES had only existed for two seasons when A-Rod arrived in New York -- Boras makes a compelling argument. If one marquee player can have a dramatic impact on an RSN's ratings, then isn't he worth whatever the ratings boost brings in advertising revenues? From a purely economic perspective, I can't say that he's not.
That said, I don't like the implications of Boras' logic. Team-owned regional sports networks should generate revenue to help support a winning team, not the other way around. And despite the potential to grow an RSN, signing A-Rod to an earth-shattering deal isn't the best way to put a successful product on the field.
Just look at the Yankees. They lost because they couldn't pitch; their go-to guy, Chien-Ming Wang, lasted exactly one inning in Monday's season-ending loss. Now consider that the four teams still alive in the playoffs have five pitchers between them who won at least 17 games this season, and that those five guys made a total of $21,054,167 in 2007 -- even less than A-Rod ($27 million) in his current deal. As far as wins and losses go, especially come playoff time, there are clearly better ways for a team to spend its money.
In the end, Scott Boras has always valued the biggest deal over championships. But A-Rod already has the biggest deal in history. If he really wants a ring to cement his place as the Greatest Of All-Time, he should be careful about how high he lets his agent go.
Pre-employment background checks are being conducted with increasing regularity by companies that want to be more sure of the type of people they are hiring. The information used to determine if an individual will be hired varies from business to business. Some places only require that the work history an individual gives on a resume proves to be accurate. Other companies delve deeper into criminal records and credit scores.
Aside from an applicant having a serious criminal past, the information that can effect an employers decision to hire an individual is the honesty found on their resume. With statistics showing that 30 to 40 percent of people lie about their work histories, employers can use the information given on a resume to test an applicants honesty.
Because of this embellishing one's past salary or responsibilities can serious hurt their ability to find a new job. For this reason it is important for job seekers to concentrate on listing obligations directly related to past job descriptions when writing their new resumes. This will minimize the likelihood of the previous employer disputing any information given.
Companies that conduct an employment background check are also concerned with the accuracy of the salaries applicants claim to have received in the past. Many people are tempted to “fudge” the numbers here, in hopes of receiving more money from a new company. Instead these individuals often find themselves being passed over because of their lack of honesty.
Although dishonesty is severally looked down upon by companies conducting background checks, one does not have to list the exact dollar amount of compensation they received in the past. Hiring managers understand that most people estimate or round up when asked about the amount of money they received for salary based positions.
It is also OK to include yearly and performance based bonuses when one responds to this question. In this case, listing a previous salary as a range of figures is encouraged. For example, if one's base pay was $30,000 but one received $5,000 in bonuses a year then the figure given should be written as $30,000 to $35,000. If a potential employer has a question about this, the applicant can more easily explain this than they can give a reason for misrepresenting information.
When being subjected to this type of recruiting process, one does not have to agonize about a malicious ex-boss giving false information. In many places, laws exist to govern the type of questions that can be asked in these situations. The libel laws of many states also protect past employees by making it illegal for untrue information to be passed on from ex-employers.
