Companies can and should do more to eliminate lead in food – our kids’ health depends on it

As a parent, environmental professional and wife of an accomplished chef, I spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to make the best choices when it comes to feeding my family. That’s why EDF’s report detailing lead in food has me so concerned.

Usually I think about, and maybe even felt guilty at times, about the nutritional content and environmental impacts of the food I choose, but it never occurred to me to worry that the food itself could be contaminated with lead.  And, let’s just be clear – there is no scientific evidence of a safe level of lead in blood. Lead can harm a child’s developing brain, potentially leading to learning problems, lower IQ, as well as cause behavioral problems.

While I knew that the major exposures to lead come from lead-based paint, contaminated soil and dust, and drinking water, I didn’t realize that in order to have a comprehensive plan to protect my child from harm, contaminated food should also be on my list.

According to EDF’s analysis of FDA data from 2003 to 2013, 20% of baby food and 14% of other food sampled contained detectable levels of lead. The baby food items with the highest rates of detection include grape, mixed fruit, apple, and pear juices, sweet potatoes and carrots, arrowroot cookies, and teething biscuits.

The following chart details the percentage of various food samples where lead was detected.

There are two key takeaways from this chart.

  1. Some product types have a high percent of lead detection across the samples, while other product types have much smaller percentages.
  2. While many samples of products have detected levels of lead, every category has some products with no detectable levels of lead. This suggests that lead in food is a problem with a solution.

So, what is a food company to do?

  • Step 1 – Set a goal of less than 1 parts per billion (ppb) of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children
  • Step 2 – Test for lead
  • Step 3 – Identify the source of contamination – is it the raw ingredients, something the food is exposed to during processing, or something else?
  • Step 4 – Take steps to eliminate the contamination
  • Step 5 – Remain vigilant – keep testing and improving until the contamination is eliminated

What can you do?

Ask companies if they regularly test their products for lead; and whether they ensure that there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell. If they don’t, let them know it is a high priority concern for you.

I’m about to have another baby, and I hope that by the time baby number two is here and ready to eat solids, food companies have taken the steps necessary to eliminate lead. That way, I can spend more time focusing on eating great food and less time worrying about if it’s  contaminated.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend the clean energy economy and American innovation

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF + Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The proposal slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. is backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences.

Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean EnergySmall Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment. The plan does note that strategic subprograms would be consolidated or transferred to elsewhere within DOE.

The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Follow Bryce Golden-Chen on Twitter

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

FDA is reevaluating its tolerances for lead in food, and food manufacturers should too

By Tom Neltner, J.D., EDF Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

Until recently, we have known very little about food’s contribution to children’s exposure to lead. Surprisingly, a recent report from the EPA found that two-thirds of one-year olds get most of their exposure from food. FDA has been reviewing its testing methods and standards for a while and just published FAQs regarding lead in food. Leading companies should take notice.

We have written about the health risk of lead exposure from major sources such as paint and water and the well-known fact that there is no safe level of lead in the blood of children. We also wrote about what agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are doing to reduce or eliminate persistent sources of lead exposure as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Food remains a poorly understood source of exposure.

In its FAQs for lead in food, FDA describes what it has done, its current standards, and its planned next steps. The agency makes no reference to EPA’s assessment and attributes the lead in food to contaminated soil. The agency say it seeks to limit lead in food to the greatest extent possible and set the following tolerances:

To limit lead in food to the greatest extent possible, FDA set the following tolerances:

  • Bottled water: 5 parts per billion (ppb);
  • Juices from berries and other small fruits, including grapes, and passion fruits: 50 ppb;
  • Other fruit juices and nectars, including apple: 30 ppb;
  • Candy likely to be consumed by small children: 100 ppb; and
  • Dried fruits, including raisins: 100 ppb.

Only the bottled water tolerance is established in regulations. For the rest, FDA provides only guidance.

How did FDA set the tolerances?

The 5 ppb limit in bottled water was established by FDA in 1995 based on the inability to reliably measure below that level and that only 2 of 48 (4%) samples collected by FDA exceeded those levels. For comparison, in 2016, the AAP recommended lead levels in drinking water at schools be less than 1 ppb.

The fruit juice limits are based on international food standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), an organization representing 188 countries and the European Union. Those standards were designed to ensure that only about 5% of the juice samples would exceed them. While Codex recognizes the risks posed by lead, its standard was not based on those risks.

