Aisha Shillingford, an artist and strategy consultant from Trinidad and Tobago, asked a room full of suits in New York last month to imagine their “Happy Place.” “Close your eyes,” she whispered. “Think of a place that holds meaning for you. Now, envision it in the year 2223.”
Shillingford was speaking at a recent event during Climate Week NYC. Her mission? Help people see how world building, a creative process of building future worlds used in video games, books and movies (think post-apocalyptic like The Last of Us or fantastical like Harry Potter) can help society innovate.
I’m a corporate sustainability consultant with a special interest in encouraging companies to rethink the way they impact people and the planet. When prompted to envision my “Happy Place,” I immediately thought of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In particular, I thought of Truro, the place I first visited when I was three. We stayed at a small house on a marsh. My mom hauled me and my two brothers around on a bike trailer. We ate saltwater taffy as she pedaled up hills and along the shoreline path of Route 6.
My mom first went to the Cape with her mother. My grandmother, after escaping the Holocaust in Germany, found serenity in a place of extreme beauty. She passed along her love of the Cape to her daughter, and my mom passed it along to me. It is a place that is ingrained in my family’s culture, and even now as I sit in my small, New York City apartment, I can smell the Rugosa Roses and the spray off the Atlantic.
Over the years, the Cape has changed. It’s become increasingly expensive, driving out many low-income residents. Short-term rentals have exploded over the past decade, disrupting what were once tight-knit neighborhoods. The Cape is facing significant climate-related threats. Rising sea-levels, storm surges, flooding, erosion, strong winds, wildfires and scorching summer temperatures are damaging natural habitats and communities. By 2100, vast portions of Cape Cod could be underwater.
Following Shillingford’s exercise, I imagine a better Cape Cod in 2223. In my world, warm sun bathes the landscape, thanks to heat-absorbing sidewalks. McMansions have disappeared, offering everyone breathtaking views of the sparkling sea. Bio-based structures, mirroring the resilience of coral and oyster reefs, are barely visible under the water, a new development to act as coastal barriers and prevent erosion. On the horizon, a wind farm powers the peninsula, designed with high-tech features in low-carbon steel frames to protect local bird and fish populations. Short-term rentals are history, replaced by affordable options. Over two centuries, community-driven innovation has transformed Cape Cod into a place that is more inclusive, just, and resilient.
Shillingford asks participants to share their imaginings. Someone says that they’re invigorated by these speculative futures that could become reality. Her point is that we can use world building to brainstorm a future that doesn’t currently seem possible. Companies, non-profits, and governments can use Shillingford’s framework by applying a three-step process: 1. Identify a problem. 2. Envision potential solutions. 3. Develop tools, technologies, and processes to bring these solutions to life.
At least one company already employs this technique. Superflux, a London design studio and consultancy, uses world building to bridge the gap between future uncertainty and present-day decision-making. As an example, Superflux worked with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government to help it make better future energy policy decisions. Together, they recruited policy makers, nonprofit partners, and other stakeholders to explore potential energy-related scenarios to inform their future energy strategy.
The group identified five future scenarios. For each, they made a model metropolis to help decision makers see the future world and how it could be impacted by new energy policies. These included renewable energy technologies, new means of public transport like low-carbon trains, and peer-to-peer energy trading that can democratize energy generation. Participants could also track a future happiness index, monitor energy diversification, and observe the affordability and sustainability of each future. Each scenario offered different costs and carbon emissions based on these factors. The group saw how society would shift based on the consequences of each decision made. Following the exercise, the findings significantly shaped the UAE’s National Energy Strategy 2050, leading to substantial investments – including $163 billion in renewables, making up roughly 44% of their energy sourcing.
Shillingford’s bottom line to the NYC event participants is that the future isn’t set in stone. Reality is shaped by what we imagine now.
Countries are banning animal testing for cosmetics, while the UK and EU are backpedalling. This year Brazil, Canada and the US state of Oregon banned the practice — joining 42 other countries and nearly a dozen US states. Meanwhile the EU and UK have started allowing animal testing, despite banning the practice a decade ago. They say it’s sometimes necessary to safeguard workers manufacturing cosmetics.
