Cleaner Greener China

Hi everyone, my name is Kimberly and I have recently been asked to contribute to this website in the area of health, food, nutrition & well-being. I’ve been in China for almost 8 and a half years and have always been conscious of our surroundings in terms or air, water, food but have never really taken the time to explore certain areas for myself. Until now that is. Over the past 10 months I have moved on from just being well through exercise and fitness to seriously trying to be well through what I eat. A  TCM course, food therapy and now Integrative Nutrition has played a huge part in my shift from some packaged foods, eating out and convenience to whole foods, grains and incorporating organic produce as much as possible.

With the aim of trying to understand what the term “organic” means in Shanghai and of course being able to answer confidently that organic farms are relatively healthy and the produce better than the local wet markets, I embarked on a few weekend adventures to the organic vegetable farms to find out if and how their farms are clean, chemical free and healthy.

Some key issues that a wise friend told me before going out to the farms to look for and ask about include; soil, water supply, nearby water sources and rivers, surrounding infrastructure and manufacturing or industry, vegetable produce handling and refrigeration/ transportation.

BIOFARM

Biofarm is located a lot closer than I thought, a short 40 minute ride from downtown Puxi, Shanghai. It is in the Pudong area and not far from light industry and what I could call on the fringe /beginning of small agricultural fields. Off the highway you drive past sparse factory buildings, and a small river and then suddenly its roadside farm land.

The farm is bigger than it appears at first, with many rows of partitioned “indoor” greenhouses. It was a cold winter day when we went however inside the various tents it’s cozy and the smells of fresh soil and vegetables were evident. We stepped into the lettuce and herbs section first and the colour and fragrance hit us first. I’m a city girl who loves her vegetables but this overwhelming greenness was inspiring with bright green, dark green, a large selection of leaves, stalks and stems surrounding us. We inquired about the soil and were told that it is clean and some of it imported from Japan originally, we were impressed. Then the water- supply comes from nearby natural sources, very interesting I thought as unfortunately the small river nearby didn’t look totally clean. I’m also not one hundred percent sure about the drainage and surround water catchments either to be very honest.

Biofarm does not use any pesticide or herbicides , instead they have a number of big yellow cards hanging in well spaced out fashion over the vegetable rows and this is covered in hormones we were told. The male bugs are attracted to this and end up stuck to it and caught. This helps the farm manage pests however they do have overnight problems from time to time and if the bugs get in a whole crop can be eaten in a few hours as a midnight snack.

Despite some mixed thoughts the best part of the morning was picking fresh green vegetables and taking them home. They definitely taste better and have amazing texture compared to supermarket “plastic” looking and plastic wrapped vegetables. It’s all relative folks…….it may be hard to find 100% organic in Shanghai (Biofarm is IFOAM certified) but this stuff was better than what I’ve had so far and you can’t get much fresher than this and eating purple carrots, celery and broccoli right out of the ground. Delicious!

Biofarm is open to the public every weekend and I encourage you to get out there on a sunny day and do some grocery shopping. They also have a barn style area with dry goods such as nuts, beans, grains, brown rice, organic juice concentrate (the passionfruit and apple one is a favourite ingredient in my smoothies), dried fruit,  and if in season- organic apples. They also have organic eggs from Yunnan if you ask the team. Biofarm has a great spirit, a positive and welcoming onsite staff who will show you around and it was a worthwhile and enjoyable excursion for us.

Biofarm will deliver produce to your home in Puxi or Pudong on a weekly basis, however encourage you to come to a collective pick up point if possible to get your vegetables and reduce transportation and ensure quality freshness.

Next week, we’re heading to Tony’s Farm in Nanhui district.

Greener People, Greener Products food, health, organic, water

A very interesting 5 minute clip on a niche electronic car market that is looking for growth. Born from a of mix entrepreneurial spirit and grey zones, these electronic vehicles are finding a market in Chinese 2nd and 3rd tier cities (with some exports), but are at risk of being wiped off the map as new regulations from Beijing hit the market.

Little more than a suped up golf cart, what impresses me about these new “cars” is the fact that the market for them has proven itself. that, while there has been a lot of talk about how the market here is looking to supersize itself like other Western markets, there are examples (anecdotes at times) to the contrary, and that if “we” focused on those that perhaps we could move the niche into the center.

Something a few government incentives and preferred parking spots would surely assist.

Uncategorized

For those of you who are in the real estate/ building sector, CBRE has recently launched their first edition of Sustainability Asia (right click for PDF download), a publication dedicated to all things green about our built environment.