For all other foods, FDA relies on a maximum daily intake level of 6 micrograms of lead per day (µg/day) for young children that it established in 1993 based on CDC’s Level of Concern of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (µg/dL).

One million children exceed FDA’s current maximum daily intake level

In the FAQs, FDA affirmed that “there is no known identified safe blood lead level” and acknowledges that scientific information has become available in the last decade that indicates neurotoxic effects at low levels of exposure to lead. It notes that the evidence has prompted EPA to lower its air quality standard, CDC to strengthen its standards, and the Joint WHO and FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) to withdraw its limit for lead because it concluded there was no safe level in food. With this backdrop, FDA is reevaluating “its methods for determining when it should take action with respect to measured levels of lead in particular foods, including those consumed by infants and toddlers.”

At EDF, we are pleased to see FDA has undertaken this long overdue reevaluation. EPA’s draft report estimates that more than 5% of children between 2 and 7 years consume more than the 6 µg of lead/day FDA says is tolerable. This estimate excludes drinking water. With 20 million children in those age groups, that means 1 million children exceed the maximum daily intake level. And, by all accounts, this 1993 level does not reflect the mounting scientific evidence that has led other science-based organizations to reduce their standards. We are also encouraged to see that FDA is willing to be more protective of children’s health by conducting its own assessment rather than just following the Codex standards for fruit juices.

Food manufacturers and retailers can better earn consumer trust and avoid more costly changes by updating their preventive controls and supply chain management programs now to reduce lead levels in food.

Business will not walk backward on climate

Our businessman president just flunked one of the most important tests of his presidency: failing to listen to business leaders on the Paris climate agreement.

Despite the hundreds of companies and corporate CEOs calling for continued U.S. leadership on climate – in full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, on the Low Carbon USA website, and in direct outreach to the administration – Trump chose to side with the laggards. This is deeply disappointing and will harm American workers and business by undermining our competitiveness in the global clean energy economy.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, however, will not stem the tide of American businesses taking action to stabilize the climate and safeguard our planet. Private sector leaders, unlike our president, have moved beyond the false choice of a healthy economy or a healthy environment; we need both. Which is why leading companies and investors are poised to deliver clean air, clean water and clean energy in ways that increase jobs, incomes and competitiveness.

Tom Murray, VP Corporate Partnerships, EDF

While the Trump administration has ceded global leadership on climate, corporate America is moving ahead with plans to invest in clean energy and cut emissions. Long-term, global competitiveness demands it.

Leadership on climate and energy is driven by long-term economics, not short-term politics.

American business won’t back down from this latest challenge. In fact, it seems the business community is more motivated on climate than ever before. Cargill CEO David MacLennan summed it up best: “Cargill has no intention of backing away from our efforts to address climate change in our supply chains around the world and in fact this would inspire us to work even harder.”

Companies need to forge ahead by pursing aggressive science-based, emissions reduction targets and expanding their efforts to slash emissions throughout their operations and supply chains. Take PepsiCo, which recently announced that its climate goal to reduce absolute GHG emissions across its value chain by at least 20% by 2030 has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative.

Business leaders can use Hewlett Packard Enterprises as a model. The information technology company created the world’s first comprehensive supply chain management program based on climate science and requires 80% of manufacturing suppliers to set science-based emissions reduction targets by 2025.

And just last week – despite the unsettled future of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement – Tyson Foods announced it will develop science-based greenhouse gas and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

These high-impact corporate initiatives need to be applauded, and the tools and resources used to achieve these goals should be replicated across industries.

Business will not allow positive climate momentum to come to a halt

The clean energy momentum generated by business over the last decade will not come to an abrupt halt. Companies like Apple, AB InBev and Walmart will not turn their back on the clean energy commitments they’ve made to customers, employees and the planet. Investors, like we saw with ExxonMobil, will keep pressure on companies to clearly report how climate change is affecting business.  And CEOs like General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt or Tesla's Elon Musk, who have been outspoken about remaining in the Paris agreement, will not back away from their company’s climate efforts because they understand how leaving Paris will make it harder to do business around the world. These voices need to keep encouraging others in the business community to join their efforts.

What is the plan? Inaction is unacceptable.

