In Chapter 13, Roseland writes about Green Procurement as one example of a holistic government policy tool to mitigate climate change, and the example of the Environmentally Preferably Purchasing (EPP) program developed by the EPA. As a budding supply chain wonk, I knew I wanted to dig a little deeper into the details and history of the program.
The history of green procurement by the U.S. government goes back as far as 1976, when Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which sought to protect human health and the environment while reducing the already existing volume of waste.
The first formal green purchasing program was signed into existence in October 1993 under President Bill Clinton, and created an EPA comission by executive order to establish guidelines and metrics for government purchasing, with an initial emphasis on using products with a high level of recycled material, making use of the findings of the first Energy Star project in 1992. This commission worked with industry and labor groups to explain the role of green procurement and build consensus on how to work more effectively. The program was updated in 1998 to expand into stronger language on waste reduction activities: "Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner. Disposal should be employed only as a last resort."A third executive order by Clinton in 2000 strengthened language of obligation to every government department agency to be proactive in leading environmental management. The goal at this point was for the federal government to become an example for not only state and municipal governments, but also the private sector.
Although leadership from the executive branch was markedly weaker during the Bush administration, the EPA was quite active during the 2000s in establishing guidelines (ex: guide to Buying Green Online) and incentives (ex: the Federal Electronics Challenge) for green procurement for the federal government.
Interestingly enough, the Department of Defense has been one of the most active government agencies in pursuing green procurement strategies along with energy efficiency and waste reduction initiatives overall. This may seem like strange political bedfellows, but think about it: if you are running a large military base in a hostile country, you have a real reason to want to be off the grid in the case your supply lines are broken. Broaden that scope, and you are thinking about energy as a national security issue. This has led to the DoD taking a aggressive stance on innovating and deploying renewable energy technology and even net zero waste efforts.Of course, one must remember that the DoD is one of the country's largest energy consumers, using roughly 80% of federal government energy purchases. Within that the Air Force in particular boasts a large chunk, so perhaps we should pay extra attention and expect a lot more from green procurement policies of future administrations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's light work reading about purchasing from a supply chain wonk. Glad you brought up the DoD, which is often overlooked as a driver of technological innovation and adoption. The New Republic article claimed they pay $4 billion annually just to operate their buildings - how's that for incentive? And "125 million barrels of petroleum"!? (how many MPG does an aircraft carrier get?). I'm glad to see the DoD looking meaningfully into their vulnerability from fossil-fuel-overreliance.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion raises a point some of us covered in sustainable development (V596) earlier today - the ultimate fear associated with carbon taxation is that it would make us weaker militarily by restricting our economic output and political power.
I never thought about the history of green procurement but surprisingly enough, it was quite interesting to browse through all the executive orders, and see language changes and which sectors to include. Energy is a national security issue, and although the DoD is the biggest energy consumer, they are taking large steps to lower that consumption. I attended a lecture a few years ago about the DoD researching green bullets, which called for biodegradable bullets because we don't want the shells and casings to litter all over the ground. I believe the DoD is still working on that research (something along the lines of biodegradable bullets don't 'kill' people quite as efficiently), but there is constant talk about it. It looks like federal agencies are always on the market for the new technologies that make them more sustainable, be it energy sustainability or killing sustainability, but at least the government is getting some things right.
ReplyDeleteOur fossil fuel subsidies actually stemmed from our desires for energy security during the world wars. A nation with a great wealth of resources is more powerful on the global scale. This finally seems to be scaling back for technologically innovative renewables. Which brings me to Romney's debate quote that half of "$90 billion/per year" to failed green energy companies which fact checkers found to be false: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/. Most goes to energy efficiency retrofits, transit, and modernification of the electrical grid. Only 3 of the 26 companies that got loan guarantees filed for bankruptcy, which is ultimately a very small fraction, and a small price to pay for modern, clean energy.
ReplyDeleteI attended a small sustainability-related conference this summer in Michigan that was focused on procurement and manufacturing supply chains. In attendance were representatives from several governmental departments, including the DoD and the EPA. So just to reiterate your post, these guys stressed that they have lots of cash to kill on sustainably-sourced goods, renewable energy projects, etc. And like you said, these guys have great reasons to be investing in these developments. Great post!
ReplyDelete