A Purdue University study shows that introducing a new hybrid of the American chestnut tree would not only bring back the all-but-extinct species, but also put a dent in the amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere.
Douglass Jacobs, an associate professor of forestry and natural resources, found that American chestnuts grow much faster and larger than other hardwood species, allowing them to sequester more carbon than other trees over the same period. And since American chestnut trees are more often used for high-quality hardwood products such as furniture, they hold the carbon longer than wood used for paper or other low-grade materials.
"Maintaining or increasing forest cover has been identified as an important way to slow climate change," said Jacobs, whose paper was published in the June issue of the journal Forest Ecology and Management. "The American chestnut is an incredibly fast-growing tree. Generally the faster a tree grows, the more carbon it is able to sequester. And when these trees are harvested and processed, the carbon can be stored in the hardwood products for decades, maybe longer."
At the beginning of the last century, the chestnut blight, caused by a fungus, rapidly spread throughout the American chestnut's natural range, which extended from southern New England and New York southwest to Alabama. About 50 years ago, the species was nearly gone.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Water in Africa — Business turns on the tap
Business is stepping in where governments fail to provide clean water in Africa, with Coca-Cola, SABMiller and major platinum miners leading the way.
A world running short of water is presenting a new category of risk to businesses that few have begun to appreciate. That was the warning from campaigner WWF and noted research body the Pacific Institute, at the World Water Forum in Istanbul in late March.
Water experts say leading companies are starting to use water more efficiently in their own operations. But they will need to look deeper into their supply chains and at the performance of water regulators if they are to address the growing challenge of water scarcity
Water remains so basic a commodity that few businesses realise the extent to which disruptions in supply or increases in price — both predicted with increasing frequency — can affect their operations. “If yours is an efficient business sitting in a poorly managed river basin you are still exposed to extremely high water risk,”? Stuart Orr, freshwater manager at WWF International, told the water forum.
For businesses operating in Africa, the risk of climate change — which threatens the stability of water supplies — is compounded by the inability or the unwillingness of the public sector to create and sustain the basic water supply infrastructure so critical to a well-functioning society and economy. As a result of this amplified risk, businesses in the developing world are themselves increasingly drawn into providing water supply infrastructure in the public sector's place.
In Africa, the space for companies to do so is created by the state, which although having a duty to extend water services and protect water resources, rarely has a financial incentive to do so. Rural communities and the urban poor usually cannot afford to pay for the extension of water supplies and even where the better-off can pay, local and municipal government often lacks the systems to collect equitably the user fees.
As a result the provision and extension of basic services, such as water, becomes a political issue, something used by politicians to build or reward a particular constituency. This means that the management of water resources tends not to follow long-term plans but lurches from one scheme to another, with scant regard for ecological or economical sustainability. Rural and poor areas get the worst of it because few skilled people wish to live and work there, leaving maintenance or the rehabilitation of run-down systems to non-governmental organisations and foreign donors.
Therefore companies operating in many African countries cannot simply limit their management of water risk to improving efficiency. Often business needs to get involved in the overall management of a regional resource in order to protect the quality of this water and the company's access to it.
A world running short of water is presenting a new category of risk to businesses that few have begun to appreciate. That was the warning from campaigner WWF and noted research body the Pacific Institute, at the World Water Forum in Istanbul in late March.
Water experts say leading companies are starting to use water more efficiently in their own operations. But they will need to look deeper into their supply chains and at the performance of water regulators if they are to address the growing challenge of water scarcity
Water remains so basic a commodity that few businesses realise the extent to which disruptions in supply or increases in price — both predicted with increasing frequency — can affect their operations. “If yours is an efficient business sitting in a poorly managed river basin you are still exposed to extremely high water risk,”? Stuart Orr, freshwater manager at WWF International, told the water forum.
For businesses operating in Africa, the risk of climate change — which threatens the stability of water supplies — is compounded by the inability or the unwillingness of the public sector to create and sustain the basic water supply infrastructure so critical to a well-functioning society and economy. As a result of this amplified risk, businesses in the developing world are themselves increasingly drawn into providing water supply infrastructure in the public sector's place.