In this new post-Paris world, companies must now demand that the Trump administration and Congress deliver a plan to address climate change. Leading cities, states and companies will continue to move forward, but won’t be enough to deliver the reductions required from the world’s second largest emitter.  Smart climate and energy policy is required to provide the deep emission reductions the world needs and the certainty that business needs for planning, investment decisions, and job growth.

Unfortunately, the president failed to listen to the business community he was once a proud part of for so many years. With the President lagging behind, real business leaders will continue to step up lead the way to a thriving clean energy economy; EDF will have their back. We will continue to engage with business in this time of uncertainty to help shape a future where both business and nature prosper.

If the president won’t listen to business leaders in the future on climate, I hope he will follow the words of one of his favorite presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who said, “I walk slowly, but I never walk backward.”


Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray


Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog.

Your Name

Your Email

Both fields are required.

 

With Paris in doubt, Tyson Foods is the latest business to lead

What comes to mind when you think of Tyson Foods? Maybe it’s their eponymous brand’s wide array of chicken prepped in every shape and size. Or your morning ritual breakfast sandwiches by Jimmy Dean. Or even Hillshire Farm’s folded lunchmeats beneath the classic red container lids.

Most likely, the word “sustainability” doesn’t pop into your head—but that’s about to change.

Last week, Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest meat producers, announced the beginning of a collaboration with the World Resources Institute (WRI) to develop science-based greenhouse gas (GHG) and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

Project Coordinator, Supply Chain

This announcement comes at a time when U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement is unlikely. President Trump’s stance on climate change is disconcerting to say the least, but the ambitious goals made by corporate leaders (like Tyson) give Americans something to be proud of. The future is in sustainability, and business is on its way there.

Tyson aims to work with WRI in order to ensure that every step of their supply chain–from the suppliers for the materials and ingredients to the farmers who provide the chicken, turkey, cattle and pigs–meets their environmental targets. More and more companies are setting supply chain goals that address the sourcing of raw materials, which can be the hardest to influence, but the greatest source of impact.

This announcement follows several recent actions made by the company showing their commitment to improve the sustainability of its supply chain, including the recent hire of their first Chief Sustainability Officer, Justin Whitmore, and the elimination of antibiotics in their own brand of chicken. These initiatives are not only a significant step for Tyson Foods, but also the animal agriculture industry in general.

As one of the largest animal agriculture companies in the world, Tyson has the opportunity to act as a role model for other companies, large and small, within the animal agriculture sector to begin adopting similar sustainable initiatives.

Major companies like Walmart, PepsiCo, Nestle, have all set targets to reduce emissions from their full supply chains. EDF has worked with a number of other food and beverage companies and retailers to set supply chain sustainability goals, including Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer.

Tyson’s commitment reaffirms the notion that addressing the entire supply chain has officially become mainstream. We hope to see other major meat producers, such as Hormel, Perdue and JBS, follow in their footsteps.


Follow Theresa on Twitter, @te_eberhardt


 Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog.

Your Name

Your Email

Both fields are required.


Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)

U.S. out of Paris? Time for companies to find the next LED lightbulb

As I’m writing this blog, the news is breaking that President Trump may pull out of the Paris agreement. Which makes my story about Walmart and product innovation all the more relevant.

My relationship with Walmart started over six years ago, working towards their 20 MMT greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal. After some trial and error, and an exhaustive scan of greenhouse gas hotspots, it became clear that we would need to attack every point of the product lifecycle (including things like fertilizer optimization for crops and factory energy efficiency). Little did we know at the time that promoting energy-efficient products to Walmart shoppers–particularly LED lightbulbs–would prove to be so important to reach the goal in 2015.

As Walmart sets out on its next ambitious goal to remove 1 gigaton (aka 1 billion tons) of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) from the supply chain, I can’t help but wonder what the next game-changing product will be?

I don’t think the solution will be as easy as another LED lightbulb, but rather a series of disruptive innovations around how products are designed, sold and treated at the end of use.

Design: how to reduce impacts from the start 

Last month’s event focused on climate impacts, which largely come from the materials and processes used to manufacture and transport products.  Design changes can play a big role in reducing those impacts. It can also transform products into circular products, with their materials being recaptured by the economy or the planet to live another life as a component of a new product.

