Blog Posts

As world leaders gather in Hamburg this week for the G20 Summit, there has been understandable focus on President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is intended to disengage the U.S. government from global consensus and cooperation when it comes to climate change, and it stands in stark contrast to what the true pillars of the modern American economy want and need. American investors and companies continue to demonstrate remarkable leadership on climate action, standing up like never before for a more resilient and vibrant economic future. Four recent developments provide particularly strong evidence of the accelerated momentum and support for a low-carbon economy: Historic majority votes on climate risk at carbon-intensive American energy companies - Shareholders made history this year by passing majority votes on climate risk disclosure at ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, and PPL Corp, putting unprecedented pressure on carbon-intensive energy companies to disclose the impacts of climate change on their businesses. These investors sent a clear message: climate change is a real financial concern and investors need more information on how it stands to affect their assets. These majority votes, reaching a striking 62 percent at ExxonMobil, also indicate investor understanding that the transition to a low-carbon economy is well underway and that business as usual in carbon-intensive industries like oil and gas is no longer an option. Coming in just days before President Trump's Paris withdrawal announcement, these results indicate real fissures between the administration’s position and those of the leading investors in U.S. companies, who have a vested interest in the success of the American economy. Thousands of investors and companies say We Are Still In - Immediately following President Trump’s announcement to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, American investors and companies joined forces with mayors, governors, and university presidents to recommit to achieving the Paris Agreement’s objectives and vow to uphold the principles and practices of climate action. As of today, 1640 investors and companies have joined the We Are Still In campaign. They represent $2.5 trillion in assets under management, $2.2 trillion in annual revenue, and employ 4.7 million American workers. These leaders are united in their understanding of the urgency to act on climate as a moral and economic imperative, and they’re deploying their collective voice – and clean energy investments – like never before. This is the real measure of the American economy’s appetite for climate action, and it gives me great hope for the future. Business leaders back climate disclosure recommendations - The industry-led international Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures issued its final recommendations for a universal set of guidelines to help companies understand the financial risks and opportunities associated with climate change. This is huge. These recommendations help businesses position themselves to thrive in the low-carbon economy, and will help give investors the information they need to deploy their capital effectively. Fully aware of the urgency of climate change and the need to measure and monitor its corresponding risks and opportunities, nearly 400 global investors with $22 trillion in assets under management and more than 100 CEOs have publicly announced their support for these recommendations. This was a monumental work of collaboration across sectors and geographies, and it is a shining example of collective action for the sake of global prosperity. Hundreds of global investors urge G20 leaders to uphold Paris Agreement - Most recently, nearly 400 institutional investors from the U.S. and beyond voiced their collective support for climate action. In a statement sent directly to the G20 leaders, investors representing more than $22 trillion in assets called for the swift implementation of the Paris Agreement, issuing a full-throated endorsement of the TCFD’s climate risk disclosure recommendations and 2 degree scenario analysis. This is not only about risk, but opportunity as well. Investors are eager to capture the growing opportunities arising from the global transition to a clean energy economy, but they need policy certainty from governments around the world to make it possible. As the G20 Summit kicks off in Hamburg, I urge world leaders to recognize that the strongest economic voices in the U.S. are united around climate action like never before. There is a reason thousands of investors and companies are taking a stand, and taking action based on sound science and financial forecasting. These myriad leaders are concerned for the environmental and economic health of the world that we will pass on to future generations, and they are emboldened by the significant opportunities that lie in wait. So I’ll add my voice to the growing chorus of U.S. business leaders, public officials, and concerned citizens and say to our world leaders: Listen to the American business community, put climate change at the top of the agenda, and embrace the unprecedented momentum around the business case for climate action. Our future depends on it. We are at a pivotal moment, and the actions we take now will chart the course for generations to come. Read the original blog on Forbes

Large food and beverage companies are operating in a time when consumer expectations, the economic landscape and the planet itself are all experiencing rapid and significant changes. The business models of these companies are profoundly entwined with some of the most pressing global challenges we face today — poverty, food insecurity, water scarcity and resource depletion — many of which are complicated by rapid population growth, climate change and shifting lifestyles.  