Recent Green Building News, City profiles, Interviews with NGO leaders, and special features, and given this is the first edition, they have jam packed it with content.. although, I would really like to see a “tips” section for various real estate professionals that would provide an immediate knowledge transfer.

Greener Companies, Greener Products, Greener Tech building, real estate, urban planning

While many maintain their eyes on the growing cleantech war that is “being waged” between the US and China, Christina Larson has kept her eye on the prize in her latest work for Circle of Blue, Hidden Waters, Dragons in the Deep: The Freshwater Crisis in China’s Karst Regions.

Based in Yunnan province, the 9 minutes of this piece focuses on the human impact on China’s water systems of the 80-100 million people are having on this water system, a system that is seeing significant threat from various pollutants and over use… and much like their land, it is growing exhausted.

Uncategorized resources, water, yunnan

1) Chengdu eventually achieved 315 days of fine air quality in 2009
On December 16th, 2009, the number of days with fair air quality in the downtown Chengdu achieved 15 days earlier the livelihood project goal put forward by the Municipal Government at the beginning of last year to “reach 311 days of fine air quality in the downtown area”. According to the statistics, in 2009 Chengdu has eventually achieved 315 days with fine air quality.

2) Western China’s largest LED production base operates in Pixian
On January 16th, the first phase of the “Sichuan Yuanli Photoelectric”, the biggest LED production base in West China, was officially put into operation in the Pixian Modern Industrial Port of Chengdu.

It is learnt that Sichuan Yuanli Photoelectric’s LED production base invested with 540 million yuan, was started construction in May, 2009, which is the first LED project put into production in the industrial zone, and is also currently the biggest LED production base in the western region.

3) Chengdu being worthy inland investment environment benchmarking city
Chengdu has become the inland investment environment benchmarking city in China – the National Information Center recently-published “Urbanization Road during the Course of Western China Development – Case Study in Chengdu’s Urbanization Model”, which was under the charge of Nobel Prize for economics winner Mundell and renowned Chinese economist Li Yining, commented Chengdu in this way.

4) Chengdu won 2009 “Contributing City to Low Carbon China”
On January 21st, the first annual meeting of the Low Carbon China Forum was held in Beijing. 16 city representatives from including Shenzhen and Chengdu, low-carbon economic experts from home and abroad and hundreds of business representatives have participated in the meeting, during which Chengdu has won the honorable titles of the “Contributing City to Low Carbon China” and the “Most Competitive Low-carbon Industrial Base City” of the year 2009.

5) Within 5 years, a modern eco-cycle farming system to be initially established
“Within 5 years, water saving irrigation area accounts for 60% of the effective irrigation area, the rate of disposal and utilization of livestock and poultry waste is to reach 90%…” This is what the journalist learnt from the Municipal Agricultural Commission on January 18th. It is reported that in considering the target set up by the city of Chengdu to build a “world modern garden city”, the Municipal Commission of Agriculture has put forward the working scheme for the sustainable development of circular agriculture, which, around the city’s industrial development plan for agricultural functional zones, will strengthen the construction of agricultural eco-system of Chengdu; within 5 years, a batch of demonstration companies and production bases for circular agriculture will be formed, and a modern circular agricultural system be initially established.

Greener Companies, Greener Products, Policies and Issues Agriculture, carbon, chengdu, Energy, LED

Following up on some earlier posts about driving sustainability through education, McKinsey has loaded an interview with the Blair Sheppard, dean of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.

Encouraging to see these shifts, although I personally would like to see more schools really integrate sustainability into their core curriculum.  That, rather than just capture those that are interested, really training on a braod base the concepts of sustainability as they relate to how decisions can have an environmental impact for the better or worse.

That, there are externalities that need to considered going forward

Greener People education

For anyone looking to come down from 30,000 feet to get their hands dirty with Green Buildings, then I recommend checking out this Saturday’s GIGA event (1:00 – 5:30pm).

Full details are at their website (click here), but here is the basics:

Schedule:

13:00 – 13:30: registration and networking
13:30 – 13:45: event introduction and welcome
13:45 – 14:20: case study: building positive impact
14:20 – 14:30: RCC: China’s premiere project information network
14:30 – 14:40: WoiGreen: making green fashionable
14:40 – 15:10: Manufacturer 1 GuLi: quality window and door hardware
15:10 – 15:30: break
15:30 – 16:00: Manufacturer 2 JinJing: ultra clear glass
16:00 – 16:30: Manufacturer 3 Haworth: positive furniture
16:30 – 17:00: GIGA: incremental improvements
17:00 – 17:30: GIGAbase LIVE: reviews of Manufacturers 1, 2, and 3

Where:

Haworth Organic Workspace
16F Shanghai World Financial Center
100 Century Avenue Pudong New Area
Shanghai

When:

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010.

