Sustainability Law

When choosing a college, was the sustainability of the school part of the consideration? Better yet, could sustainability be the sole reason to choose one school over another? According to Princeton Review’s 2012 survey of over 7,000 students on their “College Hopes & Worries Survey,” 68% valued information on a college’s commitment to the environment.[i] Students’ desire for a college’s commitment to the environment has been increasing since Princeton Review started the survey in 2008.[ii]

Higher education institutions seek a better future through the education of their students. Along with maintaining traditional curricula, higher education institutions are moving towards improving the future with sustainability goals.[iii] Sustainability goals take form in setting standards for higher education institutions’ buildings and shaping the communities that surround higher education institutions.[iv]

_____

1 2 3 4 5

Every day, Americans destroy 3,000 acres of farmland for development. Exacerbating this problem, suburbs emit significantly more greenhouse gases (GHG) per person than previously believed, according to this recent study published in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology. (An article by Eric Brown summarizes the report.) While the smaller per person carbon footprint of urban core areas is not surprising, the difference found by this study is striking. Mounting evidence supports the conclusion that the endless sprawl of America is an environmental problem that must be addressed.

1 2 3 4

What society would consider the 210 million gallon Deepwater Horizon oil spill a net benefit to its overall success and progress? America would. The positive economic activity generated by the cleanup and rebuilding process and the billions of dollars paid by BP under damage settlements should ultimately more than offset the economic cost of the spill. In the eloquent words of Chief U.S. Economist Michael Feroli, the positive economic activity will “likely mean a near- to medium-term boost to activity that might offset the drags.”

Is this good news? Is economic growth the true measure of progress and quality of life in a society? It is, according to the commonly-accepted and most prominent indicator of a country’s success: gross domestic product (GDP). GDP has been called the “godfather” of economic indicators. GDP measures the market value of all goods and services produced by an economy (here is a similar definition; here is a more thorough description of GDP). Essentially, GDP measures the amount of money changing hands, while ignoring the consequences of these transactions and most activity outside of economic transactions. As explained by this report, GDP fails to measure the true health of an economy for four main reasons: (1) GDP does not distinguish between good spending and bad spending (oil spills), (2) GDP does not account for the distribution of economic growth (inequality), (3) GDP does not account for the depletion of natural capital and ecosystem services (environmental degradation), and (4) GDP does not include the value of activities with no market price (volunteer work).

1 2 3 4 5

Imagine you are walking in a city. You realize you need to walk 15 blocks in order to get to your next destination. At this point, public transportation will take too long and a taxi is pricey and nowhere to be found. Luckily for you, you are in a city with a bike-sharing program. You simply rent the bike and travel to your destination in a timely and hassle free manner. Problem solved.

This has been the objective of many cities: adopt bike-sharing programs in order to help pedestrians travel throughout their cities. Bike-sharing programs allow pedestrians to essentially rent a bike from a bike station, which can be found on the sidewalks of a city, ride the bike to the destination needed, and return the bike at any other bike station that happens to be close by. In order to pay for the bike being used, some bike stations offer annual memberships that allow people to subscribe to. Another way pedestrians pay for these bikes is by renting them while incurring an hourly or daily fee. 

1 2 3 4

Sustainability has become a major aspect of businesses. As the sustainability trend continues to rise, more and more businesses are adopting environmentally-friendly measures to keep up with this trend. Many restaurants are also hopping on the sustainability bandwagon in hopes of attracting new customers. In order for restaurants to validate their sustainability claims, many restaurants seek out certifications that recognize businesses for being sustainable. Although this provides some guidance to consumers, both existing and potential, some confusion from the public exists as for which certification is considered the best. The key differences of these certifications will be discussed below in order to determine which certification is considered most credible in regards to the “sustainability” label.