Perhaps nowhere are these factors playing out more strongly than in the agricultural supply chains where these companies source their ingredients. Globally, agriculture employs over 1 billion people, many of whom are food insecure; consumes 70 percent of our freshwater; and is estimated to contribute nearly a fifth of total global carbon emissions. More than ever, investors and consumers are looking for companies to demonstrate that they are sourcing their ingredients in a way that respects people and the planet. Long-term investors increasingly expect companies to manage and disclose environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts as evidence of effective corporate governance, and investors are showing particular interest in how the food and beverage sector is responding to agricultural supply chain challenges. Investors seek to examine the agricultural supply chain risks and corporate responses more deeply. That’s because drought, extreme weather, poor working conditions and land disputes are already driving financially material business risks for food and beverage companies, such as price volatility, inconsistent quality and supply of ingredients, damage to brand equity from advocacy campaigns, legal sanctions and seizure of goods. These business risks that affect company bottom lines also can show up as decreased revenue or stranded assets in investor portfolios. As sustainable sourcing strategies and supply chain transparency become essential practices for the food and beverage industry, investors seek to examine the agricultural supply chain risks and corporate responses more deeply in order to make informed investment decisions. But beginning to understand and assess how companies are managing these factors can be a challenge when each commodity — and each company — is faced with a different constellation of risks and impacts. That’s why Ceres just released "Engage the Chain: An Investor Guide to Agricultural Supply Chain Risk" to help investors understand the challenges businesses face, how those translate into financial risks and how those risks can affect investor portfolios. The interactive guide provides investors with information about the social and environmental impacts driving material business risks for eight key commodities: beef; corn; dairy; fiber-based packaging; palm oil; soybeans; sugar cane; and wheat. These commodities are among the most prominent drivers of deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and water depletion and pollution. Some major U.S.-headquartered food and beverage companies already are taking action. Two examples:  To address the long-term risks of climate change, General Mills has made a science-based commitment to reduce absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 28 percent across its full value chain by 2025. Because nearly two-thirds of its total GHG emissions occur in agriculture, a key focus of the company’s climate strategy is advancing sustainable agriculture practices through collaboration. By working hand in hand with suppliers, farmers, NGOs and industry peers, the company hopes to catalyze action and scale climate solutions within its business and across the food industry as a whole. Unilever is likewise helping hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers improve agricultural practices, enabling them to double or even triple their yields. This increased productivity improves both farmer livelihoods and the quality and security of key commodity supplies, which in turn reduces volatility and uncertainty for Unilever and supports the company’s long-term growth plans. Whether we are investors, companies or consumers, we all have a stake in the future of our food. It is becoming clear that the most effective way to address risks and innovate solutions at scale is to work together. By actively participating in multi-stakeholder collaborations, transparently sharing information and challenging each other to take bold action, we can meet the ever-growing demand for food and ensure a truly sustainable and resilient global agriculture system.  Read the original blog on GreenBiz

This has been a truly unprecedented shareholder season for tackling climate change in the electric power sector. In the last few weeks, investors have urged 10 major power companies with large carbon footprints to undertake and disclose 2-degree scenario analysis to better align their business plans with the goals of the international Paris Climate Agreement and the accelerated transition to a low-carbon economy that is already underway.  The robust shareholder votes in support of these resolutions reflect considerable concern about climate change as a material business and investment risk. There are clear indications that mainstream investors have been supportive of the proposals and the results, thus far, have led to unprecedented majority and near-majority votes at several power companies.  With the Paris Agreement and the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendation that companies should provide expanded disclosure of material climate-related risks to investors, climate disclosure in the electric power sector is gaining traction. And, a newly released benchmarking analysis of the largest 100 U.S. power companies confirms that the sector continues to shift away from coal and toward low-carbon resources, reducing air emissions even as the economy grows.   Highlights from the 2017 shareholder season include: A first ever majority vote of 57% at PPL Corp. While the company has divested much of its power generation, it has not disclosed a long range greenhouse gas reduction strategy or goals.   A 48% vote at Dominion Resources. The company appears to be relying too heavily on natural gas, which is not aligned with a 2-degree scenario, and the company ranks at or near the bottom for delivery of energy efficiency and renewable energy to customers. A 45% vote at DTE Energy. In an encouraging development, just one week after the vote, DTE Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Gerry Anderson announced that the company would reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 and close its coal plants. A 46% vote at Southern Company. The company has made sizable, high risk bets on nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and has not set long-range GHG reduction goals or disclosed plans for aligning its business with a 2-degree scenario. A 50% vote at PNM Resources. While the company recently proposed a shift from coal to natural gas and renewables, it has not disclosed a long range strategy consistent with a 2-degree Scenario.  A 46% vote at Duke Energy, which is the 2nd largest CO2 emitter in the US, and does not have long range greenhouse gas reduction plans. Xcel Energy agreed to disclose its long-range GHG reduction plans. This move indicates that it is well-positioned to meet the expectations of international climate goals.  