Maritime Executive magazine reports that experts in the shipping industry are concluding a meeting at the headquarters of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) this week tho complete a third greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory for the worldwide shipping industry. The last IMO GHG inventory, published in 2009, reflected the downturn in shipping activity that was a fallout of the global recession. While shipping activity is not at pre-recession levels yet, everyone expects that this GHG inventory will reflect the increased worldwide shipping activity … more overall GHGs.

The shipping industry has done a number of hings to reduce overall GHG emissions:

• using shore power (aka “cold ironing”) while at dock, rather that generating electricity through fuel-burning generators
• switching, where possible, to low-sulfur fuels
• upgrading on-board technologies to take advantage of processes that can reduce fuel burn
• integrating carbon footprinting into route modeling software
• slow-steaming, which can reduce emissions

Mile-for-mile, ton-for-ton, shipping is considerably better than air from a GHG emissions standpoint. We believe that the shipping industry will be well served by completing and publishing its updated inventory, identifying hotspots that demand immediate action and continuing to implement and enforce the 2011 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI.

There’s a lot of talk these days in the product world about “additive” manufacturing … and some of that talk centers on the sustainable attributes of this process. For those who don’t know what additive manufacturing is (and why would you?!), it’s a pretty revolutionary way to make all sorts of things. Basically, it starts with designing an item on a CAD software platform, translating that computer code into a “stereo lithography” computer code that can be read by a three-dimensional (3D) printer and then having that 3D printer make the item by putting down thousands of layers of material until they build into the final product form. The printer usually uses a laser or an electron beam to fuse the layers together as they are “printed” on top of one another. Totally cool, right? Contract that with most manufacturing today, which is “subtractive” – we start with a piece of material and then grind, shape, press form or cut that piece until we get the item we want. Lots of processes, lots of waste. 3D printing – one process, little or no waste (the printer is really good at using all of the material in the fusing process).

So it would seem that additive manufacturing is a resource-efficient process that smacks of sustainability. Quicker process times and less waste. The ability to make one-offs and rapid prototype. Much less material used. But wait … not so fast! In fact, additive manufacturing can be highly energy-intensive – from running the CAD systems and managing those databases to powering up the sophisticated printers that fuse the material. Before we jump to the conclusion that additive manufacturing is “sustainable” in all instances, we need to apply life cycle analysis (LCA) methodology to sum up the total environmental impacts on a case-by-case basis. Only through this rigorous process can we be sure that we’ve achieved a sustainable result. Don’t forget: the manufacturing process is only one of the many environmental impacts associated with an item’s entire lifespan. In the case of additive manufacturing we may conclude that, as a standalone process, the printing portion of additive manufacturing is a win-win (and I suspect that will be the case very often) and that may tip the balance in its favor, but let’s do our due diligence and look at the whole picture.

So, a couple of things caught my eye recently that confirm my observation that we’re still really struggling trying to make real achievements in reducing our environmental footprint. The first is the just-release report from the World Resources Institute saying the U.S. is likely to not achieve its GHG emissions reduction goals. The second is a news article talking about the challenges faced by the solar industry in disposing of hazardous waste.

In the case of the WRI report, it’s a pretty grim picture. Whether it’s CO2 or non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, business-as-usual approached to emissions result in highly-damaging climate change. So, the U.S. has targeted a 17% reduction in GHG levels from 2005 to 2020. The report concludes that, 1/2 way through that timeline, we’re struggling to keep on pace. And the bad news is that the 2020 goal is just the first step … we need an 83% reduction by 2050! So, missing the 17% target for 2020 really puts the pressure on the next 30 years. But by then, the bullet train of climate change will have left the station: serious reductions in GHG emissions are needed now, perhaps more than they are needed later. We can do a lot of that scaling back, the WRI report says, but allowing the EPA to use its regulatory powers to curtail emissions from utility plans and other stationary sources. The EPA can also tweak acceptable levels of HFC emissions and methane emissions associated with natural gas production. Add this public-sector push to the work being doing by businesses to reduce their own carbon footprints and there is hope that 17% is an achievable reduction target.

In the case of the hazardous waste associated with the solar industry, this is kind of a “good news, bad news” situation. During its useful life, solar electricity generating equipment significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy production. Very significantly. The news article points out, however, that because there’s a lot of hazardous waste generated in the manufacturing of solar panels, some of that emissions reduction is offset by the emissions generated by hauling this waste to approved dumping sites. While 97% of California’s solar industry-related hazardous waste only made an in-state trip for disposal, 3% of it was shipped longer distances out of state. All of that transportation generated GHG emissions that undercut the benefits gained by using solar in the first place. But, the report correctly points out, the net effect was still positive. It is still better, from a GHG emissions point of view, to generate electricity from solar than from fossil fuels.

Both of these items highlight the complexity associated with mitigating environmental impacts. And that’s just in the United States. I’m almost convinced that what we do here matters most as a precedent for what folks in the developing world do. That’s where the pedal is going to hit the metal. If the billions of people in China, India and Africa get electricity generated from burning fossil fuel and fly, drive and take trains all fueled by fossil sources, the planet is in trouble. We in the developed world need to address climate change now, to serve as a model for what can be done in an advanced economy where policy-makers, business leaders, environmentalists and other stakeholders collaborate to deal with vexing challenges. Stay tuned.

The World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos brings us lots of interesting things. Of course, part of the fun is seeing who attends and who doesn’t. There’s always a mix of celebrities, politicos, billionaires and hangers-on, for what that’s worth. Lots of business gets done. Lots of champagne is drunk.

As in years past, there too is output related to sustainability. In fact, the 2013 Global 100 List was published. This is a listing of companies with over US$2bn market capitalization who meet certain sustainability criteria. To get on the list, you have to meet or exceed the grade on 12 KPIs. You may still be eliminated if your industry reaches its “cap” (so the list doesn’t go over 100, I presume). Interestingly … and maybe not surprisingly … only 10% of the companies listed are headquartered in the United States and about the same percent are headquartered in Asia. The list is dominated by Western European companies. Some household names, some more obscure B2Bs. The overall market cap … in the US$ trillions.

The list is compiled by Corporate Knights, Inc., a Toronto-based media research company. It partnered with Legg Mason a few years back to assemble a cadre of “experts” to create the protocol for developing the list. No, I’m not in the cadre!