In Africa, the space for companies to do so is created by the state, which although having a duty to extend water services and protect water resources, rarely has a financial incentive to do so. Rural communities and the urban poor usually cannot afford to pay for the extension of water supplies and even where the better-off can pay, local and municipal government often lacks the systems to collect equitably the user fees.
As a result the provision and extension of basic services, such as water, becomes a political issue, something used by politicians to build or reward a particular constituency. This means that the management of water resources tends not to follow long-term plans but lurches from one scheme to another, with scant regard for ecological or economical sustainability. Rural and poor areas get the worst of it because few skilled people wish to live and work there, leaving maintenance or the rehabilitation of run-down systems to non-governmental organisations and foreign donors.
Therefore companies operating in many African countries cannot simply limit their management of water risk to improving efficiency. Often business needs to get involved in the overall management of a regional resource in order to protect the quality of this water and the company's access to it.
Microbe wakes up after 120,000 years
After more than 120,000 years trapped beneath a block of ice in Greenland, a tiny microbe has awoken. The long-lasting bacteria may hold clues to what life forms might exist on other planets.
The new bacteria species was found nearly 2 miles beneath a Greenland glacier, where temperatures can dip well below freezing, pressure soars, and food and oxygen are scarce.
"We don't know what state they were in," said study team member Jean Brenchley of Pennsylvania State University. "They could've been dormant, or they could've been slowly metabolizing, but we don't know for sure
Dormant would mean the bacteria were in a spore-like state in which there's not a lot of metabolism going on, so the bacteria wouldn't be reproducing much. It's possible the bacteria could have been slowly metabolizing and replicating.
"Microbes have found ways to survive in harsh conditions for long times that we don't yet fully understand," Brenchley told LiveScience.
To coax the bacteria back to life, Brenchley, Jennifer Loveland-Curtze and their Penn State colleagues incubated the samples at 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) for seven months, followed by more than four months at 41 degrees F (5 degrees C).
The resulting colonies of the originally purple-brown bacteria, now named Herminiimonas glaciei, are alive and well.
"We were able to recover it and get it to grow in our laboratory," Brenchley said. "It was viable."
Such vigor is partially due to the microbe's small size, the scientists speculate. Boasting dimensions that are 10 to 50 times smaller than Escherichia coli, the new bacteria likely could more efficiently absorb nutrients due to a larger surface-to-volume ratio. Tiny microbes like this one can also hide more easily from predators and take up residence among ice crystals and in the thin liquid film on those surfaces.
H. glaciei is not the first bacteria species resurrected after a possibly lengthy snooze beneath the ice. Loveland-Curtze and her team reported another hardy bacterium in the same area that had survived for about 120,000 years as well. Chryseobacterium greenlandensis had tiny bud-like structures on its surface that may have played a role in the organism's survival. Another bacterium survived more than 32,000 years in an Arctic tunnel, and was brought back to life a few years ago.
The harsh conditions endured by these microbes serve as models of other planets.
"These extremely cold environments are the best analogues of possible extraterrestrial habitats," Loveland-Curtze said, referring to the Greenland glacier. "The exceptionally low temperatures can preserve cells and nucleic acids for even millions of years."
And studying such microorganisms may provide insight into what sorts of life forms could survive elsewhere in the solar system.
The new bacteria species was found nearly 2 miles beneath a Greenland glacier, where temperatures can dip well below freezing, pressure soars, and food and oxygen are scarce.
"We don't know what state they were in," said study team member Jean Brenchley of Pennsylvania State University. "They could've been dormant, or they could've been slowly metabolizing, but we don't know for sure
Dormant would mean the bacteria were in a spore-like state in which there's not a lot of metabolism going on, so the bacteria wouldn't be reproducing much. It's possible the bacteria could have been slowly metabolizing and replicating.
"Microbes have found ways to survive in harsh conditions for long times that we don't yet fully understand," Brenchley told LiveScience.
To coax the bacteria back to life, Brenchley, Jennifer Loveland-Curtze and their Penn State colleagues incubated the samples at 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) for seven months, followed by more than four months at 41 degrees F (5 degrees C).
The resulting colonies of the originally purple-brown bacteria, now named Herminiimonas glaciei, are alive and well.
"We were able to recover it and get it to grow in our laboratory," Brenchley said. "It was viable."