These votes are a strong indication that investors are waking up to the material financial implications of climate change. Many investors recognize that if companies take advantage of a near term weakening of regulations and make investments that are not prudent over the long time horizon that these investments demand, they risk stranding assets and potential future write-downs on financial statements. Many investors were deeply engaged in these engagements with the companies they own. They include: New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, Mercy Investment Services, As You Sow, CalPERS, and numerous other investors that voted their proxies prudently. In fact, we also witnessed a dramatic shift in support from some of the world’s largest asset managers, including Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity, many of which voted in favor of these resolutions for the first time.  These investors recognize that the policies being proposed by the Trump administration actually heighten risk for carbon-intensive sectors, because it may encourage companies to make investments that risk becoming stranded assets further down the road. And if you look at recent comments from the nation’s number one coal-burner and CO2 emitter, AEP, it is clear that the company will continue to invest in cleaner energy and reduce GHG emissions.   In the months ahead, look for how the power sector companies choose to respond to this increased investor interest in their long-range plans. As they grapple with 2-degree scenario analysis, expect their analyses to surface some key themes:  Energy efficiency and energy productivity have essential roles to play in any cost-effective deep de-carbonization strategy. Electrification of transportation will be critical to reducing economy-wide emissions and also provide material financial upside for electric power companies. Natural gas has a role to play, but there is significant risk on an over-reliance on natural gas. Ceres will be convening power companies and many of the Ceres Investor Network members to engage further and advance best practice in this emerging arena. Read the original blog on Utility Dive

In recent years, shareholders have been zeroing in on the financial risks of supply chain impacts in the global food sector. This proxy season, in fact, several dozen resolutions were filed with food and beverage companies asking them to report how they are managing risks associated with everything from climate change to fertilizer pollution to food waste.  All told, 130 sustainability-focused resolutions have been filed with food and beverage companies since Ceres started tracking them six years ago, and they have grown from a handful filed in 2011 to 23 filed in 2017. While the majority of sustainability resolutions are, and have been, filed with fossil fuel players, increasingly investors are asking the food sector’s C-suite to do more to tackle the mounting sustainability challenges that are shaking many food companies at their very foundations. Restaurant Brands, Kroger, Domino’s and Kraft Heinz, for example, all received shareholder proposals this proxy season asking them how they were managing the reputational risks associated with sourcing commodities like palm oil, and Latin American beef and soy – the production of which is routinely linked to the destruction of tropical forests.   And recently, I wrote about the water risk resolutions filed with Tyson Foods, which helped spur the company’s commitment to set water pollution and greenhouse gas reduction goals across its supply chain.       Why the increased attention?  Between growing consumer interest in sustainable food and a changing climate, the food sector’s core business model is increasingly in jeopardy. Traditional procurement strategies for managing agricultural supply risks are becoming less effective in dealing with supply and price volatility. Environmental and human rights campaign groups are shining a light on questionable and illegal practices in supply chains, including deforestation and the use of forced labor, creating risks to brand equity and reputation.  As Allan Pearce, of Trillium Asset Management, puts it, “We’re seeing commodity-based agricultural production emerge as one of the key drivers of climate change, deforestation, water pollution and habitat loss, while also subjecting many of the hundreds of millions of people employed in agriculture around the world to harsh working conditions and poverty. Many companies don’t understand the full extent of these impacts on their agricultural supply chains, and that’s alarming because these impacts can translate into real financial risk.” For example, palm oil giant IOI Group’s share price dropped 18 percent after its certification from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was suspended in 2016 following a ruling that it was not meeting the certificate’s standards nor adequately protecting peat areas and forests. This led several major brands including Unilever, Kellogg and Nestlé to cut supplies sourced from the IOI Group.  And in early 2015, Illovo Sugar, a South African producer, shut down a large sugar mill as a devastating drought was predicted to destroy $81 million in local production. The following year, the company reported a 36.5 percent drop in full-year profit due in large part to the drought. Financial markets are taking note: Recall the ruckus that was stirred earlier this year during Kraft Heinz’s attempted takeover of Unilever, where the latter’s environmental credentials were variously interpreted as either a reputational asset worth burnishing or an area ripe for cost-cutting. Or Brazilian beef giant JBS’ steep and spectacular financial tailspin, driven by a series of missteps linked to poor governance and irresponsible management of supply chain risks, including deforestation. Fortunately, food and beverage companies can address these risks by adopting sustainable sourcing strategies to maintain their growth and profitability in this new, more challenging landscape. Some are. General Mills, for example, has made a science-based commitment to reduce absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 28 percent across its full value chain by 2025. PepsiCo is working with their agricultural suppliers to improve their water efficiency by 15 percent by 2025 in high water risk sourcing areas, and Unilever is helping hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers improve agricultural practices to double or even triple their yields and increase their income. These are the kind of actions that investors want to see more food companies adopt, and, until they do, they are likely to see continued engagement from their shareholders.

