Amy's Writing | Environmental Debt

For the Yom Kippur holy day – the spiritual case for climate action

I’m not sure about God, but I do believe there is godliness in nature. It is a sacred gift that is awesome – in the sense that this word is used in scriptures of all faiths. As a decades-long climate change activist, I am convinced that we will only save our planet if we insert our souls into the story.

Whether you view nature as God’s ultimate creation, as humankind’s dominion, or like me, as the astonishing wonder of the spiritual and physical realm, nature is under dire threat. The extraordinarily complex web of life is dying around us, and as fixing it will disrupt our physical and spiritual equanimity, we largely ignore this suffering.

On October 5th, observant Jews around the world will mark the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The purpose of #yomkippur is to effect individual and collective purification by the practice of forgiveness of the sins of others and by sincere repentance for one’s own sins. Rituals include a 24 hour fast and a break from work and technology – pathways to dedicate oneself to sincere and deep reflection.

I was raised by a secular Jewish family in New York City, where around 20% of those who identify as Jews in America reside. The second largest Jewish community in America is in South Florida, brought to its knees by Hurricane Ian. #hurricaneian ‘s intensity is a result of our collective failure to address the environmental debt of decades of fossil fuel use and our witting abuse of nature.

The term Tikun Olam, in Jewish scripture, means to do something with the world that will not only fix any damage, but also improve upon it.

According

Setting the standard for reusable packaging

By Deonna Anderson in Green Biz

January 28, 2022

Amy Larkin and Claudette Juska, co-founders of PR3, previously worked together on transforming another global system, eliminating hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from refrigeration. Their actions led to HFCs being included in the Montreal Protocol, the landmark agreement that regulates the production and consumption of nearly 100 man-made chemicals referred to as ozone depleting substances.

After their HFC work, the two went their separate ways, with Larkin consulting with global NGOs and multinational corporations on plastic policy and reduction of plastic. She said she was repeatedly part of conversations where the need for reuse came to the surface as a solution.

So, she started asking herself these questions about reuse: Where will the reusable containers go? Who’s going to store them? Who’s going to wash them? Who’s going to monitor them? Who’s going to redeliver them? Who’s going to inventory them? Who’s going to make sure all this labor takes place in just conditions?

That’s when it struck her that she wanted to take on another type of system change. So, she called Juska.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/setting-standard-reusable-packaging

Method for measurement and evidencing of environmental debt (MEED) in productive systems

First published at Science Direct

Highlights

A compilation of the methods for measuring environmental externalities is obtained from a systematic literature review process.
A new method is proposed to measurement and evidencing of environmental debt.
The method is tested in the broiler production in Brazil.
The method provides information on the real value of the business, considering the environmental result.

Responsible use of natural resources is an important social and political issue, and as such, it is an essential factor in business decision-making. In this scenario, accounting practices need to include valuation and analysis of external costs and environmental debts as part of the information available to decision-makers. Therefore, this study focuses on proposing a method to measure and evidence the Environmental Debt (ED) of a productive system. For this purpose, Design Science Research was used to conduct the research. Its main result makes possible to propose the Measurement and Evidencing of Environmental Debt Method (MEED). The method was developed from a combination of resources identified in the literature, propositions of research groups, from consulting market methods and international organizations involved with the recognition of prices of natural resources. The results of applying MEED reveal the valuation and disclosure of external costs and environmental obligations from the internalization of environmental externalities related to the primary objective of accounting, namely, valuation of equity. The method was

The New Warrior’s Cry: Veni Vidi Vigilo – I Came, I Saw, I Protect

First published in the Huffington Post, September 8th, 2015

Since Julius Caesar pronounced his famous words, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” — “I came, I saw, I conquered” — it has been the mantra for financial progress, military victory, and sexual success.

But a few months ago, Pope Francis eloquently and convincingly called for a different relationship to our common home: “Each community can take from the bounty of the earth…but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations.” Many other spiritual and secular leaders have echoed his sentiments.

As a secular Jewish fan of the Pope, and with a big dash of chutzpah, I’d summarize his proposed paradigm as follows:
Veni, vidi, vigilo.
I came, I saw, I protect.

“Veni, Vidi, Vici” has delivered us to the precipice of a planet where chaos looms. Conquering and dominating nature guides most commerce and development in the world. From Arizona to Dubai, we build where there is no food and water as if we can just overcome the problem, and eat and consume goods as if they are inexhaustible resources useful for our pleasure and convenience alone.