13:00-17:00

The event is free, but you must register here before joining.

Also, a word of warning, when going to the site you will need to bring some ID.  The World Financial Center will not let you in otherwise.

Greener Companies, Greener NGOs, Greener People, Greener Products, Greener Tech building materials, Buildings

Earlier this week at an event, I was speaking with the Sustainability Director of a large FMCG firm discussing what the outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations meant for business like the one he represented (his firm is a bit of a poster child), and my reply to him was to get ready.

That, as a result of the failed political process that took place, the pressures on companies will build.

It was an interesting conversation, and one that lead me to send him KPMG’s recent report Climate Changes your Business (download here) on the “climate Change” risk firms face going forward, and how firms perceive the various associated risks.

This review brings together and analysises the most important research into the effectes of climate change on the corporate world, in order to identify the specific risks and economic impacts at sector level that businesses must assress.  Its porpose is to contribute to the debate, to stumulate furtrther research and , most important, to help companies better understand and responsd to the issues at stake

Broken down into several big sections (intro, defining the different risks, and the understanding that firms have of the risks), the report brings in some interesting opinions that are compelling.

My take from the report is that firms do not understand the risks (nothing earth shattering there), but that there are certainly firms who are beginning to see the risks and make adjustments.

Greener Companies, Greener Products, Policies and Issues, Uncategorized

It has been nearly a month since the 15000 (or so) people descended upon Copenhagen to hammer through what was to be “the biggest moment” of our lives, to address the BIGGEST ISSUE FACING MANKIND. Right?

No shortage of commentary on who was at fault, my first lecture for the second semester gave me the reason and opportunity to sit down and think about what really went wrong. I did so party because I have been bothered by what I saw at Copenhagen, not to mention the endless abuse of media publications by politicians trying to deflect their own responsibility, but primarily because my students are about to kick off 35 of their own projects that will in many ways mimic the process that Copenhagen was SUPPOSED to be as they identify critical issues, bring stakeholders together, plan programs, and work with the various groups to take the next steps.

In short. Because Copenhagen was a massive failure of epic proportions, I thought that I should take the time to break it down for my students and show them how they (through their next semester) need to act very differently.

It is a lecture whose slides are above, and in the below I will work through some of the key issues that I feel lead to this failure of EPIC proportions.

So, what happened?

To answer the question “What happened”, I think it is important that we look at the structure of the Copenhagen meeting: a look at the goals of the conference,the people who were there, and the process that was the Copenhagen 15 conference, be given a closer look. Because, like carbon, the failure of Copenhagen is nothing more than the byproduct of a process. A process that had many flaws.

What was the goal of the Copenhagen conference?

This may sound like a dumb question, but what was the goal of all those people who were in Copenhagen? Why were they there? what did they hope to achieve? It is a question that first must have answers to several other questions like: (1) What are the problems we really face?, (2) What are the causes and effects of the problems we face?, and (3) What needs to be done to alter the current path we are on?

Why I need to answer these is a simple fact that if not everyone is on board with what the prlbems are, then how can we realistically expect that there will be a single goal? That while the goal may be a legally binding agreement, perhaps not everyone thinks that a legally binding agreement will really translate into something tangible for them.

It is under this context then that Carbon needs to come into the picture as it was the single focal point, but sadly, it was not a fixed point. That, because carbon is an intangible and is a byproduct of many problems that we face, its allowed for much of the debates to become clouded and tied to other issues that were completely unrelated at times.

Who was there?

Behind determining goals, knowing who was there (and what they looked to achieve) is equally important, and it is perhaps through this layer of the cake that things begin to really get messy.