Since 2007, Minnesota has worked to become a national clean energy leader, through building a robust clean energy sector and creating billions in new economic development. Yet this last legislative session, lawmakers broke with the past and sought to roll back policies that would undermine progress in the state’s burgeoning clean energy economy. As legislators recess and return to their districts for the summer, they have an opportunity to learn from businesses and institutions across the state that are saving money and investing in Minnesota’s clean energy economy.     Early in the 2017 session, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith announced a bipartisan proposal to strengthen and expand Minnesota’s renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors. A key part of this proposal is an increase to Minnesota’s Renewable Energy Standard to 50 percent by 2030 (HF 1772 and SF 1531), up from 25 percent by 2025. This would drive new clean energy investment and ensure Minnesota maintains its clean energy leadership position. While the bill did not move forward this session, lawmakers should use the summer recess to meet with businesses, constituents and industries to understand how this proposal could support all Minnesotans.   In contrast, lawmakers also introduced policies that would put up new barriers to advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy. Despite attempts from lawmakers to defend programs and incentives for the clean energy sector, the final Jobs and Energy Omnibus bill includes provisions which will make it harder for ratepayers, especially in Greater Minnesota, to access and benefit from clean energy solutions. Here are some of the concerning provisions: Eliminates the Made in Minnesota solar program, rolling back financial incentives that support the local solar manufacturing industry. Exempts some rural utilities from meeting energy efficiency requirements through the Conservation Improvement Program,  cutting access to energy efficiency programs for more than 62,000 rural customers. Imposes an arbitrary $75 fee on electric vehicles, penalizing a new industry that reduces emissions, improves air quality and benefits public health. Terminates power purchase agreements for biomass and redirects funds traditionally focused on renewable energy projects and research to support affected communities facing closure or conversion of three biomass plants. Removes independent review of net metering fees for cooperative and municipal utility customers who generate rooftop solar and small-scale wind, potentially opening them up to excessive fees. Makes Minnesota’s utility rates 5 percent below the national average, regardless of other factors that determine electricity bills.    While this legislative session was a step backwards, going forward we hope lawmakers will consider the jobs and economic development opportunities that come from clean energy policy.   Last week, in response to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, saying “Minnesota and other states will show the world what we can achieve by working together to conserve energy [and] to use cleaner and renewable energy.” Major Minnesota businesses — including Best Buy, Cargill, General Mills, Target and 3M — also support staying in the Paris Agreement.    Just this week, new analysis from Ceres, NRDC, MJ Bradley & Associates and others found that our nation’s power providers are continuing to cut emissions that pollute our air. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, ranks 26th, 27th, and 33rd amongst the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers for emission rates of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide, respectively. Xcel is reaping the benefits of reducing its carbon footprint through low-cost wind projects, saving customers’ power costs for years to come.   This kind of leadership will go a long way in moving the state — and indeed the country — towards a cleaner energy economy.  