Annually some 500,000 animals are used to test cosmetics. Rabbits, mice and rats are the most commonly tested animals. Tests can involve rubbing chemicals into the skins and eyes of animals and force-feeding them chemical substances. Many animals die. Those that survive are killed anyway, usually by asphyxiation, neck-breaking or decapitation, all without pain relief. These tests, which are used in other industries like medical, pharmaceutical, and chemicals, are widely condemned by NGOs and activists.
Animal rights groups like PETA, Cruelty Free International and Humane Society International (HSI) say tests are cruel, unnecessary, and results can be inaccurate due to species differences. They say companies should use chemicals already tested as safe, or use computer modelling or other methods involving human cells and tissues, all of which are becoming more common and effective.
In the late ‘90s in the UK, PETA and The Body Shop called for bans on cosmetic animal testing, after which UK regulators made it illegal to market or sell cosmetics where the finished product or ingredients had been tested on animals. After spending €238 million to fund animal testing replacements, in 2013 the EU banned the testing of cosmetic ingredients and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.
Other countries followed suit. In 2014, India banned cosmetic animal testing. Guatemala banned it in 2017. In 2023, Brazil introduced a testing ban for cosmetic ingredients after years of campaigning by animal rights groups. Canada outlawed cosmetic animal testing and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics in June, labelling it cruel and unnecessary. Oregon became the 11th US state to ban the sale of animal-tested products in August, following California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Virginia.
Countries that have passed laws banning cosmetic animal testing, or are considering such laws.Source: HSI
Public opinion is firmly against cosmetics animal testing. 85% of Brits oppose it, 67% of Americans, 85% of Australians, 87% of Canadians, 87% of Southeast Asians, and 73% of Brazilians.
As the rest of the world steps up, the EU and UK are backtracking. The main reason given for cosmetic animal testing is to protect workers who are more exposed to the chemicals than consumers. A ruling by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in 2020 said that chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients must be tested to safeguard the workers manufacturing them. ECHA claims animal tests are sometimes needed to measure long-term health effects, and that cosmetics-related regulations were only protecting consumers and not workers. The UK started secretly issuing animal testing licenses in line with the EU chemicals law, despite leaving the EU in 2020.
Opponents say ECHA is taking an outdated, bureaucratic approach to chemical safety, as modern alternatives are more effective than animal testing. Other campaigners argue the UK government should prioritise animal welfare and the views of the public.
Companies and citizens heavily criticised the loosening of EU and UK regulations. In August 2021 organisations such as Unilever, The Body Shop and PETA launched the European Citizens’ Initiative Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics to uphold the EU ban. 1.2 million people signed it. When news broke in May that the UK had secretly issued animal testing licences, more than 80 brands including Boots, Dove and Simple signed a letter to appeal the UK’s decision, saying the government is following the EU’s ‘retrograde’ approach.
In response, the EU and UK have made some new commitments to stop cosmetics animal testing, which critics callinadequate. In July, the EU Commission published commitments they say are aimed at phasing out animal testing. But these don’t promise to uphold the full 2013 ban. The EU Commission says the EU won’t make legislative changes before the EU Court of Justice has considered the laws. In May, the UK reinstated a partial form of its original ban, which outlaws the testing of chemicals used ‘exclusively’ as cosmetics ingredients, rather than all chemicals used in cosmetics.
The overlap between the cosmetics animal testing ban and chemicals law is being judged in two ongoing court cases. Meanwhile, the EU Commission continues funding the development of non-animal alternatives.
Healthy soil is vital to our planet. It’s key to supporting human health and food security, and to fighting poverty and climate change. In recent years, dirt — a once under-examined area — has risen on sustainability agendas. It’s been rebranded under the terms ‘regenerative agriculture’ and ‘natural carbon sink’. As we look towards the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) this month and World Soil Day on 5th December, it’s worth reminding ourselves why soil matters and why it needs to play a central role in solutions to our interconnected global challenges.
Healthy soil…
…keeps people healthy.
95% of the food we eat comes from soil. Healthy, nutrient-rich soil produces nutritious food, free from pollution, while the reverse is true for unhealthy soil. Degraded soil (caused by deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices, urbanisation and industrial pollution) is less effective at filtering harmful contaminants and keeping pollutants out of waterways, which can damage human health. Globally, it’s estimated that soil pollution contributes to more than 500,000 premature deaths.
