Sustainability Law Blog

Lately, the ire of many commentators has been focused on the biofuels industry. Their claim is that increased demand for corn and other feedstocks to make biofuels has caused a worldwide shortage, sending commodity prices through the roof. These efforts have led to calls by some policymakers to reconsider the nation's support for biofuels.

However, the facts show that the effect of biofuel manufacturing on food prices is negligible. According to an editorial in the Portland Tribune on April 22, domestic corn growers (noting the demand from ethanol manufacturers) increased corn output by 24% in 2007, well more than all the corn used in ethanol that year. US corn exports reached an all-time high in 2007, notwithstanding the diversion of some corn to domestic ethanol. If there is a world corn shortage, it does not arise in the United States.

Moreover, the contribution of corn to many staple groceries is minimal in terms of cost. For example, a standard box of cornflakes includes about 5 cents worth of corn and a can of soda less than 2 cents worth of corn sweetener, even at today's corn prices. It is true that the cost of raising livestock has gone up due to corn price increases, but blaming ethanol for higher meat prices ignores the calls that have been made for years, and which have fallen mostly on deaf ears, for the livestock industry to modernize and diversify its feed supply.

Continue reading "Ethanol's Impact On Food Prices Is Grossly Overstated" »

Posted by Tonkon Torp LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark:

Much commentary can be found in the mainstream media today about the negative impacts of first-generation biofuels, mainly corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel. Among the most commonly-heard criticisms are that the biofuels industry has increased demand for corn and soy, leading to higher prices for those commodities, which in turn leads to higher food prices. Critics also allege that demand for acreage for biofuels production increases the speed at which rainforests and other native ecosystems are cleared for food production, causing a "carbon debt" that is not fully offset by the emission savings from use of biofuels. Finally, naysayers assert that the carbon released from burning fossil fuels in the production of biofuels more than offsets the carbon savings.

All of these criticisms have some merit. However, those who crow about rising food costs usually fail to attribute any economic benefit to the increased use of non-fossil fuels, such as reduced carbon emissions and expenditure of energy dollars in America rather than abroad. While these benefits may not be easy to quantify on the individual level, they are real and go a long way toward offsetting the average consumer's increased food costs. Also, if we are going to blame the biofuels industry for increased cultivation of native ecosystems, we should equally blame those industries that convert farmland to subdivisions or that grow non-food crops like flowers, cotton and tobacco. All of those uses can equally be said to increase pressure on other land to meet the world's food supply needs. Finally the fossil-fuel argument is circular – as biofuels become more incorporated into our economy, the amount of fossil fuel burned in biofuel production will go down.

Continue reading "Corn and Soy-Based Biofuels Are A Waypoint, Not A Destination" »

Posted by Tonkon Torp LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark:

Consumers are increasingly saying they want the option to buy green products. But they’re also wary about greenwashing and the authenticity of claims from product manufacturers seeking to ride the green wave. As Eric Wilson noted in his December 17, 2007, post, “more than half of the 2,007 respondents in a shopper survey in September by BBMG, a branding agency, said they were looking for certification seals on green claims to feel confident about their purchases.”

Such labeling systems do exist. TerraChoice has its EcoLogo ™. Fair trade has labeling initiatives under the umbrella of the Fair Trade Labeling Organizations Initiative. Many consumer products industries have their own labeling system.

Enviromedia Social Marketing created “The Greenwashing Index,” the first online, interactive forum that allows consumers to evaluate the environmental claims made in advertisements. The purpose of the Greenwashing Index, according to Enviromedia Social Marketing is to:

• Help consumers become more savvy about evaluating environmental marketing claims of advertisers;


• Hold businesses accountable to their environmental marketing claims;


• Stimulate the market and demand for sustainable business practices that truly reduce the impact on the environment.

Websites such as www.buygreen.com use proprietary rating systems to encourage an environmentally preferred purchasing strategy for consumers and businesses. Buygreen.com does extensive research to rate products based on their material sourcing, manufacturing process, use and disposability. What’s one of the more popular products sold at www.buygreen.com? Garbage bags. Somehow, that seems appropriate.

I met Allison Huke, co-founder of Buygreen.com, at the Green Business Conference last November in San Francisco. A profile of Allison and BuyGreen.com can be found here. Allison says she started the company because, like many people, she didn’t know where to buy green products or how to sift through various green claims. This confusion is one of the reasons greenwashing exists.