Such vigor is partially due to the microbe's small size, the scientists speculate. Boasting dimensions that are 10 to 50 times smaller than Escherichia coli, the new bacteria likely could more efficiently absorb nutrients due to a larger surface-to-volume ratio. Tiny microbes like this one can also hide more easily from predators and take up residence among ice crystals and in the thin liquid film on those surfaces.
H. glaciei is not the first bacteria species resurrected after a possibly lengthy snooze beneath the ice. Loveland-Curtze and her team reported another hardy bacterium in the same area that had survived for about 120,000 years as well. Chryseobacterium greenlandensis had tiny bud-like structures on its surface that may have played a role in the organism's survival. Another bacterium survived more than 32,000 years in an Arctic tunnel, and was brought back to life a few years ago.
The harsh conditions endured by these microbes serve as models of other planets.
"These extremely cold environments are the best analogues of possible extraterrestrial habitats," Loveland-Curtze said, referring to the Greenland glacier. "The exceptionally low temperatures can preserve cells and nucleic acids for even millions of years."
And studying such microorganisms may provide insight into what sorts of life forms could survive elsewhere in the solar system.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
INDIAN ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT 2009
Welcome to Indian Environment Summit 2009
IRWM & Co., is delighted to present Indian Environment Summit 2009 – India’s only premium environmental trade exhibition and conference on Waste, Water, Pollution, Energy and Recycling from 14 – 16 September 2009 at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, INDIA. Under the support of its partners, IES 2009 is India’s only united forum constituted to recognize the environmental issues and confront them innovatively by providing a perfect platform for the best and most innovative technological solutions with multidisciplinary global approach in order to meet the escalating demand for pollution free green environment.
IRWM & Co., is delighted to present Indian Environment Summit 2009 – India’s only premium environmental trade exhibition and conference on Waste, Water, Pollution, Energy and Recycling from 14 – 16 September 2009 at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, INDIA. Under the support of its partners, IES 2009 is India’s only united forum constituted to recognize the environmental issues and confront them innovatively by providing a perfect platform for the best and most innovative technological solutions with multidisciplinary global approach in order to meet the escalating demand for pollution free green environment.
Coca-Cola's Latest Environmental Scam
Under fire for its mismanagement of water resources in India, Coke has gone all out to create an image of itself as a leader in water conservation. Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
17 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
AlterNet Social Networks:
Also in Water
California's Water Woes Threaten the Entire Country's Food Supply
Scott Thill
Save Water by Learning How Much Your Plants Really Need
Leandre Poisson, Gretchen Vogel Poisson
Report Warns of Armed Conflict in the Middle East Over Water
Have West Virginia Officials Lost Their Minds When It Comes to Water Safety Standards?
Catherine O'Neill
Cochabamba: From War to Water Management
Raul Zibechi
Will New York's Toxic Problem Ruin Texas' Water?
Adam Federman
More stories by Amit Srivastava
Water RSS Feed
Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg DiggWhat is Digg?
40 diggsRevealed: Blackwater Still Working in Iraq
.......................
22 diggsRight-Wing Radicals and the Eliminationist Mindset
"Understanding the dangerous worldview that led to the murder of an innocent doctor and an attack at the Holocaust Museum".
20 diggsThis isn't on CNN, Afghan Refugee Describes Recent Bombings
"Why isn't this footage on CNN or MSNBC?" "Those are questions we should be asking ourselves as we watch the powerful images of Abdullah Khan, a refugee from Afghanistan's Helmland province forced to seek shelter in an IDP camp outside Kabul".
17 diggsStop Being Distracted by Loudmouths Like Limbaugh: The Real
The future of Medical Care is not dependent on Rush Limbaugh or other Republicans. The Real Problem Is Lousy Democrats Like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson, who refuse to support a public option.
15 diggs15 Shocking Tales of How Sex Laws Are Screwing the American
In the land of the free, the freedom to express your sexuality can land you in prison.
Powered by Digg's Users
The Coca-Cola Co. is up to its old tricks again. The company, which is under fire for its mismanagement of water resources in India, has gone all out to manufacture an image of itself as a global leader in water conservation. Sections of Coca-Cola's Web site, for example, read like a proposal that a nongovernmental organization working on water issues might write.
