By Earth Day 2010, PepsiCo plans to rollout a package for its Frito-Lay SunChips snacks that is 100% compostable. The packaging innovation is part of a broad campaign by PepsiCo to reduce the company’s impact on the environment through water, energy and packaging initiatives. Earlier this year, the company decided to divert its Super Bowl advertising budget to focus on the new Pepsi Refresh Project. Last year, PepsiCo opened its first overseas “green” plant in China in the western city of Chongqing, part of the beverage giant’s continuing efforts to expand its reach in emerging markets, broaden its portfolio of locally relevant products and achieve a range of ambitious sustainability goals. Big brand skeptics may continue to see these measures as smoke and mirrors- “think of the waste this company produces,” they’ll shout- but they’d be missing the larger point. Consumers will continue to be consumers, and when a brand like PepsiCo makes these sorts of plans, it moves the entire industry in a greener direction.

This week, PSFK asked “What if all bags were compostable?” As the figures below show, we’re addicted to plastic bags. Moving towards reusable/recycled bags is a trend we can all get behind, but having a major consumer brand like Frito-Lay (PepsiCo) produce and then market this innovation in packaging could have a profound effect on how other major brands respond and help shift consumer expectation towards more responsible packaging.

As detailed on www.reusablebags.com

Facts and Figures on Plastic Bags

Top Facts - Consumption

• Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide. That comes out to over one million per minute. Billions end up as litter each year.

• According to the EPA, over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year.

• According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. goes through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually. (Estimated cost to retailers is $4 billion)

• According to the industry publication Modern Plastics, Taiwan consumes 20 billion bags a year—900 per person.

A few facts you might find interesting: the Earth’s population has doubled since the mid 1970s. Though the rate of population growth has almost halved since its peak (2.2%) in 1963, it still averaged a robust 220,988 new Earthlings every day in 2009. China and India account for nearly 40% of the world’s population- compare that to the U.S. which is about 4.5%, and Europe about 12%. Nearly a third of the world’s population is under the age of fifteen. Projections differ greatly, but some experts predict that we’ll hover between 9 and 10 billion by mid century.

In what Thomas Friedman calls an increasingly hot, crowded and flat world, population and innovation are closely linked. Where will 21st century’s world-changing innovation come from? And in what form? Some predict that nations will matter less than cities, regional hegemony far less than global collaboration. Ideas now travel at the speed of light, and access to information and technology grows by leaps and bounds.

Andrew Revkin writes in his recent post on NY Times Dot Earth,

As the human population heads toward nine billion and simultaneously becomes ever more interlaced via mobility, commerce and communication links, the potential to shape the human journey — for better or worse — through the sharing of ideas and experiences has never been greater. (My own sense is that the upside will dominate.) From Darwin through Havel, there’s been a vision of breaking down tribal and other barriers and enveloping the planet in what some have called noosphere.

While some old tools for disseminating information, the nightly newscast and morning front page, are suffering, it’s clear that the thirst for community and communication is stronger than ever.

But language remains a barrier to having a truly global conversation, or perhaps I should cast that in the past tense now.

As some of you certainly already know, and I’ve just learned, that future is already sketched out, in the form of Skype Translate, MeGlobe and similar experiments in instantly translated text chats.

Apture™

Way back in February, we looked at the “cash for clunkers” programs already enjoying success across Europe- Germany, France, Spain, Britain…, where it goes by the slightly less stupid name of ’scrappage incentives’- and wondered if something similar could ever work over here. Well, after the initial $1 billion allocated to the subsidy here in the U.S.- which was expected to last until November- evaporated in under a week, that question was put to rest. The House was forced to quickly vote on another $2 billion in clunker coupons, with the Senate expected to vote to extend the program soon. But other questions remain- is it a good idea? is it good for the environment? is Glenn Beck the craziest man on television?

The 411

The “cash for clunkers” program was designed to achieve three main goals- 1) stimulate the economy by luring the middle class back into showrooms, 2) provide the ailing car industry a much-needed shot in the arm and, if possible, 3) begin the transformation of the American fleet of cars towards more fuel efficient vehicles. The idea is pretty simple. The government will give consumers up to $4,500 to trade in older vehicles (less than 25 years old) that get 18 mpg or less (combined EPA ratings), in exchange for a vehicle that does 22 mpg or better.

Effect On The Economy & Industry?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls it a roaring success, saying, “the government has proved we can get money out the door and sell almost 160,000 cars.” LaHood and others estimate these transactions to be worth $664 million, suggesting the trade-in program has made an immediate and indisputable impact on the struggling U.S. auto industry. Ford announced on Monday that their July U.S. auto sales were up a strong 2.3% over results from one year ago, a result that company executives linked to “cash-for-clunkers.”