With President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, it’s become even more clear how critical the leadership of investors and companies are in tackling climate change and pushing for clean energy. The immediate groundswell of response marks a significant inflection point in the climate narrative—an opportunity for equilibrium change. For the first time, the dominant narrative in major U.S. media outlets around climate policy is that the business community overwhelmingly supports action. Sustainability nonprofit organization Ceres (2006 Skoll Awardee) has worked for nine years to mobilize leaders within that community, and the “We Are Still In” response has been remarkable. There’s safety in numbers, and the numbers are undeniable. Alli Gold Roberts, Senior Manager for State Policy at Ceres, took stock of the cross-sector climate leadership that stands behind the Paris Agreement. Since President Trump announced that the United States is walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement, we’ve seen unprecedented collaboration and commitment by states, investors, and companies to continue to tackle climate change. More than 1,100 investors and businesses, along with nine states, over 145 cities, and more than 220 colleges and universities have joined together this week to say, “we are still in” the Paris Agreement and committed to reducing carbon emissions. “In the U.S., it is local and state governments, along with businesses, that are primarily responsible for the dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas emissions in recent years,” they wrote in an open letter to the international community and to parties of the Paris Agreement. “Actions by each group will multiply and accelerate in the years ahead, no matter what policies Washington may adopt.” Shortly following the announcement, Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeted: Decision to withdraw from the #ParisAgreeement was wrong for our planet. Apple is committed to fight climate change and we will never waver. — Tim Cook (@tim_cook) June 2, 2017   Governors and mayors across the partisan divide were also quick to deepen their commitment to climate action. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a signatory of the letter, said the withdrawal announcement, “does not speak for the states and cities that are committed to fighting climate change and paving the way for a new energy economy,” called the action “dangerous”, and warned of its “devastating impact on our economy, environment, and health.” In recent days, more than 13 governors, including republican governors Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Phil Scott of Vermont, reaffirmed their commitment to climate action by announcing their state’s participation in the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance. Vermont is joining the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance. The states are prepared to step up and lead. #VT #ActOnClimate pic.twitter.com/RGKMANHdW4 — Governor Phil Scott (@GovPhilScott) June 2, 2017   pic.twitter.com/M45B8EdwF3 — Gina Raimondo (@GinaRaimondo) June 2, 2017   Additionally, more than 240 Climate Mayors, including Republicans Elizabeth B. Kautz of Burnsville, Minnesota; Kevin Faulconer of San Diego, California; and Lee Brand of Fresno, California have said they would do their part to meet their cities’ carbon-reducing goals and those enshrined in the Paris Agreement. “Our administration looks forward to continued, bipartisan collaboration with other states to protect the environment, grow the economy, and deliver a brighter future to the next generation,” said Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker in a statement. States with diverse economies and energy portfolios including Virginia, Massachusetts, California, and Minnesota are a mere sampling of the communities embracing the jobs and economic development opportunities that come with clean energy investments. The growing list of investor and corporate voices is a clear signal that tackling climate change and investing in clean energy solutions transcends politics and just makes business sense.   The Trump Administration may have pulled out of the #ParisAgreement, but #WeAreStillIn https://t.co/hU5wKzxLM7 pic.twitter.com/gu1VsCoHXx — Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) June 6, 2017   We’re committed to sustainability. Where we stand on climate change and the #ParisAgreement https://t.co/6FOXu0Brtd pic.twitter.com/ZXY3WwvwmB — Campbell Soup Co (@CampbellSoupCo) June 2, 2017   We’re disappointed in the US withdraw from the #ParisAgreement, but we remain committed. Read a letter from VF’s CEO https://t.co/CWlWeVogBs pic.twitter.com/XCCO5Pkmva — VF Corporation (@VFCorp) June 5, 2017   As the Co-CEOs of Autodesk Amar Hanspal and Andrew Anagnost put it, “The Paris Agreement is good for the economy, would create jobs, and it would keep the U.S. competitive. We’re still in. Our employees are still in. Our customers are still in. We’re all still in.” Through public-private partnerships between states, cities, investors, companies, colleges and universities, the U.S. can continue the momentum to hold warming to well below 2-degrees Celsius. These leaders recognize that in order to build a strong economic future, communities need to invest in clean energy solutions. Companies make