Now, in an attempt to position itself as "aggressively" tackling the world's water problems, the company has come up with a new corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative -- water neutrality. The company has already announced that it will become water neutral in India by the end of 2009 and that it has plans to do so in its global operations as well. Sure, it all sounds good, and who could object to water-conservation measures in an increasingly water-scarce world? But just what does becoming water neutral mean?
In a concept paper on water neutrality developed in November 2007 by the Coca-Cola Co., the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, World Wildlife Fund and others, it reads: "In a strict sense, the term 'water neutral' is troublesome and even may be misleading. It is often possible to reduce a water footprint, but it is generally impossible to bring it down to zero."
I see. Troublesome and misleading.
The concept paper also notes: "After having done everything that was technically possible and economically feasible, individuals, communities and businesses will always have a residual water footprint. In that sense, they can never become water neutral."
In other words, becoming water neutral is impossible.
And finally, the concept paper on water neutrality offers this: "Alternative names to 'water neutral' that have been suggested include water offset, water stewardship and water-use reduction and reuse. However none of these other terms seem to have the same gravity or resonance (inspiration) with the media, officials or NGOs as the term neutrality. For pragmatic reasons it may therefore be attractive to use the term 'water neutral,' but there is a definite need to be clear about precisely what it entails if reduction of water use to zero is not possible."
Just to be clear, we want to summarize what the concept paper on water neutrality has to say on the use of the term water neutrality. It is pragmatic to use a troublesome and misleading (but attractive) term like water neutrality -- which is impossible to achieve -- because it resonates well with the media, officials and NGOs. Welcome to Coca-Cola's world.
It doesn't really matter what the facts and reality may be. As long as it sounds good, no matter how misleading or troublesome the concept, they will market it to forge public opinion with the use of their mighty public relations apparatus. Coca-Cola announced its "water neutrality" goals in London and in San Francisco last week.
Little Drops of Misery
The International Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable for its abuses in India has been frustrated with Coca-Cola's increased public relations, under the guise of corporate social responsibility, to respond to the crisis that Coca-Cola has created in India. Communities living around some of Coca-Cola's bottling plants in India are experiencing severe water shortages -- due to Coca-Cola's extraction of water from the groundwater resource, as well as pollution by the company's plants.
Located primarily in rural areas, the hardest hit have been farmers who have seen significant declines in crop production, as well as women who now have to walk farther to access potable water. A study funded by Coca-Cola -- which the campaign forced it to agree to -- confirmed that Coca-Cola is a significant contributor to the water crises, and one of its key recommendations is that Coca-Cola shut down its bottling plant -- in Kala Dera in the state of Rajasthan -- where the community has been campaigning against Coca-Cola.
The study -- a damning indictment of Coca-Cola's water management practices in India -- concluded that the Coca-Cola Co. had sited its bottling plants in India from strictly a "business continuity" perspective that has not taken the wider context into perspective. It also warned Coca-Cola of worsening water conditions around its bottling plants, found an alarming increase in pollution as one got closer to Coca-Cola bottling plants and faulted the company on pollution-prevention measures, among others.
In typical fashion, Coca-Cola has chosen to ignore the findings of the study -- which it paid for and even participated in -- and is now insisting that shutting down the Kala Dera plant and leaving is not an option because the responsible thing to do is to stay and solve the problem because they are "problem solvers!"
Lies and Half-Truths: Coca-Cola's CSR
Last month, the Coca-Cola Co. released its 2007/2008 sustainability review, and surprisingly, critical issues facing the company's operations in India do not find mention in the review. Needless to say, the company gives itself high marks in its sustainability report. We can understand that mentioning the company's atrocious record in India would not look good for a company that is on a fast track toward manufacturing a green image of itself. But surely a company cannot just choose to ignore the fiercest battleground it faces when it comes to measuring Coca-Cola's sustainability?
Evidently, if you are Coca-Cola, you can conveniently choose to omit the most critical issues facing the company's use -- or abuse -- of water. The sustainability report must look good, and facts do not matter. One of Coca-Cola's champion projects in India to deflect attention away from the water crises it causes is rainwater harvesting, a traditional Indian practice.