…is vital to food security.
Nutrient-rich soil translates to higher crop yields and better quality produce. Sustainable soil management has the potential to produce up to 58% more food, which is vital given the world’s growing population. Maintaining and supporting soil health promotes biodiversity, helps to control plant disease and pests, recycles essential plant nutrients, and ultimately improves crop production. Soil degradation and erosion impacts the quantity, price and quality of food, which has a detrimental effect on global food security. Estimates suggest soil erosion can lead up to 50% loss in crop yields.
Soil is a natural carbon sink. Nutrient-rich and biodiverse soil enhances the earth’s capacity to capture and store carbon. Scientists estimate that healthy soils can sequester over a billion additional tonnes of carbon each year. Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years. As the planet warms at a rapid rate, improving the health of our soil is vital to combatting climate change. In turn, climate change reduces soil moisture, which impacts food production, exacerbating effects on food security and poverty. The IPCC finds that all pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 degrees depend on some quantity of carbon removal via natural solutions, such as soil and trees, as well as technological solutions, such as direct air capture.
Those are just four reasons to love dirt. Not to mention the role healthy soil plays in sustaining our supply of natural materials for clothing and shelter, providing a home for vital insects and microorganisms, promoting biodiversity and much more. Whilst the world continues to tackle these interconnected global challenges, governments and businesses have a vital role to play in supporting and investing in nature to save our soil.
For most of us, it’s safe to say that once our trash leaves the curb for the garbage dump, it’s mostly a mystery about what happens next. Not surprisingly, the serious environmental shortcomings of solid waste are also poorly understood, despite the fact that it’s one of the chief contributors to climate change.
Worldwide, greenhouse gas emissions from landfills top the charts. They’re the third highest producer of methane(CH4), overshadowed only by the livestock and energy sectors. Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) at trapping heat in our atmosphere. If methane emissions were mitigated, significant and more rapid reductions in Earth’s warming would return greater short-term dividends than CO2.
Problems with Mitigating Waste Emissions
How we process our waste affects whether it harms the environment. In other words, not all landfills are created equal. Successful systems for capturing methane at dumpsites have been employed in the United States for many years. In developing countries, waste management practices are more problematic. And even the most buttoned-up systems can spring a leak of heat-trapping methane gas.
In 2022, RMI (formerly known as Rocky Mountain Institute) and partners published a comprehensive report about municipal solid waste. In it, they tic off the many factors that complicate the consequences of trash:
Volume and type of organic waste
Moisture content
Gas capture effectiveness
Land cover type
Monitoring and quantification practices
… to name a few
In short, solid waste is a complex problem without standardized solutions. Waste management practices are a hodgepodge depending on where you live in the world. Open dump sites are common in developing countries. And, regulatory standards vary from place to place. Still, the RMI report saw the “significant untapped potential” for successfully limiting emissions. “Now is the time to act,” its authors wrote.
How to Reduce Methane from Waste
Let’s get back to you and me. There are ways to reduce waste emissions — curbing the creation of trash is a good start. Consuming less of everything, which includes goods from packaged food to fast fashion, decreases volume. For businesses committed to sustainability, consumption means reductions, too, as well as adopting the mantras of reuse/recycle, upcycling, and lifecycling. Let’s add a few more: conversion/composting, transformation/waste-to-energy. The last resort for any byproduct should be the landfill.
Although these strategies are taking root, they’re typically out of reach in developing economies. For many places, the biggest opportunities (and challenges) will be rehabilitating dumps and adding gas capture systems. Cost, lack of regulatory structure, and cultural differences will make these changes harder to come by.
Another tool in the toolbox is monitoring. We can’t fix what we can’t see. And in the case of methane — a colorless, odorless gas — pinpointing where and how much methane is being emitted is crucial. It requires a commitment to monitoring or overseeing emissions, usually by a secondary partner, agency or watchdog. New technologies are helping, such as satellite arrays for global GHG monitoring. Several are in the works. Those coincide with new policy initiatives that are globalizing this not-in-my-backyard problem.