investment decisions based on localities where they can gain access to clean energy. States that want to capture these new opportunities need to be bullish on their renewable energy and energy efficiency offerings. It’s no surprise that many state lawmakers are already rushing to pass smart policies and communicate their continued commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Just this week, Nevada’s state legislature passed new legislation to increase its renewable portfolio standard from 20 percent, where it is now, to 40 percent by 2030. The bill is now awaiting signature by Governor Sandoval. eBay, Levi Strauss Co., and Unilever were just some of the major employers in that state who called on lawmakers to support this legislation, stating, “clean energy investments can help businesses cut energy costs, avoid the volatility of fossil fuel prices, and stay competitive.” In a time of policy uncertainty in Washington, states should work with investors and companies to build a low-carbon energy future. Many are already showing the way and other forward thinking local and state governments should continue to follow. Photo Credit: Original blog on Skoll  Read the original blog on Skoll 

Last week, Tyson Foods announced it was partnering with the World Resources Institute (WRI) to set targets to reduce water and greenhouse gas impacts in its operations and supply chain. This is big news, coming as it is from the largest poultry player in the U.S., which has had a decidedly weak track record on water and climate change. In fact, Tyson was one of the worst performers in Ceres’ Feeding Ourselves Thirsty report that benchmarked how the world’s top 37 food sector giants are managing water risk. Tyson’s move underscores, among other factors, the power of investors, who know that good environmental management is good business. During the past three years, Tyson and other big players in the meat industry faced growing calls from their shareholders to improve their water use practices. Ceres and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility worked closely with investor partners to engage Tyson and other large meat producers to set water risk management policies. Just last November, 45 institutional investors with more than $1 trillion in assets sent a letter urging four of the largest meat producers to tackle the major water pollution risks associated with feeding, slaughtering and processing livestock. Through letters like these, shareholder proposals and dialogues with company management, investors are essentially asking the meat industry to consider the long-term financial viability of a high-risk animal production and processing model that is among the food industry’s most water-intensive and polluting. “This is where we see Tyson’s greatest risk as an investor,” Mary Beth Gallagher, from TriState Coalition for Responsible Investment recently told me. Gallagher has been engaging with the company through shareholder proposals and dialogues for the past few years, and notes that its longstanding history of water contamination issues also negatively affects the communities in which it operates and the farmers that are part of its supply chain. “As investors, we are pleased to see the company take ownership and commit to setting robust water and greenhouse gas goals across its entire value chain,” she says of the commitment. “We will be watching to see how it collaborates with its ingredient suppliers, contract growers and stakeholders to incentivize good behavior and practices.” Tyson of course is not the only food company with major water issues. Overall, growing and processing the food we eat is the most water intensive business on earth—more than 70 percent of the world’s freshwater is used to irrigate crops and raise livestock. Yet, food companies can no longer take water for granted. In fact, in 2015, Tyson laid off workers, shut down a beef processing plant in Iowa, and posted disappointing quarterly earnings after cattle herds were hit hard by prolonged dry conditions in the Southwest.   Tyson’s new commitments could signal a tipping point in the industry.  In just the past year, both Hormel and Smithfield Foods made significant commitments to improve water stewardship and climate protection in their supply chains, where the majority of their environmental impact lies. Smithfield, the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer, set a goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2025 across the company’s entire supply chain, from the intense fertilizer use associated with growing feed grains, to fuel consumption in its transportation network. Tyson, given its industry dominance, is a critical link in the chain. Tyson’s actions also put into relief the other major protein companies that still lag in setting ambitious supply chain targets on water and climate, including Cargill, JBS, Sanderson Farms, and Perdue. As evidence of the financial risks of climate change and degraded water resources mount, investor interest in these issues will remain keen. The good news is that major meat producers have the buying power and the control over their supply chains to meaningfully strengthen farm practices and protect water supplies. Increasingly, they’re using it, because they realize that water risk management and conservation are now part of business as usual. 