Although the company started operations in India in 1993, it only had four rainwater-harvesting structures in 2001 -- definitely not a priority for the company. As the community-led campaigns against Coca-Cola's water abuses spread around India, so did Coca-Cola's championing of rainwater harvesting.
Today, the company claims to have over 200 rainwater-harvesting structures. Along with the massive publicity of their rainwater-harvesting structures (which, incidentally, the Coca-Cola funded study found to be in "dilapidated" condition), Coca-Cola also started making fantastical claims.
In Kala Dera, for example, the company claims to recharge (through rainwater harvesting) five times the water they use from the groundwater resource. In other words, they claim that they put back fives times as much water they use back into the groundwater resource. Forget water neutral, this would be water positive!
Yet, while they make this claim in a letter to the University of Michigan, they also note that they do not have any metering mechanisms in place to measure how much water is being recharged. If you don't have measuring devices in place to measure the recharge, how can one claim that they recharge five times the amount of water they use? If you are Coca-Cola, you just make it up. And the University of Michigan officials never even bothered to clarify this point. It sure resonates well with the media, officials and NGOs. And evidently, it seems to work.
Last month, the Coca-Cola Co. extended its partnership with the World Wildlife Fund to conserve freshwater river basins around the world, except India. Announced originally with much fanfare in Beijing in July 2007 as part of their Olympics presence, the partnership with the WWF is yet another attempt to deflect attention away from the real crises that the company creates in India.
Coca-Cola regularly highlights the partnership when responding to the issues in India. While we welcome any initiatives on water conservation, it makes no difference to the communities in India that are reeling from water shortages -- courtesy Coca-Cola. Conserving freshwater river basins in China and Guatemala do absolutely nothing to impact the depleted groundwater in Kala Dera and other Coca-Cola bottling plants in India. Water issues are local issues.
The list of Coca-Cola's initiatives to mislead the public is long and is well documented by the India Resource Center. The company has repeatedly publicized the Golden Peacock Awards that it has received for "environmental excellence" in India, for example. What the company does not tell you is that Coca-Cola is the primary sponsor of the organization that gives out the awards.
Water Neutrality -- A Scam
The Coca-Cola Co. is now embarking on its latest initiative to mislead the public -- announcing its water neutrality goals. Becoming water neutral is impossible, and Coca-Cola is very well aware of this. But matters like that have never stopped the company from making preposterous claims, however misleading and troublesome they may be. What is surprising, however, is the complete lack of scrutiny that Coca-Cola is subject to by the corporate social responsibility community and the media.
Allowing Coca-Cola to get away with such a disingenuous plan significantly weakens the core aims of corporate social responsibility, as well as objective reporting, and makes CSR nothing more than an extension of public relations for companies. If the Coca-Cola Co. were serious about being a good corporate citizen, it is well advised to begin by meeting the key recommendations of the study it paid for, and shutting down its plant in Kala Dera would be a positive first step.
Coming up with misleading and absurd terms like water neutrality is not going to make the difficulties of the communities in India go away. We need genuine changes in the manner in which Coca-Cola does business in India, not public relations initiatives like water neutrality.
Published in Alternet on dec 06, 2008
17 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
AlterNet Social Networks:
Also in Water
California's Water Woes Threaten the Entire Country's Food Supply
Scott Thill
Save Water by Learning How Much Your Plants Really Need
Leandre Poisson, Gretchen Vogel Poisson
Report Warns of Armed Conflict in the Middle East Over Water
Have West Virginia Officials Lost Their Minds When It Comes to Water Safety Standards?
Catherine O'Neill
Cochabamba: From War to Water Management
Raul Zibechi
Will New York's Toxic Problem Ruin Texas' Water?
Adam Federman
More stories by Amit Srivastava
Water RSS Feed
Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg DiggWhat is Digg?
40 diggsRevealed: Blackwater Still Working in Iraq
.......................
22 diggsRight-Wing Radicals and the Eliminationist Mindset
"Understanding the dangerous worldview that led to the murder of an innocent doctor and an attack at the Holocaust Museum".
20 diggsThis isn't on CNN, Afghan Refugee Describes Recent Bombings
"Why isn't this footage on CNN or MSNBC?" "Those are questions we should be asking ourselves as we watch the powerful images of Abdullah Khan, a refugee from Afghanistan's Helmland province forced to seek shelter in an IDP camp outside Kabul".
