All of the experts and government officials were surprised by the high bids received recently for eight offshore wind leases in the New York Bight. So in early December, an auction was held for bids for leases in five Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) off the central and northern coasts of California that could produce as much as over 6 gigawatts (GW) of power. Five different companies won the bids for one area lease each, totaling over ¾ of a billion dollars. The condition of the lease agreements is that the winning bidders must spend cumulatively over $100 million in workforce training programs for American workers to work on offshore wind installations or in their support.

The US Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) next emphasis is expected to be the Gulf of Mexico. The Biden Administration’s announced the goal of developing 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030. This includes two new WEAs in the Gulf of Mexico with the potential of producing up to 3 GW of power, with additional ones in the future. On October 31, 2022, BOEM announced that it had finalized the first two WEAs in the Gulf of Mexico, comprising of over 500,000 acres located 24 nautical miles off the coast of Galveston, Texas, and almost 175,000 acres located 56 nautical miles off the coast of Lake Charles, Louisiana. BOEM expects to issue a Proposed Sale Notice for the two locations by early 2023. The announcement follows years of planning and public outreach with stakeholders in the region including Tribes, local and state governments, fishing and shrimping interests, the maritime and oil & gas industries, the US Dept of Defense, and the Coast Guard.

The current administration is prioritizing renewable power, and in particular, wind power to meet climate change and clean power goals, and is moving forward on deals that will be difficult for a future administration to overturn or stymie wind power.

CCES has the experts to help you at your level to determine if renewable power is beneficial to you. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

by K.-M. Denyse Jones, REM, CESM, Prorsa Consulting

There are a couple of “shifts” you may be missing, but not necessarily in the primary duties/activities of an environmental consultant.

First, an increase in client/consumer research and the rise in social media use has resulted in more consultants actively educating potential leads/clients on hot environmental issues. Microplastics, environmental justice, sustainability, etc. don’t fall under the traditional definition of environmental risk. But these topics help to educate potential clients and showcase the consultants’ expert knowledge on the larger environmental management discussion.

Second, I believe more environmental professionals are entering the consulting arena as environmental, health, and safety generalists. Thus, these consultants may offer both environmental and health & safety services to clients because they possess experience in both disciplines (I fall into this category). In these cases, consultant posts on health & safety topics would be just as relevant as environmental messages.

In my opinion, the ‘what is’ of environmental consulting has not fundamentally changed. However, the marketing strategies and the background experience of environmental consultants may have.

K-M. Denyse Jones is the Owner & Principal Consultant of Prorsa Consulting.  With more than 15 years of environmental experience, she has worked primarily in the environmental testing, municipal government, mining, and lime industries.  During the last 7 years, Ms. Jones has expanded into the safety arena.  She has participated in multiple EHS management system implementations, been instrumental in developing & maintaining various EHS compliance programs, and conducted numerous professional training classes & public outreach sessions.  Ms. Jones is skilled at performing EHS data analysis, regulatory analysis, audits, and compliance reporting.

Most people think that sustainability is a modern concept – that there was no practical knowledge of it until the last few decades. Research is showing that this is not true. History shows areas and events where sustainability guidelines were successfully followed (perhaps “unknowingly” or not by the precepts of today) and others where sustainability principles were ignored for short-term goals, leading to dire results.

Recent research confirms an example of the latter dating back to Biblical times. As shown in Scientific Reports – Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18940-z), there was a very active copper industry dating back at least 3,000 years in the Timna Valley of Israel (southern Israel, near the current Jordanian border). In the Bible, this area was known as Edom, and is mentioned as an area of conquest by King David. Biblical writings do not say why he conquered it, but King David and King Solomon built many structures and also needed to support armies. They would have needed the large amount of copper that that area could produce to make bronze and other needed items.