Policy Initiatives Around Methane Reduction
More eyes are on methane than at any other point in our recent environmental history. The evidence:
The Global Methane Pledge, launched at COP26, commits countries to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. As of COP27, 150 countries have signed.
A new Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) will use satellite observations to alert governments and operators about large emissions.
The U.S. State Department has launched the Global Waste Pathway to focus on solid waste exclusively.
The White House held its first “methane summit” in July 2023 and launched a task force dedicated to emissions.
Climate TRACE has made available a facility-level global inventory of GHG emissions of more than 70,000 sources.
To top it off, there’s also the work of activists who are taking emissions monitoring into their own hands. Perhaps the next time you take out the trash, the black box of where it’s going may not be so dim.
Sustainable investing — considering ESG factors and/or improving investees’ sustainability performance — is on the rise. Between 2018-2020, sustainable investments in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan and Australasia grew 15% to $35.3 trillion. Companies are increasingly making sustainable investments to achieve their own sustainability goals and enhance their reputations. 44% of institutional investors view it as an opportunity for higher returns, reports KPMG, but it’s unclear they are getting them.
Despite the booming market, many investors aren’t following standard best practices. This includes reporting how much they’re investing, setting impact goals, and tracking progress. These shortcomings cost investors opportunities to advance their own sustainability agendas and maximise positive impact.
Only a handful of the world’s largest asset managers received an A grade or above for their sustainable investment approach, according to ShareAction. The charity, which promotes responsible investing, assessed sustainable investing by 77 of the world’s largest asset managers by looking at five areas: policies and practices related to governance and stewardship, climate, biodiversity, and social issues. The study found that most firms failed to implement reasonable investing standards. More than a third of asset managers — accounting for half of the total assets under management — scored a bottom D or E grade, with consistently poor approaches in all five areas.
Still, some investors are taking mindful approaches.
L’Oréal set clear 2030 goals for its €50 million Fund for Nature Regeneration, including restoring 1 million hectares of degraded ecosystems, capturing 15-20 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, and creating hundreds of new jobs. These goals focus the fund on generating high-priority outcomes and, through public disclosure, ensure accountability.
Apple tracks and reports all impacts of its $400 million carbon removal fund. The company uses remote sensing technology to measure and verify emissions reductions of nature-based projects. Apple aims to reach its net-zero target through the fund, and this technology allows it to monitor progress and ensures investments meet their goals. Reporting impact demonstrates Apple’s transparency and boosts its reputation. The company removed 167,000 metric tonnes of carbon through the Chyulu Hills forest restoration project in Kenya.
Microsoft’s venture capital (VC) arm M12 prioritises investments in women-run businesses. Its $6 million Female Founders Competition funds women entrepreneurs building technology solutions and software. The company is investing in an often untapped opportunity, as female entrepreneurs lead businesses that, when VC funded, perform at least as well as VC-backed companies run by men. Even still, only 3% of VC-funded companies in the US have female leaders. BCG found that women-led businesses deliver more than twice as much revenue per dollar invested than those led by men.
Private markets investor Bridges Fund Management sticks to a clear impact-driven investment strategy and selects investee companies that match its larger portfolio goals. It aims to achieve net zero over its entire portfolio by 2040, while delivering impact over the four themes of sustainable planet, healthier lives, future skills, and stronger communities. This focusses Bridges’ investments on driving impacts relevant to the company’s vision, and ongoing performance assessments allow it to track progress across the portfolio.
Global investment firm AllianceBernstein (AB) actively engages with investees through direct dialogue, knowledge sharing and partnerships with wider investor networks to encourage them to improve their sustainability performance, such as reducing environmental impact or preventing human rights issues. By initiating dialogue with South Africa’s state-owned electric utility company Eskom, responsible for 40% of the country’s carbon emissions, AB and others influenced it to reduce its carbon emissions. Eskom announced in 2021 that it will cut 30% of its coal power plant capacity by 2031.
With the soaring number of investments labelled sustainable and growing scrutiny of both definitions and impacts, those already active in the market must take note of emerging good practice. A consistent approach to setting goals, tracking and reporting outcomes will help investors avoid overclaiming their investment impacts — in other words, impact washing.