BE PREPARED. IF the recent drought taught us anything, it’s how important this lesson is going to be to California’s future. So, even as we’re so thankful that our epic and unprecedented drought has been declared “over,” we have to make sure we are prepared because water scarcity is a fact of life in California. It’s not just that climate change is going to keep hitting us with hotter, drier weather. Even before the drought, a gap was emerging between the supply of water we could pull from our rivers and aquifers and the demands of California’s booming economy, rising population, expanding cities and suburbs and the environment. The combination of demand and climate change is a double whammy. Think about just this one piece of California’s water puzzle: right now, 60 percent of the state’s water comes from Sierra mountain snow, but by the end of the century global warming could cut the size of the snowpack in half. There is good news, though. During the drought Californians answered the call to reduce water demand, showing that we have a remarkable capacity to use water more efficiently. Now we need to keep this momentum going.   That’s why eight Connect the Drops business partners from a variety of sectors support a group of bills and associated budget allocation being considered by the California legislature that are aligned with the state’s April 2017 report, Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life. The bills are good for business because they provide a stable and fair playing field built for the long term. We saw first-hand that in most cases conserving water and being more efficient offer the cheapest and fastest way to deal with water scarcity. By comparison, building entirely new supplies, whether through desalinization plants or surface water storage, is much more expensive. We also learned the hard way that we cannot afford to lurch through water emergencies. We don’t want a repeat of top-down, mandated conservation. We need to make a fundamental shift to conservation, so we don’t rely on a patchwork of restrictions and revert to cutbacks created through emergency measures. Instead localities can drive efficient and reasonable water use. The series of bills being considered is based directly on the lessons the drought taught us. These policies will significantly improve our water management in California by helping the state’s agricultural and urban water suppliers be better prepared for future drought conditions. They’ll help businesses pinpoint the best water conservation technologies that also drive energy efficiency. Directly in that vein is A.B. 1667, which expands agricultural water management planning and updates planning requirements to improve water efficiency. The bill also improves data access and facilitates the adoption of more robust water-saving practices, including those that improve soil health, which can both reduce water use and increase crop productivity. Along the same lines, A.B. 1668 requires urban water suppliers to plan for longer-term droughts, evaluate water supplies annually and prepare water shortage contingency plans, with standardized shortage stages providing much-needed consistency statewide. These policies should lead to more limited disruptions in the water supply to communities, farmers and businesses, helping lower the impact of drought conditions on California’s economy. They’ll also let local officials and their customers understand the risks of water supply shortages from longer and more severe droughts and improve the information sent to both customers and the state during droughts. Improved planning and information will help communities to respond better to the more frequent and severe drought conditions (the new “normal”) we are going to face under climate change, and reduce costs and impacts on customers. A.B. 1669 directs the state to develop water use standards with a number of recommendations outlined in the state’s report Making Conservation a California Way of Life, which was developed with much stakeholder input. A.B. 1000 requires that the California Energy Commission certify innovative water conservation and water loss detection and control technologies that are cost-effective and increase energy efficiency. In turn, this will provide insight into best management practices for addressing water inefficiencies. It’s just smart business to prepare for the more severe, frequent and extended droughts we’re going to face in the future by making sure that we have a sustainable approach to managing water that the economy, citizens and the environment need. That’s why Ceres and our partners support these policies and aligned budget allocations so water conservation can become a California way of life. They’ll give our communities and our businesses the stable water resources we need for the long run. Read the original post on Water Deeply

Across the world, powerful market influencers are embracing the need for climate risk disclosure. From the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, to credit ratings agencies, to some of the world’s largest asset managers, these institutions recognize the pressing need for companies—particularly fossil-fuel businesses—to produce transparent, decision-useful disclosures about the material risks that climate change and low-carbon trends pose to their long-term business strategies. As many oil companies themselves have noted, the energy sector is undergoing a transformation driven by factors ranging from ever cheaper renewable energy technologies to the Paris Climate Agreement to accelerating clean-energy momentum in emerging economies like India and China. One of the best tools for managing these transformational changes is scenario analysis, including low-carbon economic scenarios aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Experts such as consultancies McKinsey & Company and Deloitte, and CEO Ben van Beurden of Royal Dutch Shell all agree on this. High votes for shareholder proposals, even over management objections, demonstrate that mainstream investors agree; and credit ratings agencies are increasingly recognizing how critical these disclosures are to informing the market on how individual companies are preparing for the energy transition. There are prominent outliers, however. While Shell, BP, Statoil and even OPEC have all acknowledged the risks of peak demand, U.S. companies like ExxonMobil are out of step, and have dismissed the idea out of hand. Despite a 38 percent vote at Exxon’s annual meeting in support of 2-degree scenario analysis last year, despite weakened return on capital expenditures (the gold standard for operational excellence according to Exxon), and despite completely new market dynamics, Exxon’s response to shareholders this year simply summarized the same arguments that it raised in 2014. Exxon is reflecting no change in approach from the positions it took before Paris, before the precipitous fall in oil prices, and before it lost its AAA credit rating. It’s time for Exxon to move beyond tired arguments based on a forecast of a future that looks a lot like the past. It’s time for Exxon’s board to engage with its investors and recognize that climate change poses material risks to the company’s core business, rather than solely a reputational risk. And it’s time for all investors to support 2-degree scenario analysis at Exxon, as a majority has done at two other major energy companies this year.   Read the full list of investors who have pre-declared their support for the 2-degree scenario analysis shareholder resolution at ExxonMobil. The company’s Annual General Meeting takes place on May 31. Download our report, A Framework for 2 Degrees Scenario Analysis: A Guide for Oil and Gas Companies and Investors for Navigating the Energy Transition, for more on how fossil fuel companies can reduce risks in the low-carbon energy future.