There is another way.

Veni, vidi, vigilo demands that we notice our surroundings, both natural and manmade, and take responsibility for our place in the picture. “Vigilo” in Latin has two meanings: “I protect” and “I keep watch.” Just as eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, keeping watch over our common home is the price of our survival. This new paradigm holds the keys to a habitable planet where plenty has a new meaning and our children and grandchildren have a shot at a stable world.

Winona LaDuke, the Native American leader, defines a warrior

Why Brazil’s megadrought is a Wall Street failure

First published in the Guardian on April 10th, 2015

It’s hard to overestimate the appalling environmental and economic crisis that’s brewing in Brazil right now. The country is in the grip of a crippling megadrought – the result of pollution, deforestation and climate change – that deeply threatens its economy, society and environment. And the damage may be permanent: São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and industrial center, has begun rationing water and is discussing whether or not it will need to depopulate in the near future.

But if Brazil’s drought is shocking, Wall Street’s shortsighted approach to the country is appalling. Institutional investors’ reports on the country – the seventh largest economy in the world – cite worries about inflation, government cutbacks and low consumer confidence. But I could not find a single analysis that mentioned the existential threat facing the country: the megadrought that is expected to last decades and could destroy the Brazilian economy. Not a single analysis cited the brutal global impact that this will cause.

In other words, a host of institutional investors have found worrisome things to say about Brazil, but none seem to be aware of – or, at least, willing to face – the country’s greatest threat.

Attempting to separate economies from environment – as many of these analysts seem to do – is like trying to separate mind and body. It simply doesn’t work.

We will never repair our business models and government policies to conform to the real environmental constraints of the 21st century until we repair this fundamental flaw in our economic system. Investors and analysts regularly review a host of factors – including national debt, inflation,

From antibiotics to fossil fuels: the inconvenient truth about sustainability

First published in the Guardian on April 6th, 2015

Humans are predictable. We routinely create extraordinary things and then disregard their impact and consequences because of our desire for convenience, comfort or profit. It’s easy to see why we’d want to take the shortsighted view: these pleasures and conveniences are compelling, at least until we realize they’re inflicting death by a thousand cuts on the world that we inhabit.

What do these extraordinary things look like? Well, antibiotics is a prime example. As someone who survived a dozen cases of childhood strep throat – not to mention surgery several months ago – I am eternally grateful for these drugs. Then again, while antibiotics saved my life after my surgery, the fear of an antibiotic-resistant infection propelled me to get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. These all-too-common infections, which are caused by our overuse of antibiotics, plague health care facilities around the world, driving up costs and mortality rates.

The problem extends well beyond hospitals: 80% of antibiotics in the US are used to induce rapid growth in healthy animals, and 95% of our meat is full of them. Meanwhile, unnecessary antibiotic use for common colds and respiratory infections also helps spur antibiotic-resistant infections.

The companies that produce and sell antibiotics are ignoring their collateral damage, dangers that they have known about for decades.

It’s time to sharpen our wits and use our intellect to overcome our basest instincts and reinvigorate our survival instinct. The only way companies will stop overselling these products is if we stop over-buying them.

Health-conscious consumers are already pressuring producers and retailers to eliminate

Togetherness Interruptus: Civil Society in the Age of the Smartphone

First published in The Huffington Post, December 12th, 2014

Every business and government speaks of “civil society” on a regular basis. It is the euphemism for engaging with the nonprofit world. But there is another meaning for the phrase “civil society.” It means being civil to one’s neighbors and strangers on the street, and nurturing a social environment — in real time and space, not on an electronic device. One of the most troubling default behaviors that we have recently come to accept is that most of us (myself included) spend less and less time staring into space and pondering our thoughts or the universe or imagining great romps with our beloveds. No, we’re looking at our phones which we clutch as we walk down the street, talking or texting obliviously while running into people and vehicles.

A recent study from the journal Science showed how far people will go to avoid sitting with their own thoughts:

In 11 studies, we found that participants typically did not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoyed doing mundane external activities much more, and that many preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative.

This is decidedly addictive behavior. And like all addictions, the addict is not the only victim. Smartphones create a terribly discourteous, antisocial, particularly uncivil environment in public spaces. Look around. Someone might need your help and you might want to offer it. Someone might be reading a book you would love to talk about. Someone is

Aligning the rules of business and the laws of nature

First published by the World Economic Forum

“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,” Bob Dylan famously sang. You don’t need the UN secretary-general to know that climate change has arrived early – ahead of scientists’ most dire predictions. But the messages resounding from the global stage are encouraging. There is now a clarion call for radical change from vast numbers of political and business leaders. It almost feels as if we have finally reached a tipping point.

Leaders of business and government are beginning to connect economic prosperity with environmental stewardship and climate stability. This is the foundation for creating a low-carbon economy in the 21^st century. Companies and governments that do not participate in this “solutionary” approach will find themselves on the wrong side of the balance sheet, as well as the wrong side of history.

Brilliantly, Ban Ki-moon has invited businesspeople and governments to announce joint transformative initiatives and I am heartily applauding the strong words emanating from the General Assembly floor, where speakers are acknowledging the severity and imminence of the climate crisis. These nations must be held to their words as they negotiate a new climate agreement over the coming year.

Positive signs abound. A few days ago, 347 investors from around the world, who manage $24 trillion in assets, announced their support for a strong UN climate deal in Paris 2015. The board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the heirs to the world’s first great oil fortune, just announced their divestment of fossil fuels from their portfolio. Many other corporations are announcing large-scale transformative projects and processes.

But we are deceiving ourselves if we think these fine gestures will deliver a low-carbon economy. Scientists estimate that we need to

Why developed countries should subsidize a global price on carbon

First published in the Guardian, August 26, 2014

“We demonstrated that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
– the late Republican senator Howard Baker (Tennessee), co-sponsor of the Clean Air Act of 1970

A wise Grenadian recently asked me this very clear question:

My country is poor and we recently discovered oil, which will make us richer. Why should this oil be restricted or more expensive to exploit when your nation’s oil boom paid none of its environmental expenses?

A Chinese high school student recently asked me this similarly clear question:

My country’s manufacturing base means that my family moved from abject poverty to the middle class, and in my nation, hundreds of millions of others have done the same. Why should this manufacturing be more expensive by having to pay a cost for carbon when your nation’s manufacturing boom did not?

I grew up in the1960s, a decade when my family, my New York City neighbors, and tens of millions of other Americans were catapulting from poverty into the middle class. It was a great feeling. For perhaps the first time in modern history, large swaths of our society had enough money to purchase homes, spend on surplus and luxurious foods, hire household help, take vacations and buy new stuff on a regular basis.

This social and economic mobility was the envy of much of the world. And I’m certain the accompanying optimism helped open our hearts and minds to the great human rights revolutions of the past 50 years.

There was a shadowy side to this extraordinary period in American manufacturing, consumption and innovation, of course. Deadly air pollution in Los Angeles killed or sickened tens of thousands in the 1940s. Ohio’s

The cost of cancer: why health impacts belong on company balance sheets

First published in the Guardian, August 18th, 2014

Like so many of us, I have personal experience with cancer. I’ve had it twice, and so have both of my parents, six aunts and numerous friends. Just last month, someone very close to me was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. These illnesses are more than just statistics. They require the patient, as well as their families and friends, to journey through a pretty broken medical system, and their emotional price is exorbitant.

My own cancer odyssey started about eight years ago and lasted two years. (I’ve been cancer-free for six years now and I’m doing fine, thanks). When I started feeling physically better, I felt the release of an emotional bottleneck. I went to a support group and each of the six people there told the same story: “I’m sure I got cancer for a reason and I just don’t know what it is yet.”

I responded, perhaps inappropriately: “You got cancer because a variety of companies, governments and shareholders decided that clean air, water and food were less important than their money.”

I’m sure everyone in that group was happy I never returned, but it was a great catharsis for me. At that moment, as an environmentalist working with business, my emotional self met my professional self on very clear terms. I realized we must begin including the environmental costs – including environment-related health costs – in every financial transaction.

Consider this: last year, the US spent $37bn on cancer drugs and over $100bn on cancer treatment alone. Those numbers don’t include the unreported and uncovered costs, such as nurses, acupuncture, psychotherapy, personal travel, supplements and caregivers’ expenses. I spent many thousands of dollars in such costs for