Point of Sale: how products are sold

The face of retail is shifting – not just from brick-and-mortar stores to online retail, but from an economy dominated by retail-to-customer relationships to one with more peer-to-peer transactions – just look at Airbnb and Lyft. This “sharing economy” has the potential to displace the number of new items needed as people increasingly use what has already been manufactured, sold and used. This can have big environmental benefits – sort of like eliminating food waste, but for general merchandise.

It hasn’t really taken off yet for retail, but companies like POSHMARK and ThredUp – where you can buy and sell fashion – and Spinlister – where you can rent someone’s bike – are working to change that. This will become more prevalent over time, especially as millennials have shown a preference for owning less things.

End of life: how to extend the life of a product

The sharing economy has the potential to delay a product from coming to its end of life as quickly, but once it does, innovative companies like Stuffstr can help consumers better manage what they do with their products by making resale, donations, recycling just as easy as throwing things away.

And, Stuffstr isn’t just an innovation that benefits end-consumers, but one that can help retailers understand how consumers use, and part with, the products they buy – creating opportunities to stay relevant as the sharing economy continues to grow.

What Now?

It’s clear that Walmart’s goal will catalyze innovation in how we think about products and their use. The GHGs that go into creating, selling and disposing of products is too great to ignore. I look forward to seeing which Walmart suppliers step up to the challenge.

 


Follow Jenny on Twitter, @JennyKAhlen


Additional Resources: Supply Chain Solutions Center


 

From energy efficiency to clean energy: 10 years of EDF Climate Corps

 

Ten years ago, EDF found itself head-on with a challenge: how to effectively jump-start corporate energy efficiency initiatives. We started EDF Climate Corps, a summer fellowship program, with the theory that a small, intense injection of effort could catalyze investment in energy efficiency, giving companies the opportunity to capitalize on the associated cost and energy savings. That was ten years ago.

Since then, more than 800 fellows have been placed in over 430 organizations to advance corporate energy management.

Liz Delaney, Program Director, EDF Climate Corps

We have seen companies use their help to go beyond single-site projects and scale energy efficiency across their entire portfolios of facilities. This growth is representative of a vibrant and growing industry. Deploying energy efficiency has become a mainstream practice, and an entire ecosystem of service providers has cropped up to support these efforts. Employment in this market has skyrocketed and energy efficiency now represents the largest source of clean energy jobs in the country.

But the corporate energy challenge doesn’t stop there.

While energy efficiency continues to be an important way for companies to reduce carbon emissions from electricity, it can only get them so far. Alongside scaled-up efficiency efforts, holistic, strategic energy management plans that include clean energy generation (onsite and offsite) must be developed–and many companies are stepping up to the plate to do so.

Today we observe companies asking fellows to explore clean energy procurement options, dig through various state and federal incentive structures and effectively build the business case for investing in new, clean generation sources.

Today, clean energy is where energy efficiency was for companies a decade ago.

Building on the success of 10 years of fellowships, we are excited to announce that this summer over 100 new EDF Climate Corps fellows from top universities in the U.S. and China will help companies such as McDonald’s, Boston Scientific, JPMorgan Chase and Walmart meet their carbon and energy reduction goals. Fellows will scale energy efficiency, deploy clean energy technologies (1/3 of our class of over 100 fellows will work on clean energy solutions!), help companies set strategies to achieve science-based GHG goals, and even dig into carbon reductions in supply chains. They’ll also set themselves up for lasting careers in clean energy, energy efficiency and sustainability, alongside four million other Americans. We know that our network of over 1500 sustainability-focused professionals will help them along the way.

Corporate commitments for reducing carbon emissions are only getting stronger. Despite federal rollbacks in environmental protections, companies are continuing to navigate clean energy innovation, and we’re excited to see how the next 1o years of EDF Climate Corps will help drive this momentum.


Follow Liz on Twitter, @lizdelaneylobo


Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog.

Your Name

Your Email

Both fields are required.


Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)

New EDF Report on Smart Innovation and the Case of Preservatives

Today EDF released a new report, Smart Innovation: The Opportunity for Safer Preservatives, which offers a framework for safer chemical and product development. The report details baseline toxicological information on a select set of preservative chemicals used in personal care products, and makes the case for why and how access to uniformly developed sets of chemical health and safety information can help drive safer chemical and product innovation.