We can either sit around and wait for the FTC to tell us what green means, or we can do what Allison did and what Enviromedia enables – figure out for ourselves, based on our own value systems, how green is green.

Posted by David Copley Forman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark:

Greenwashing - the little green lie. Apparently, the lies aren’t so little and they’re incredibly widespread. Or, maybe we’re all just confused about what it means to be green or sustainable.

A recent study by the environmental marketing firm TerraChoice found that 99% of over 1,000 randomly surveyed consumer products were guilty of greenwashing – a term the firm defines to mean “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” In other words: false advertising.

TerraChoice identified six sins of greenwashing, including hidden tradeoffs, no proof, vagueness, irrelevance, fibbing and “lesser of two evils.” More detailed information about these six sins can be found on their website.

The problem appears so prevalent that the FTC is getting involved. Last month it opened hearings on green advertising claims. Although the Commission has environmental marketing guidelines, they haven’t been updated since 1998.
See www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm.

On the other hand, Andy Savitz, in his “The Triple Bottom Line Blog”, suggests that maybe the problem isn’t as pervasive as it appears. Andy notes that many of the sins are of the hidden tradeoff type. For example, the car manufacturer that promotes its greenness with its hybrid, but produces twice as many gas guzzling SUVs, it doesn’t make the hybrid any less of a green option.

Nonetheless, consumers looking to buy green need some means of determining which green products are legitimately sustainable vs. marketing hype. More on that in my next post.

Posted by David Copley Forman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark:

If you are a Northwest Oregon driver, your tanks are now filled with blended fuel that is 10% ethanol. In case you missed it, the Oregon Legislature's HB 2210 required a 10% ethanol blend in nine Northwest Oregon counties beginning January 15, 2008. Nine more counties join the requirement on April 15. By September 16, only airplane fuel will not be required to be an ethanol blend in Oregon.

While the ethanol additive may help the environment, reduce dependency on foreign oil and lower pump prices, an indisputable benefit is that most of the ethanol needed to supply our stock will be produced in Oregon. Pacific Ethanol's Boardman facility, which began production last August, is slated to produce 40 million gallons of ethanol a year.

Posted by Max M. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark:

Last weekend, Portlanders packed the Oregon Convention Center for the Portland International Auto Show. Many people went to the show to check out the more green automotive alternatives such as the new hybrids, biodiesel and electric cars.

But cars aren't the only traffic out there on the roads. Equally exciting to many of us interested in sustainability will be the Fourth Annual North American Handmade Bicycle Show this February 8-10. Last Fall the Oregon Handmade Bicycle Show showcased over 20 Oregon-based builders, and event organizers reported over 1800 people in attendance. The February event will feature over 200 exhibitors from all over North America, including 11 local exhibitors showing off their wares.

The bike industry is flourishing in Oregon. Even Public Radio International's Marketplace recently picked up an OPB story reporting on how Portland's bike culture has set this city up to become "the center of the country's $6 billion-a-year bicycling industry." According to that story, the bike industry employs up to 800 people at about 125 businesses in Portland, and is growing. As more people throughout the nation start commuting by bike on a regular basis, Portland is in a great position to be an industry leader. That's an exciting place to be.

Posted by Kimberlee A. Stafford, attorney practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups.

Posted by Tonkon Torp LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark:

In an editorial on January 2, the Wall Street Journal argues that the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs required by the recent federal energy bill exists only to increase the profit margins of compact fluorescent bulb makers like Philips and GE. As is typical of the WSJ, the editorial advocates letting the marketplace sort out which is the better bulb for the price. The feds are just meddling to force consumers to pay higher costs, says the Journal. As is common with naysayers about climate change, this argument values individual, short-term benefit (a cheaper light bulb) to the exclusion of the greater societal benefit to society (reduction of the risks caused by global warming). By that same rationale, cheap and dangerous toys, lead-based paint and CFC-based aerosol spray cans should all still be available too, but few would dispute that society as a whole is better served by phasing out these products and effectively forcing consumers to buy their slightly more expensive, but more benign, replacements. The incandescent light-bulb should rightly go the way of leaded gasoline and its cohorts, into the dustbin of history.

Posted by David J. Petersen, partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups.

Posted by Tonkon Torp LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Products

Bookmark: