Archive for environmental impact
Shell delay Arctic oil drilling for another year
Posted by: | CommentsOne of the many environmental topics I find myself returning to frequently due to ongoing changes is the status of drilling for oil in Arctic regions. At times it seems like it’s a battle to delay the inevitable but opening up more and more potential oil fields only precludes us as a society from hastening our investment to and commitment toward renewable sources of energy. Therefore news that Shell have announced that they will not be conducting exploratory drilling in the waters off Alaska this year must be seen as a piece of good news if perhaps temporary.
The decision was made after a ruling last month by the US government to revoke federal clean air permits that would’ve been needed for drilling ships and support ships in the region. The battle was waged by lawyers supporting environmental groups who challenged the permits that had originally been approved by the EPA for activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas respectively. It would be naive to think that Shell will simply give up on the idea however but a temporary stay of execution has been granted to the region. Shell meanwhile said that the decision to lay drilling was a result of “continuous regulatory delays” and that the oil company had spent more than $50 million to secure the EPA permits.
To date Shell have been trying for five years to commence work in the Arctic seas around Alaska against the common backdrop of environmental groups protesting the initiative either through the courts or the media. In opposition to the environmental issues politicians are also pointing out that expansion of the oil industry in the area would bring many jobs and also help secure more stable prices for gasoline. Not for the first time and surely not for the last of the debate between environmental causes and economic impact are wrestling with the decisions of our politicians. Environmental groups will continue to point out that the true impact on the infrastructure of the marine and coastal environment along the Alaskan coast remains unknown in addition to the lack of technology that proves clearing up a potential oil spill in the Arctic can be done successfully.
The oil industry would probably cite the old adage of ‘that battle may be lost but the war can still be won’ and I sincerely hope that they are wrong.
Tags: arctic oil drilling, arctic oil exploration, drilling permits, eco conscious, Eco-friendly fashion, eco-system, environmental damage, environmental impact, environmental protection, EPA, epa permits, green gifts, green products, oil and environment, oil drilling, oil exploration, oil spills, planet forward, shell arctic exploration, shell oil, stainless steel water bottles, sustainable practices, sustainable water bottlesRanking the worst ‘eco-offenders’ – a new and balanced view
Posted by: | CommentsTrying to rank which countries are most negatively impacting the environment isn’t an easy formula to arrive upon. The size and population of each nation coupled with the overall economic status of each country makes gauging the overall detriment per nation a difficult task. In a new report published by the University of Adelaide’s Environmental Institute they have have factored in a net score per each country but also a proportional ranking system which evaluates the impact of smaller less populous nations in a more equitable fashion. As you may anticipate in the initial poll Brazil and the United States rank in the top two positions as relates to overall negative environmental impact. The most fascinating part of this report is that the data doesn’t simply look at consumption and factory/vehicle based emissions but evaluates the impact of changing land use and deforestation, marine impact and more. In total seven different measurements of environmental impact created the twin rankings – the first compiles the impact as compared with the resources of a nation and the second looking at the total impact on a global basis.
Global map displays global rankings for both reports
The measurements do far more than focus on consumption as mentioned and include these seven unique gauges. Assessing the loss of natural forest, habitat conversion ratio when unspoiled land is changed for commercial or agricultural use. Overall impact of fisheries and marine farming of any sort. Use of fertilizer and water pollution both coastal and on inland waterways. Overall carbon emissions from homes, businesses, vehicles and other sources and environmental impact to other species. Study leader Corey Bradshaw summises:
“The environmental crises currently gripping the planet are the corollary of excessive human consumption of natural resources. There is considerable and mounting evidence that elevated degradation and loss of habitats and species are compromising ecosystems that sustain the quality of life for billions of people worldwide.”
The rankings are quite fascinating, especially the first which for nations with limited resources of their own shows that a ‘ledger’ type of rating shows many nations with high levels of pollution and consumption are not able to offset due to size and/or limited natural land left to be used efficiently.
The list of proportional environmental impact – the worst 10 (out of 179 measured)
1. Singapore
2. Korea
3. Qatar
4. Kuwait
5. Japan
6. Thailand
7. Bahrain
8. Malaysia
9. Philippines
10. The Netherlands
The more ‘traditional’ list shows the worst 10 in absolute terms (out of 171 measured)
1. Brazil
2. USA
3. China
4. Indonesia
5. Japan
6. Mexico
7. India
8. Russia
9. Australia
10. Peru
The university expressed that the ratings are very comprehensive and focused exclusively on environmental impact rather than looking at an index that includes health or economic based statistics. As you’ll have noticed the first list includes some of the wealthiest nations on earth drawing a very visible parallel between consumption and damage to the planet. Bradshaw expanded upon this and dismissed the theory that wealthier nations spend excess funds on working to counteract some of the issues they themselves create:
“We correlated rankings against three socio-economic variables (human population size, gross national income and governance quality) and found that total wealth was the most important explanatory variable — the richer a country, the greater its average environmental impact. There’s a theory that as wealth increases, nations have more access to clean technology and become more environmentally aware so that the environmental impact starts to decline. This wasn’t supported,”
The overall findings of the study are published on the science journal website Plos One – there you will find all of the ranking data, interpretation and graphs. It’s valuable information that should be more widely shared.
Tags: carbon emissions, correlation between wealth and environmental impact, deforestation, eco rating, environmental impact, environmental impact by nation, habitat conversion, planet forward, resource managementFast Food Revolution – Chipotle Serves Corporate Social Responsibility
Posted by: | CommentsSteve Ells was interviewed by Oprah to discuss his revolutionary ideas about fast food. Ells shared his story which illustrates how Chipotle Mexican Grill is a great example of corporate social responsibility (CSR), “in 1993, [he] opened the very first Chipotle Mexican restaurant. “I think fast food to most people means cheap, highly processed,” he says. “At Chipotle, it’s just the opposite. Everything at Chipotle is fresh, never frozen, with the exception of corn.”
Ells says 45 percent of Chipotle’s beans are organic, and restaurants buy produce from local family farmers in the months it’s available. Chipotle also serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant company in the country. In 2010, the chain expects to serve about 70 million pounds of meat. One hundred percent of its chicken and pork are naturally raised, with beef at 60 percent. “These make for better tasting meats and better for the environment,” Steve says. Steve’s dedication to fresh food is paying off. Chipotle serves 700,000 people a day and saw more than $1 billion in sales in 2009. “Access to sustainably raised food shouldn’t be a luxury,” he says. “It should be an everyday occurrence.””
Ells’ Chipotle Mexican Grill is an excellent example of corporate social responsibility because he believes in Food With Integrity™, but this is more than a mere slogan. According to the Chipotle website “the hallmarks of Food With Integrity™ includes things like unprocessed, seasonal, family-farmed, sustainable, nutritious, naturally raised, added hormone free, organic, and artisanal. And, since embracing this philosophy, it’s had tremendous impact on how we run our restaurants and our business.”
Tags: Chipotle, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Chipotle Mexican Restaurant, Chipotle Restaurant, Corporate Responsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, environmental impact, fast food, FDA, Food With Integrity, local sustainable food, Oprah, Oprah Winfrey, organic fast food, Social Responsibility, Steve Ells, sustainable food, sustainable practices, vegan dining, vegan fast food, Vegetarian, vegetarian fast food, zero trans fats