It has been a remarkable month for global resolve on tackling climate change. The most conspicuous indicator has been the crescendo of corporate CEOs and global investors calling on President Donald Trump to support the Paris Climate Agreement. Dozens of iconic CEOs from Dow Chemical Company, General Electric, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America took out full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal urging strong support for keeping the U.S. in the Paris Agreement. Just days before, more than 200 global investors, collectively managing $15 trillion in assets, sent a letter to the President and other G20 world leaders calling for the same action. The growing number of high-profile voices is remarkable and heartening, to be sure, and we hope the President is listening. But the climate momentum we are seeing close to the ground is perhaps even more important, showing that no matter the political winds in Washington, the low-carbon transition is inevitable and irreversible. Let’s start with China and India, the world’s two most populous countries. This month, new research showed that both countries are on track to beat their carbon emission goals under the Paris Agreement. Greenhouse gas pollution from both countries is growing more slowly than they predicted a year ago and the difference is substantial - roughly 2 to 3 billion tons annually by the year 2030. “Five years ago, the idea of either China or India stopping - or even slowing - coal use was considered an insurmountable hurdle,” Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, one of the research consortium members, told InsideClimate News. “Recent observations show they are now on the way to overcoming this challenge.” Now let’s look at the U.S. Last week, a new report came out showing the remarkable growth of clean energy in states across the country. Back in 2010, just three states received 10 percent or more of their electricity from non-hydro renewable energy. Today, 17 states have eclipsed the 10 percent mark and three of those states—Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas—are leading the way with 30 percent of more of their power coming from wind. Another three states—California, North Dakota and Oklahoma —exceed 20 percent. What’s most striking about these trends is that the clean energy transcends politics—with the top 10 states for renewable energy including five red states and five blue states. And states are just scratching their surface of what’s possible, as falling renewable energy prices make wind and solar projects increasingly attractive. Just last week, legislation advanced in Nevada to boost the state’s renewable energy standard to 50 percent by 2030. The bill has bipartisan support and should be voted on this week in the Nevada State Assembly. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe also signed an executive order instructing state regulators to establish rules to reduce carbon pollution from the state’s power plants. Among the businesses strongly supporting the governor’s move is Mars Inc., the Virginia-based candy maker, which has set a goal to run all of its facilities – including its McLean headquarters – with 100 percent renewable energy. Investor focus on climate action is also stronger than ever. The most obvious indicator is recent record high votes on shareholder resolutions requesting that fossil fuel companies evaluate and disclose how their business strategies would fare in a low-carbon economic future. Specifically, the resolutions call for business scenario tests aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of reducing carbon pollution to levels that would limit global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius. In just the past few weeks, resolutions at the Pennsylvania electric utility PPL and the Texas oil and gas company Occidental Petroleum got impressive support of more than 50 percent – the first time this has ever happened on climate risk resolutions. The vote at Occidental was an astounding 67 percent. Among the investors supporting the Occidental resolution – for the first time - was BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager with $5.4 trillion in assets under management. What’s most significant about these votes – and the broader low-carbon momentum we are seeing all across the country – is that business heavyweights are pushing publicly for climate action like never before. As General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt wrote to his employees in March, “We believe climate change is real and the science is well accepted. We believe climate change should be addressed on a global basis through multi-national agreements, such as the Paris Agreement. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.” It’s a message that we hope President Trump and his team are hearing as they deliberate on whether to keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement and America’s positioning as the global low-carbon future takes stronger hold.