Many certifications claim to verify whether a restaurant is sustainable. Some of the more recognized certifications include: the Green Restaurant Certificate,[1] the Green Seal Certified label, and the Responsible Epicurean and Agricultural Leadership certification to name a few.[2] In addition to restaurant-specific certifications, there is also the Benefit Corporation certification, better known as B-Corp. B-Corp certifications are geared toward any business, but some restaurants have chosen to seek out this certification in order to gain credibility for their sustainability claims. The Green Restaurant Certificate is commonly used for restaurant certificates and the B-Corp certificate is commonly used for business certificates; therefore, the two will be compared and contrasted below to determine which one is better for restaurants to seek with regards to sustainability.

_____

1 2 3 4 5

As consumers become more aware of the impact their purchases make, it is only natural that they begin making purchasers with that impact in mind.  Consumers are increasingly willing to pay more for products they can feel good about, i.e. those that are environmentally responsible, leave a negative carbon footprint, or a portion of whose profits are donated to charity.  It is increasingly easier to purchase products with these concerns in mind, with labels such as Energy Star, LEED ratings and those showing that a product was made under Fair Trade regulations.  However, consumers do not have a way to ensure that the products they purchase were produced in a socially responsible manner.  Wanting this option is the easy part. Laying out what such labels might actually look like is a different story.  For example, what is adequate and how should we measure success?  And, most importantly for this class, what is the law’s place in this decision?

Can one label adequately focus on all of it?

I would have to agree with Mark Buckley of Staples, in saying, “In my humble opinion, not yet. Labels represent a quick “seal of approval” that a product meets standard for quality, labor or environmental integrity. Until recently they have tended to focus on only one or two attributes. A product may contain recycled material, but the process to recycle may produce a highly toxic pollutant. Consumers are conflicted and confused…the good news is that there is a movement here at Staples and other companies toward full life cycle accounting where all of the most material impacts are tracked and measured. We look forward to the day when that product labeling will easily convey comparative scores for consumers to compare cradle to cradle impacts.” 

1 2 3 4 5 6

Cue Sarah McLachlan or other sappy emotional music to tug on your heartstrings.

We have all seen those commercials for the ASPCA protecting animals or the commercials requesting a dollar a day to help feed starving children.  Though these commercials may be obnoxious or annoying, we know what they are about and their goal. Though we may not pick up the phone right away to help, we have an awareness as to what we could do to help. We may be aware of pollution, but the effects are not shoved down our throats. There is no sappy commercial telling us how we can make a difference. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe that’s a bad thing. But maybe if we were aware of our individual effects in regards to pollution we would be apt to do something. Something that sticks in our minds with an obnoxious commercial would make us peripherally aware of how we can effect pollution and global warming.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Photo Courtesy of: Off the Grain <http://offthegrain.com/food-doesnt-grow-in-boxes/>

Most Americans eat some form of packaged food on a daily basis. Often, this food is convenient and quick, making it ideal for our often rushed and overscheduled lifestyles. Recently, studies have shown that bisphenol A (BPA), one chemical used in the food packaging process, may be leaching into packaged food and making us ill. This spurred angry articles, public controversy and a string of lawsuits. Consumer advocacy groups and health blogs suggest avoiding BPA exposure by drinking from BPA-free bottles, avoiding canned foods, and refusing receipts at stores (yes, they too contain BPA). But there is growing evidence that long-term exposure to a broad range of food packaging-related chemicals may be a serious health concern, making BPA simply a tree among a forest of toxic wrapping.

1 2 3

Photo courtesy of Streething.com

One of the leaders in developing a sustainable business model, Nike, Inc. proudly states that its “vision is to build a sustainable business and create value for its stakeholders by decoupling profitable growth from constrained resources.” At first glance, this seems like a very wise and visionary goal: to divorce profits from the reality of increasing resource scarcity. However, the reality that most resources are scarce, particularly those that are necessary to produce, transport, and sell the products that Nike sells, means that this is potentially monumental task, keeping in mind the reality that businesses are profit maximizing enterprises and have duties to their shareholders to make profitable investments.[1]

Thus the question: sustainable long-term vision, or unrealistic goal that is impossible to achieve while continuing to increase profits and sell more product?