But critics suggest the impact on the economy is negligible. The Wall Street Journal calls it “crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway.” Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan believes the program is an effect of a rebounding economy, not a cause. “It’s an interesting issue,” Greenspan says, “I mean, I have qualms about the concept, but there is no doubt that that very extraordinary response is a very important indicator that the state of confidence in the economy is beginning to pick up.”

Effect on Environment?

Larry Summers, National Economic Council President, said on NBC’s Meet The Press that “the so-called cash for clunkers program has actually been far more successful than people expected, both in terms of the number of car sales it’s generated, and, I should say, in terms of the environmental benefit.” But what exactly is the environmental benefit? The Guardian’s Ryan Avent says the eco-thinking behind the program is based on sound logic: “Cars 13 years old and older generate 75% of all automobile pollution while travelling only 25% of the miles driven…Over the course of 10,000 miles, for instance, an improvement from 18 to 28 miles per gallon (mpg) will save nearly twice as much gasoline as a move from 34 to 50 mpg.”

Still, folks like Cameron Scott (SF Chronicle’s Thin Green Line) are skeptical. Scott argues the current program is a typical Washington half-measure, the effect of which is diluted by the already low emissions standards in this country. “The government requires fleetwide average fuel efficiency of 2009 American vehicles to be just 23 mpg…In Europe the number is 45, and it’s even higher in Japan, leading Japanese cars to trounce their American counterparts class by class in fuel efficiency.” He concludes, “it seems to be working fairly well as an economic stimulus program without actively screwing the environmental pooch.” Faint praise, indeed.

We’ll continue to track this story, but Scott is right to say that until the U.S. can match the fuel efficiency of Europe and Japan, we’ll continue to get trounced. Proof is in the pudding- 4 of the 5 top cars being bought through the “cash for clunkers” program are foreign. After the Ford Focus, which is surprisingly the top-selling new car,  Japanese automakers are dominating: the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry. But, on the bright side, of 157,000 trades that had occurred as of Tuesday morning, 80% of the “clunkers” were SUVs and trucks. That’s gotta be a good thing!

(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

The above video is an example of effective viral marketing, in which a short, well-made video spreads on a variety of social media platforms. I’ve seen this on Facebook and Twitter repeatedly in the past two days. With clever graphics and succinct narration, its ideas are easy to digest (to paraphrase: “people have been predicting that overpopulation would lead to humanity’s demise since that nutjob Malthus in 1798. Conspiracies about a Malthusian Catastrophe have found new crazy sponsors in every generation, and they always prove wrong…ergo, it’s gotta be hogwash!”). But who is behind the video? Do these ideas gel with scientific consensus? Is social media the new front in the war on climate change? Does any of this matter? Did I lose you at “Malthusian?”

Who is behind the video?

The video comes from the Population Research Institute, a VA-based non-profit organization that, according to its site, is dedicated to “presenting the truth about population-related issues.” PRI argues against the notion that human overpopulation is occurring. It’s useful to contextualize the argument presented in the video, but a few layers of the onion need to be peeled back to reveal the specific agenda- PRI is a “pro-life” organization, largely funded by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., which some liberal watchdog groups refer to as one of the country’s “largest and most influential right-wing foundations.” It’s a dangerous game- mixing a political and moral debate (the sanctity of life vs. woman’s right to choose) to construct a scientific argument (”don’t believe what you hear that overpopulation is biggest threat to the environment”).

What does scientists say?

Do these ideas about population growth gel with scientific consensus? A report by the United Nations suggests that world population will reach 11 billion by 2050. The U.S.’s population is expected to rise from 305 million (2008) to around 440 million by 2050, which will make fielding a kick-ass Olympic team easier, but we may have to start paving our open spaces (first dibs on Yellowstone). Global life expectancy, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Scientific estimates put the carrying capacity of the Earth- that is, the level at which we can achieve a sustainable economy and divert disasters- at around two billion people.

In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. The World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet” report suggested we’re consuming three times more of the Earth’s resources than we’re able to regenerate. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year research effort by 1,360 of the world’s leading scientists commissioned to measure the actual value of natural resources to humans and the world, “The structure of the world’s ecosystems changed more rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century than at any time in recorded human history, and virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have now been significantly transformed through human actions.”

I could continue, but I think it’s fair to say that a scientific consensus exists- that, though technological optimists might be right that we can continue to develop new ways of increasing food production to sustain a larger population, the Earth’s resources are being stretched perilously thin.

Social Media as new battleground?

Is social media the new front in the war on climate change? Definitely. It’s the most effective way to broadcast your views, and, studies have shown, people trust Facebook and Twitter as a source of real and relevant information. The video is a smokescreen for the debate between Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers. That debate, of course, is fraught with landmines - you either believe life begins at conception or you don’t- which make the two sides irreconcilable. That’s why introducing such a moral component to a Pro Life audience about Population/Climate Change efforts is fiendishly brilliant- and unhelpful.