At the highest level you have two groups, the believers and non-believers, that provided the basic splice for splitting the conference attendees down. Next, you have the developed nations (lead largely by the U.S.), developing nations (lead largely by China), and then you had everyone else, who for the context of this discussion were countries who had no independent voice at the conference. they were nations who many would argue were going to be the first to feel the effects, but regardless, had to stand in line behind either the developed or developing nation blocs. And functionally we wind up the profiling with functional differences between politicians, business leaders, scientists, tree huggers, and students. With tree huggers and students pushing the hardest for change, and politicians and business leaders who have vested interests in staying in power, but operate in environments that do not necessarily guarantee that power too long (an interesting dynamic that essentially determines the motivations of maintaining the “Status quo”)

Which, when you put all of these together in the same room, creates a very interesting dynamic that initially would lead to the opening of minds in some cases, but ultimately leads to the creation of camps based on common goals (economic growth vs. environmental sustainability). goals that are based on common needs (maintaining power vs. maintaining shorelines ), and then results in very different stances (Everyone Change/ Action vs. West change/ We follow).. which leads to a condition of where two people are put into a room to work through the “sticky” points.

Almost important, if not more so, than who was there was how did these groups work together. First question, WHERE WAS THE TEAMWORK? For me there was no greater sign of problems than the fact that there was no teamwork in this entire process. That, with the exception of being a joint statement in Singapore pre-Copenhagen was , there was little teamwork in the entire process. 15,000 people showed up and entered into a mass ping pong tournament, from which a few (Wen Jiabao and Obama took their paddles to the main stage for one-on-one).

It was a process (dare I say there was an actually process) that was NOT defined by cooperation, but only defined by self interests (be it economic, political, or environmental). Self interests, that aligned along a single “goal” of reducing carbon, created two potential outcomes.

Binding agreement, or no binding agreement.

The Process

Any time there are more than 2 inputs to anything, there is a natural process that takes place, and in the case of the Copenhagen conference where you have 15,000 people, 200 countries, 10 types of stakeholders, and one big problem… you need a process that effectively manages all these competiting interests.

Copenhagen, and more widely the UN itself, has no process.

It was a conference where everyone showed up with proposals in hand. Proposals were being developed by parties where there were offensive and defensive positions, and (getting back to my original point of having a single goal) rather than breaking Carbon down into the 55 or so structural issues and tackling those one at a time… Copenhagen became the biggest game of roulette to ever be played. It was an all or nothing bet.

Where this failure of process is all the more sad is that if the two biggest blocks had sat down to break down carbon into its components (transportation, buildings, energy production, waste, etc) progress could have been made in each of these area where common interests aligned naturally, and then set aside other issues that required more time, or at the minimum developed some basic KPIs and steps for next time.

Instead. It was China and US representing 40% of the world’s carbon emissions who HAD to agree first, and then the remaining 60% would fall in line… a HUGE sign of a failed process.

The False Argument

Outside of my slides, there is one more aspect of Copenhagen that lead to failure. Everyone’s argument was built on a false floor (again, a byproduct of having no goal), and while the world leaders would love to point fingers, the fact is that the cardinal rules of the environment never entered the discussion.

That regardless of what the Earth’s carrying capacity for environmental degradation (getting beyond carbon), members were still arguing points on economic development, their right to it, and little real recognition that there are laws in nature that cannot be broken without seeing massive failures.

Which leads me to my last point. Climate change is not something that is going to occur as a result of carbon emissions. It is something that is already here. It is deforestation areas turning to deserts. It is dead water lines, and coral reefs. It is air pollution and increases in lung cancers/ asthma… and it is here where the conference ultimately failed to translate into action.

The fact that natural disasters are increasing in size, frequency, and scope. that large swatches of land are no longer farmable, and water sources are undrinkable is the problem that everyone should have been focused on. Because, while they may not realize it, they too are by products of the same systems that spew carbon, and they are problems that we all face in a very TANGIBLE way.

It may not be as emotionally compelling as a polar bear or a sinking island nation. But, without real goals, and based only on emotions, it becomes far to easy for politicians to use jobs as a KPI for success of greening the economy (vs. reduced cancer

Conclusions:

So, let’s recap. 15000 people allocated 2 weeks to solve humanity’s biggest issue ever, in a structure that:

1) There was no clear goal. Focus on “Carbon” allowed parties to maneuver and deflect, and the opportunity to develop common understandings and programs around real issues was lost.

2) There was a complete failure to work as a team. Everyone brought their own proposals, and looked out for their own interests (as a country or as a block). Factions formed. People lost face.

3) No one was willing to make a real sacrifice. The Discovery channel slogan “live a sustainable life without sacrificing luxury” pretty much says it all for how we as humanity have come to look at balancing the environment in our lives, and sadly little progress has been made since Bush Sr’s comment at Rio that the “American way is not up for negotiation”.