17 diggsStop Being Distracted by Loudmouths Like Limbaugh: The Real
The future of Medical Care is not dependent on Rush Limbaugh or other Republicans. The Real Problem Is Lousy Democrats Like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson, who refuse to support a public option.
15 diggs15 Shocking Tales of How Sex Laws Are Screwing the American
In the land of the free, the freedom to express your sexuality can land you in prison.
Powered by Digg's Users
The Coca-Cola Co. is up to its old tricks again. The company, which is under fire for its mismanagement of water resources in India, has gone all out to manufacture an image of itself as a global leader in water conservation. Sections of Coca-Cola's Web site, for example, read like a proposal that a nongovernmental organization working on water issues might write.
Now, in an attempt to position itself as "aggressively" tackling the world's water problems, the company has come up with a new corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative -- water neutrality. The company has already announced that it will become water neutral in India by the end of 2009 and that it has plans to do so in its global operations as well. Sure, it all sounds good, and who could object to water-conservation measures in an increasingly water-scarce world? But just what does becoming water neutral mean?
In a concept paper on water neutrality developed in November 2007 by the Coca-Cola Co., the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, World Wildlife Fund and others, it reads: "In a strict sense, the term 'water neutral' is troublesome and even may be misleading. It is often possible to reduce a water footprint, but it is generally impossible to bring it down to zero."
I see. Troublesome and misleading.
The concept paper also notes: "After having done everything that was technically possible and economically feasible, individuals, communities and businesses will always have a residual water footprint. In that sense, they can never become water neutral."
In other words, becoming water neutral is impossible.
And finally, the concept paper on water neutrality offers this: "Alternative names to 'water neutral' that have been suggested include water offset, water stewardship and water-use reduction and reuse. However none of these other terms seem to have the same gravity or resonance (inspiration) with the media, officials or NGOs as the term neutrality. For pragmatic reasons it may therefore be attractive to use the term 'water neutral,' but there is a definite need to be clear about precisely what it entails if reduction of water use to zero is not possible."
Just to be clear, we want to summarize what the concept paper on water neutrality has to say on the use of the term water neutrality. It is pragmatic to use a troublesome and misleading (but attractive) term like water neutrality -- which is impossible to achieve -- because it resonates well with the media, officials and NGOs. Welcome to Coca-Cola's world.
It doesn't really matter what the facts and reality may be. As long as it sounds good, no matter how misleading or troublesome the concept, they will market it to forge public opinion with the use of their mighty public relations apparatus. Coca-Cola announced its "water neutrality" goals in London and in San Francisco last week.
Little Drops of Misery
The International Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable for its abuses in India has been frustrated with Coca-Cola's increased public relations, under the guise of corporate social responsibility, to respond to the crisis that Coca-Cola has created in India. Communities living around some of Coca-Cola's bottling plants in India are experiencing severe water shortages -- due to Coca-Cola's extraction of water from the groundwater resource, as well as pollution by the company's plants.
Located primarily in rural areas, the hardest hit have been farmers who have seen significant declines in crop production, as well as women who now have to walk farther to access potable water. A study funded by Coca-Cola -- which the campaign forced it to agree to -- confirmed that Coca-Cola is a significant contributor to the water crises, and one of its key recommendations is that Coca-Cola shut down its bottling plant -- in Kala Dera in the state of Rajasthan -- where the community has been campaigning against Coca-Cola.
The study -- a damning indictment of Coca-Cola's water management practices in India -- concluded that the Coca-Cola Co. had sited its bottling plants in India from strictly a "business continuity" perspective that has not taken the wider context into perspective. It also warned Coca-Cola of worsening water conditions around its bottling plants, found an alarming increase in pollution as one got closer to Coca-Cola bottling plants and faulted the company on pollution-prevention measures, among others.
In typical fashion, Coca-Cola has chosen to ignore the findings of the study -- which it paid for and even participated in -- and is now insisting that shutting down the Kala Dera plant and leaving is not an option because the responsible thing to do is to stay and solve the problem because they are "problem solvers!"