Evidence exists of many earthenware furnaces operating at 2,200°F to extract copper from the plentiful ore by smelting in Edom 3,000 years ago. What fuel did the Edomites use to maintain this heat and produce a lot of usable copper? This is a critical question given that the ore was found in a desert. The answer is trees. Studying over 1,000 charcoal samples, well preserved after all of these years by dry, desert conditions, scientists determined that in those years smelters burned primarily local acacia and white broom trees to produce the necessary heat. Broom trees are mentioned in Psalms in the Bible as an excellent firewood. However, scientists found that charcoal remains from more recent furnaces of that time contained elements not found in these trees. In time, the smelters had to shift the fuel to other types of wood, such as junipers and terebinth, found dozens of miles away. Calculations by the researchers estimated that at its peak the smelters were burning about 400 acacias and 1,800 broom trees per year, a much greater rate than can be regenerated. Bringing in trees to Edom from a distance was not cost-effective and evidence exists that copper smelting stopped there around 800 BC. Thus, to satisfy the short-term demands of kings, the Edomites overexploited the local natural supply of trees, eventually making copper smelting unproductive. Also, by wiping out the supply of these native trees, irreparable damage impacted the local ecosystem, affecting water storage and the soil. This damage still impacts the current Timna Valley to this day. Although no smelting has been done in 2,800 years and there is relatively little human activity in this desert region, only some white broom trees have returned, nowhere near the level of back then, because of the damage to water retention and the soil. Thus, the overuse of trees to support copper smelting 3,000 years ago did damage to the ecology of that region to this day.

An interesting historical and Biblical lesson for us all.

CCES has the experts to help you design processes to be successful in meeting goals and also be sustainable and allow long-term operations at the same time. Contact us today at  karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

It seems that over the past few years, a subtle change has occurred in the US. While before, most major decisions and programs were made by government (the New Deal, sending men to the Moon, Civil Rights Movement), now it appears that corporations are drivers for some social change. Frustrated by inaction to realities by government, more corporations are advocating change. For example, earlier this year the Disney Company had many of its tax advantages taken from them by the State of Florida because it came out against education reform concerning LGBTQ people (“Don’t Say Gay” bill). A number of companies put out statements or boycotted the State of Georgia over a restrictive voting law it promulgated.

The “Great Resignation” of the last two years has impacted company values, too. Many employees stuck at home and contemplating their mortality, left their firms for a higher calling. And when many employees fought the return to the office, companies understood that they had to not just pay their staff better but engage them that their work would result in a higher calling. 2021 and 2022 are certainly the years that companies had to re-examine themselves to what they do and treat their employees.

In this time employees got more sophisticated. Years ago people were influenced by just a small number of people (family, close friends, clergy). Now people have access to many more people with more diverse outlooks giving advice on Facebook, LinkedIn, and others. Where people “bought” general bromides thrown out by corporations and their executives, people are now more weary, non-trusting, and willing to seriously listen to alternative opinions. And while workers earlier used to be quite risk averse about losing their jobs, now more workers are willing to chance it, believing they will weather the storm and find (perhaps better) alternatives elsewhere.

It also used to be that a company was an “island”. The company makes a product that people are willing to pay for and does them good and treats their staff, vendors, etc. fairly. All good. That would be perceived as doing the community good. But companies are not islands anymore in many people’s minds, and people are concerned about a company’s influence on the greater good, such as the planet on environmental and climate matters.

So to keep employees and customers more companies are saying “Buy my product” or “Work for us” because we want to make the world a better place. Great! But how can it prove this point? People are a lot more skeptical than they ever were. You need to get away from slogans; you need proof.

The good news is that some companies are moving in that direction, knowing they have a skeptical public and employees, who want a greater say in the direction of their companies. In addition, in the US, the SEC has proposed new standards to force companies to back up their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) claims.

The statements: “We’re working on it” and “It’s important to us” may no longer be acceptable to more people. Companies will have to develop concrete goals with timelines and measure progress to back up their claims. And goals, lofty or not, need to be directly under the purview of senior management, not given off to middle management who may not be motivated.

Change is hard to measure and comprehend. However, I think one of the big changes that came out of the pandemic is the importance of the greater meaning of work, the need to satisfy the growing curiosity of a more knowledgeable consumer and employee class, and the importance of being upfront about goals and demonstrating that they are real and progress is being made.

CCES has the experts to help you develop and implement environmental and climate goals, show real progress, and communicate these to your stakeholders. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.