4) Everyone forgot the golden rule. Mother nature will not negotiate.

That for all the efforts of those people who attended, it was not about Obama and Wen Jiabao signing a binding agreement. It was about humanity accepting the laws of nature, and respect the fact that (carbon aside) we are red lining many of the systems that support our existence on their earth. That, without drastic changes (and I am not talking about cleantech deployments), our biospheres will become so polluted that major changes will be FORCED upon us.

People will move. Crops will die. air will become un-breathable.

Greener People, Policies and Issues

Just a notice for readers that in two weeks JUCCCE will be holding its next Idealab, and you will be able to see both myself and Charlie McElwee of China Environmental LAw blog presenting at the event.. as well as participate in a workshop that will look at what will happen with all the materials from the EXPO pavilions.

When: January 26, 2010; 2pm to 6pm
Where: Space by Three, 2/F of Three on the Bund, 3 Zhongshan Dong Yi Lu near Guangdong Lu (中山东一路3号2楼 近广东路)
What: This speaker, workshop and mixer series called the Green IdeaLab will promote collaboration on cleantech projects and the greening of China. First, globally-recognized clean energy leaders will present their work, then they will lead smaller group sessions to brainstorm working solutions to green business challenges. A networking mixer will be held afterwards; all proceeds support JUCCCE programs.

¥250 per person, or ¥500 for groups of three; includes canapés and drinks.

RSVP by November 10 at +86 21 6329 9921, or info@on-the-bund.com .

Speaker Topics:

Bert van den Berg, Senior Marketing Director for Philips Lighting Greater China: Urban Development and the Green Economy. In the future of megacities running 24/7 with efficient energy, how can we use lighting to connect people and improve urban life?

Richard Brubaker, Managing Director of Collective Responsibility and Professor of Sustainability at CEIBS: Life Cycle Manufacturing and Development. After the World Expo is over, What can we do with the leftovers?

Charles R. McElwee, Environmental & Energy Lawyer at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. and Professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Law on the implications of COP15. Now that Copenhagen is over, where do we go from here?
Speaker Bios:

Bert van den Berg

Mr. Bert van den Berg who joined Philips Lighting in 2007 as Senior Marketing Director at Business Unit Lamps Europe took position as Senior Marketing Director Lighting Greater China in April 2009. Previously he held positions in-and outside Philips predominantly in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry.

He started his career with various marketing positions at Friesland Dairy Foods. Then he moved to PricewaterhouseCoopers, where he worked as senior management consultant. Three years later he joined Philips as regional marketing manager Philishave for Latin America and Europe and after that he became marketing director for Domestic Appliances and Personal Care in South Korea.

Richard Brubaker

Like many who came to China, Rich Brubaker originally came to China to seek out career opportunities as China’s economy gathered steam, and in pursuing those goals he developed market entry and distribution strategies for firms who were also looking for China based opportunities.

Soon after arriving in Shanghai, Rich developing his first community enterprise HandsOn Shanghai (now HandsOn China)  as a means to promote, develop, and manage volunteerism in China.  An  organization that would open him up to the human side to the economic engine that was fueling China’s growth, and would ultimately lead to his development of further platforms in CSR and sustainability.

Now as Managing Director of Collective Responsibility (www.collectiveresponsibility.org) and as a visiting Professor of Sustainability at the China Europe International Business School, Rich’s ventures are now focused full time on building platforms that promote long term organizational capacity to address the economic, environmental, and social hurdles that are faced.

Rich has a Masters in International Management from Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management, served as Vice Chairman of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai for 3 years, and has recently launched Cleaner Greener China to highlight the environmental challenges that China faces and the people, products, and companies who are developing solutions.

Charles R. McElwee
Charles R. McElwee has practiced environmental and energy law for over  20 years, all at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., now in its Shanghai office.  He represents a wide range of clients in the U.S. and China in a variety of matters including counseling regarding entry into the China market; environmental, energy, and import/export compliance issues; structuring carbon trade and NOx and SO2 allowance trade agreements; performing environmental due diligence, and pursuing and defending federal court claims involving Natural Resource Damages, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, RCRA, and CERCLA.  Mr. McElwee is also a Professor of Law at Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s School of Law (where he won the President’s Prize for extraordinary contributions to the University in 2009), and a frequent author, speaker, and commentator on China environmental and energy issues.  He was also awarded the Shanghai Municipal Government’s Magnolia Award (the highest honor the City bestows upon foreigners) in 2008. 

Uncategorized