Lies and Half-Truths: Coca-Cola's CSR
Last month, the Coca-Cola Co. released its 2007/2008 sustainability review, and surprisingly, critical issues facing the company's operations in India do not find mention in the review. Needless to say, the company gives itself high marks in its sustainability report. We can understand that mentioning the company's atrocious record in India would not look good for a company that is on a fast track toward manufacturing a green image of itself. But surely a company cannot just choose to ignore the fiercest battleground it faces when it comes to measuring Coca-Cola's sustainability?
Evidently, if you are Coca-Cola, you can conveniently choose to omit the most critical issues facing the company's use -- or abuse -- of water. The sustainability report must look good, and facts do not matter. One of Coca-Cola's champion projects in India to deflect attention away from the water crises it causes is rainwater harvesting, a traditional Indian practice.
Although the company started operations in India in 1993, it only had four rainwater-harvesting structures in 2001 -- definitely not a priority for the company. As the community-led campaigns against Coca-Cola's water abuses spread around India, so did Coca-Cola's championing of rainwater harvesting.
Today, the company claims to have over 200 rainwater-harvesting structures. Along with the massive publicity of their rainwater-harvesting structures (which, incidentally, the Coca-Cola funded study found to be in "dilapidated" condition), Coca-Cola also started making fantastical claims.
In Kala Dera, for example, the company claims to recharge (through rainwater harvesting) five times the water they use from the groundwater resource. In other words, they claim that they put back fives times as much water they use back into the groundwater resource. Forget water neutral, this would be water positive!
Yet, while they make this claim in a letter to the University of Michigan, they also note that they do not have any metering mechanisms in place to measure how much water is being recharged. If you don't have measuring devices in place to measure the recharge, how can one claim that they recharge five times the amount of water they use? If you are Coca-Cola, you just make it up. And the University of Michigan officials never even bothered to clarify this point. It sure resonates well with the media, officials and NGOs. And evidently, it seems to work.
Last month, the Coca-Cola Co. extended its partnership with the World Wildlife Fund to conserve freshwater river basins around the world, except India. Announced originally with much fanfare in Beijing in July 2007 as part of their Olympics presence, the partnership with the WWF is yet another attempt to deflect attention away from the real crises that the company creates in India.
Coca-Cola regularly highlights the partnership when responding to the issues in India. While we welcome any initiatives on water conservation, it makes no difference to the communities in India that are reeling from water shortages -- courtesy Coca-Cola. Conserving freshwater river basins in China and Guatemala do absolutely nothing to impact the depleted groundwater in Kala Dera and other Coca-Cola bottling plants in India. Water issues are local issues.
The list of Coca-Cola's initiatives to mislead the public is long and is well documented by the India Resource Center. The company has repeatedly publicized the Golden Peacock Awards that it has received for "environmental excellence" in India, for example. What the company does not tell you is that Coca-Cola is the primary sponsor of the organization that gives out the awards.
Water Neutrality -- A Scam
The Coca-Cola Co. is now embarking on its latest initiative to mislead the public -- announcing its water neutrality goals. Becoming water neutral is impossible, and Coca-Cola is very well aware of this. But matters like that have never stopped the company from making preposterous claims, however misleading and troublesome they may be. What is surprising, however, is the complete lack of scrutiny that Coca-Cola is subject to by the corporate social responsibility community and the media.
Allowing Coca-Cola to get away with such a disingenuous plan significantly weakens the core aims of corporate social responsibility, as well as objective reporting, and makes CSR nothing more than an extension of public relations for companies. If the Coca-Cola Co. were serious about being a good corporate citizen, it is well advised to begin by meeting the key recommendations of the study it paid for, and shutting down its plant in Kala Dera would be a positive first step.
Coming up with misleading and absurd terms like water neutrality is not going to make the difficulties of the communities in India go away. We need genuine changes in the manner in which Coca-Cola does business in India, not public relations initiatives like water neutrality.
Published in Alternet on dec 06, 2008
Mumbai Buses Move to a New Fuel
The city buses in Mumbai, India’s economic capital, are now running on the biofuel being supplied by a Hyderabad-based firm. The State buses in Karnataka, too, will be powered soon by the fuel to be supplied from here.
Giaitech Fuels, a city-based firm, has signed a contract recently with Navi Mumbai Transport Corporation to supply 16.4 lakh litres of biofuel a year, reported Tushar Dhara for Express Buzz.