Consumers are demanding safer products for their homes, schools, and places of work. Growing awareness about the health and environmental impacts of chemicals is driving this demand. The entire consumer goods supply chain, from chemical manufacturers to retailers, plays a significant role in ensuring products on the market are healthful—i.e. made up of ingredients or materials that are as safe as possible and support healthy living.

How can we use data to strengthen the marketplace and ensure better innovation and competition for safer chemicals? Companies introduce new products into the marketplace all the time, but too few strive towards innovation that is safer for people and the planet. We need innovation that generates ingredients and materials that not only perform, but are also safer than their predecessors. Smart innovation is data-driven, deliberate, and delivers solutions that support health.

Unfortunately, the lack of availability and access to comprehensive and transparent toxicological information on chemicals across the supply chain continues to be a major obstacle to smart innovation. Such baseline information is invaluable for setting safer chemical design criteria that chemical and product developers can integrate into their R&D efforts.

In EDF's new report, we demonstrate how this type of information can be useful in the pursuit of safer preservatives – an ingredient class that has garnered much regulatory and market scrutiny. For example, major retailers like Walmart, Target, and CVS have published chemicals policies that aim to drive chemicals of concern off their shelves while ensuring consumer access to safer chemicals and products. Preservatives are present on each of these retailer’s lists of chemicals targeted for removal.

Ultimately, delivering products to the marketplace that use the safest possible ingredients requires concerted effort and informed, smart innovation. Our report discusses how this can be achieved via the creation of a collective Chemicals Assessment Clearinghouse that is leveraged across the supply chain. Such a Clearinghouse would provide a strategic intervention to unlock safer chemicals innovation to benefit companies, consumers and the environment.

Investors Can’t Diversify Away from Climate Risk

With the U.S. role in the Paris Climate Agreement hanging in the balance, over 280 investors managing a collective $17 trillion in assets spoke up in support of the agreement:

As long-term institutional investors, we believe that the mitigation of climate change is essential for the safeguarding of our investments. . . . . We urge all nations to stand by their commitments to the agreement.

Why do investors care?  As pointed out in a blog earlier this year, for investors, it all comes down to risk and return. And, where climate change is concerned, this is a risk that is omnipresent.

Simply put, investors cannot diversify away from the risks of climate change. Unlike other risks such as currency fluctuations or new regulations, the disruptive impacts of climate change on the global economic system are so pervasive they cannot be offset by simply shifting stock portfolios from one industry to another.

A study from Cambridge University found equity portfolios face losses of up to 45% from climate shocks, with only half of these losses being “hedgeable.” Likewise, The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates that investors are at risk of losing $4.2 trillion by 2100, with losses accruing across sectors from real estate to telecom and manufacturing.

Because investors recognize that climate risk is unavoidable, they support a coordinated global effort as envisioned in the Paris Agreement. It is also why investors have already expressed such strong support for regulatory limits on carbon and methane emissions.  Governments globally will need to take further proactive action to limit greenhouse gases, and incentivize technology shifts towards lower-carbon energy.

Seizing opportunities in a low-carbon economy

Technology changes will require significant adjustments in how global capital is allocated, which is an opportunity investors are eager to seize because of the promise of risk-adjusted returns in the space.

It is estimated that a shift to a clean-energy economy will require $93 trillion in new investments between 2015 and 2030 and the rise of impact investing shows markets are starting to respond to opportunities in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy efficiency among others.

For example, the green bond market has grown from $11 billion to $81 billion between 2011 and 2016 with projections for 2017 as high as $150 billion. On top of this, leading global investment banks have already pledged billions towards sustainable investing.

And where capital flows, so do jobs.

As we’re seeing in the US, renewable energy jobs grew at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 6% between 2012 and 2015 and the solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.  Similarly, the methane mitigation industry is putting Americans and Canadians to work limiting highly potent emissions from oil and gas development.

Technology and capital changes are already happening, but are unlikely to happen quickly enough on their own.  Government policies and frameworks that speed this transition, like a price on carbon, will be critical.

Which brings us back to the importance of the Paris Agreement…

The Paris Agreement is crucial to addressing climate change

Investors vote with their dollars, and are strongly backing U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. Global investors understand the risk of climate change and see the Paris Agreement as a good return on investment, with an optimistic $17 trillion nod to the power of capital markets to provide the innovation and jobs we need if the right policies are in place. The U.S. administration should ensure it is considering the voice of investors and the capital they stand ready to put to use as it makes its decision.