Does any of this matter? Arguing against the ‘myth of overpopulation’ is like arguing against next Tuesday arriving after next Monday. It’s going to happen- many would argue it has happened- and so those of us interested in green innovation should be hard at work. You know, just in case thousands of the world’s leading scientists end up being right.

It’s amazing to think that Google has only been around since 1998. Where did we go to find answers before? Could Encyclopedia Britannica tell you what to do when your dog has a funny looking rash? Or help you find a recipe for bourbon balls? No. But, thanks to Messrs Brin and Page, all we have to do now is ‘google’ it.  And how many hours have you spent trying to zoom in on the satellite image of your house on Google Maps? Haven’t tried that? Liar!

Google recently unveiled the newest version of its awe-inspiring Google Earth app, a virtual globe, map and geographic information program that combines satellite imagery, aerial photography and computer generated imaging. This new version, Google Earth 5, includes in-depth ocean viewing, adding two-thirds of the earth’s surface data that had, in previous editions, been broad swaths of blue. Another impressive feature, Historical Imagery, provides the ability to scroll back through decades of satellite images and watch the spread of suburbia or erosion of coasts.

Google Earth is a remarkable learning tool, but it also provides unique context to how we view ourselves, quite literally putting our environment into perspective.

Junk mail in the United States accounts for roughly 20% of all the world’s mail. Each year, more than 20 billion catalogs are produced in the United States alone. Many of them are unsolicited, most end up in a landfill, and until rececntly, almost all were made from the destruction of virgin forests. Groups like ForestEthics are working to change the way catalogs are produced and distributed, helping companies look at their catalogs with a view towards sustainability. In 2007, ForestEthics published a  progress report- their “naughty and nice” list- detailing which companies were most forward-thinking and which ones the most egregious offenders when it comes to mail catalogs.Topping the ‘nice’ list was Patagonia, which has long been at the fore-front of significant environmental initiatives. The catalog paper they use is made from 40% post-consumer recylced content and virgin content certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Other companies on the ‘nice’ list included Victoria’s Secret, Williams-Sonoma, Dell, L.L. Bean, Timberland, Crate & Barrel, REI and J. Crew. The ‘naughtiest’ offender was Sears.

more…

Brent Constantz, a Stanford Professor, has invented a new type of concrete that could eliminate a significant source of the world’s C02.  2.5 billion tons of hydraulic cement is produced worldwide annually, producing roughly 5% of the world’s C02 emissions. That’s more than enough concrete to pave an eight-lane highway from the Earth to the moon and back again - twice. If you stayed on the planet, that same eight-lane highway would circle the Earth almost 40 times. Here’s an article by Carrie Sturrock from the SF Chronicle about Constantz, and the new concrete that just might be a ‘game changer.’

more…

Tracking the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’

Millions of pounds of our annual PET waste ends up in landfills. Much of it, however, finds it way through drains, into sewers and then into our oceans. A giant floating island of debris and waste twice the size of the state of Texas (roughly 80% of it made up of plastic bags) is being tracked by marine biologists drifting somewhere between San Francisco and Hawaii. Known as the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch,’ the mass of waste continues to grow, with circular currents and winds serving as the perfect conditions to trap debris.

In his piece in the SF Chronicle , detailing this ‘floating continent of trash,’ Justin Berton explains that scientists have been tracking the ‘Garbage Patch’ for ten years. “With the winds blowing in and the currents in the gyre going circular, it’s the perfect environment for trapping,” says one official. The patch has been growing, along with ocean debris worldwide, tenfold every decade since the 1950s, said Chris Parry, public education program manager with the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco. The report found that 80 percent of the oceans’ litter originated on land. While ships drop the occasional load of shoes or hockey gloves into the waters (sometimes on purpose and illegally), the vast majority of sea garbage begins its journey as onshore trash.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is particularly dangerous for birds and marine life, said Warner Chabot, vice president of the Ocean Conservancy. Sea turtles mistake clear plastic bags for jellyfish. Birds swoop down and swallow indigestible shards of plastic. The petroleum-based plastics take decades to break down, and as long as they float on the ocean’s surface, they can appear as feeding grounds. “These animals die because the plastic eventually fills their stomachs,” Chabot said. “It doesn’t pass, and they literally starve to death.” Check out Berton’s piece for more alarming details.

As detailed on www.reusablebags.com

Facts and Figures on Plastic Bags

Top Facts - Consumption

• Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide. That comes out to over one million per minute. Billions end up as litter each year.

• According to the EPA, over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year.

more…