According to the news item, the fuel, supplies of which started yesterday, will power 265 of Mumbai’s suburban buses with biodiesel. The buses will run on a mix of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent normal diesel, a petroleum product.
Giaitech has also entered into an agreement with the Karnataka State RTC, offering to supply it 5 lakh litres every year.
Express Buzz says that India still has some way to go before biofuels are commercially available on a large scale as an alternative to fossil fuels. Giaitech has taken a big step on that road by persuading some State road transport corporations to run at least some of their buses on biodiesel.
Biodiesel is a non-petroleum fuel which can be made from vegetable oil. The raw material is waste, virgin or acid oil which are by products when refined cooking oil is manufactured. The process is simple and takes a few hours to convert vegetable oil to biodiesel. Gaiatech uses oil from pungamia seeds and mahua to make biodiesel. Their main manufacturing facility at Tiptur in Karnataka has a capacity of 12,000 litres a day and go up to 1.1 lakh litres a day.
Giaitech Fuels, a city-based firm, has signed a contract recently with Navi Mumbai Transport Corporation to supply 16.4 lakh litres of biofuel a year, reported Tushar Dhara for Express Buzz.
According to the news item, the fuel, supplies of which started yesterday, will power 265 of Mumbai’s suburban buses with biodiesel. The buses will run on a mix of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent normal diesel, a petroleum product.
Giaitech has also entered into an agreement with the Karnataka State RTC, offering to supply it 5 lakh litres every year.
Express Buzz says that India still has some way to go before biofuels are commercially available on a large scale as an alternative to fossil fuels. Giaitech has taken a big step on that road by persuading some State road transport corporations to run at least some of their buses on biodiesel.
Biodiesel is a non-petroleum fuel which can be made from vegetable oil. The raw material is waste, virgin or acid oil which are by products when refined cooking oil is manufactured. The process is simple and takes a few hours to convert vegetable oil to biodiesel. Gaiatech uses oil from pungamia seeds and mahua to make biodiesel. Their main manufacturing facility at Tiptur in Karnataka has a capacity of 12,000 litres a day and go up to 1.1 lakh litres a day.
US-India Agreement on Biofuels
A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between the US and India to establish a framework of cooperation covering scientific, technical and policy aspects of production, conversion, use, distribution and marketing of biofuels in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way.
Eight specific areas have been identified for collaborative activities.
One aspect will be biofuel feedstock production based on sustainable biomass with active involvement of local communities through non-edible oil seed plantations on wastelands.
The production and development of quality planting materials and high sugar containing varieties of sugarcane, sweet sorghum, sugar and cassava will be emphasised.
And there will also be advanced conversion technologies for first generation biofuels and emerging technologies for second generation bio-fuels, as well as technologies for end-use applications in the sector based on a large scale centralised approach and stationary applications in rural areas.
There will also be projects for electricity production based on a decentralised approach through active community participation, use of by-products of biodiesel production processes, development of test methods, procedures and protocols, standards and certification for different biofuels and end use applications, promotion of technology transfer, assessment of joint policy and business models are other areas of cooperation.
The important role played by government, industry and research entities in both the countries in the area of biofuels development and the benefits expected from their potential collaboration, both the countries decided to cooperate in this field will also be recognised.
Eight specific areas have been identified for collaborative activities.
One aspect will be biofuel feedstock production based on sustainable biomass with active involvement of local communities through non-edible oil seed plantations on wastelands.
The production and development of quality planting materials and high sugar containing varieties of sugarcane, sweet sorghum, sugar and cassava will be emphasised.
And there will also be advanced conversion technologies for first generation biofuels and emerging technologies for second generation bio-fuels, as well as technologies for end-use applications in the sector based on a large scale centralised approach and stationary applications in rural areas.
There will also be projects for electricity production based on a decentralised approach through active community participation, use of by-products of biodiesel production processes, development of test methods, procedures and protocols, standards and certification for different biofuels and end use applications, promotion of technology transfer, assessment of joint policy and business models are other areas of cooperation.
The important role played by government, industry and research entities in both the countries in the area of biofuels development and the benefits expected from their potential collaboration, both the countries decided to cooperate in this field will also be recognised.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)