There’s no avoiding it, business must lead on climate

A few weeks ago, I attended the Earth Day Network’s Climate Leadership Gala in Washington, DC.  Each year the event brings together more than 300 leaders from business, government and the NGO community to celebrate achievements in working towards a clean energy future. This year’s top honor, the Climate Visionary Award, was presented to Unilever CEO Paul Polman for his commitment to fighting climate change.

Tom Murray, VP Corporate Partnerships, EDFBold, passionate leadership like Polman’s is essential to tackling climate change while helping to create an economy that benefits us all. He understands that it’s not a choice between business and the environment. In fact, a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment.

Corporate sustainability leadership is now more important than ever. It’s clear that the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll-back environmental protections have thrust U.S. businesses into a critical leadership role on clean energy and climate change. (In fact, I’ll be talking with business leaders later today about how they are “responding to the new norm” at the Sustainable Brands Conference.)

Over the past 25 years at EDF we’ve seen corporate sustainability go from simple operational efficiencies to global supply chain collaborations; now it’s time to go further. Business must continue to raise the bar for sustainability leadership.

How?

  1. Set big goals, then tell the world

Thinking big and setting big goals, are required to drive big innovation and big results.  Many large companies have demonstrated that if you commit to aggressive, science-based, sustainability goals, you can deliver meaningful business and environmental results. For example, Walmart, a longtime EDF partner with a track record of setting aggressive yet achievable climate goals, has recently set its sights even higher by setting a goal to source half of the company’s energy from renewable sources by 2025 and by launching Project Gigaton, a cumulative one gigaton emissions reduction in its supply chain by 2030.

And Walmart is not the only one. Other companies are stepping up as well – especially around commitments to go 100 percent renewable. Whether its online marketplace eBay committing to 100 percent renewable power in all data centers & offices by 2025, Tesco, one of the world’s largest retailers, announcing science-based targets and committing to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030 or AB InBev committing to 100 percent renewable power, companies from diverse industries are taking a positive step forward.

While setting goals is a great first step, companies also need to communicate about the goals and progress. Not only does this increase transparency into a business’ sustainability efforts, it lets the world know that sustainability is core to its business. Publicly committing to sustainability goals sends a strong signal to suppliers, shareholders and customers.

  1. Collaborate for scale

In December 2016 I wrote about Smithfield Foods, the world’s number one pork producer, and its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2025. The commitment was important both because Smithfield was the first major protein company to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction goal but also because the reductions would come from across Smithfield's supply chain, on company-owned farms, at processing facilities and throughout its transportation network.

Smithfield understands that some environmental challenges are too big to handle on their own, and they know collaboration is the key to deliver impact at scale.

Other companies are also looking beyond their own supply chain and forming mutually beneficial partnerships. Take the recent partnership between UPS and Sealed Air Corporation, for example. The two companies have announced the opening of a Packaging Innovation Center in Louisville, Kentucky where they will solve the packaging and shipping challenges of e-commerce retailers but also drive new efficiencies while minimizing waste. This is a critical issue that is material to both their businesses, and by joining forces, are finding ways to solve an environmental challenge while improving their bottom lines.

  1. Publicly support smart climate policy

I can’t stress how critical it is right now for business leaders to move beyond their comfort zones and make their voices heard on smart climate and environmental policy. If you want to be a sustainability leader, continuing to hoe your own garden is no longer enough.  You need to align your strategy, operations, AND advocacy.  We know that environmental safeguards drive innovation, create jobs, and support long-term strategic planning.

The good news is leading voices are chiming in, from CEOs signing an open letter to Trump to more than 1,000 companies signing the Low-Carbon USA letter, in favor of environmental policies.

Some companies like Tiffany & Co. are also taking a public stand on their own. The company used its usual ad position in the New York Times to tell President Trump directly that Tiffany is backing policies that will lead us to a clean energy future.

The Way Forward

Taking the leadership mantle is never easy, but now is the time for every corporate leader to get off the sidelines and into the game. There’s plenty of room for more leaders like Polman who are ready to address climate change head-on, creating opportunities for economic growth, new jobs, and a cleaner future.  Will your company be next?

Follow Tom Murray on Twitter: @TPMurray