Search

Greenpeace revealed today the results of an undercover investigation showing how fossil fuel companies secretly pay academics from leading U.S. universities "to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests," reported Lawrence Carter and Meave McClenaghan on EnergyDesk Greenpeace on Tuesday.

Reporters from Greenpeace U.K. posing as representatives from coal and oil companies approached professors from Princeton and Penn State, asking them to author papers promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide and the use of coal in developing countries. The professors told the reporters they'd write the papers with no need to disclose the source of the funding.

This new revelation fits "squarely within the pattern" prompting the New York attorney general to launch an investigation stemming from recent reports from InsideClimate that "Exxon knew" for decades, from its own internal research, of the consequences of continued burning of fossil fuels on the climate.

The tip of the iceberg

"We are encountering more and more evidence of the fossil fuel companies, coal companies, and oil and gas companies literally paying people money to sow doubt about climate," Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told GlobalWarmingisReal and TriplePundit on Tuesday at the COP21 climate conference in Paris.

"And this is despite the fact that their own scientists, in many cases, have told them that global warming is real, that it can't be refuted. In fact, some of their own scientists themselves have refuted some of the contrarian scientists that these companies are funding."

"We really need a broader investigation. Not just of ExxonMobil, but many of these other companies. It's not allowed," Kimmel continued, "that you can sell a product and then deliberately mislead people about the harm associated with it. That's fraud"

Praising the work of Greenpeace for its investigation, Kimmel added that it is still a haphazard approach.

"We need a systematic investigation to uncover all the information so we know fully what we're dealing with," Kimmel said. "This may be the tip of the iceberg. We don't know."

Within his skill-set

Among the things we do know is how sociologist Frank Clemente, a professor at Penn State, said it was "within his skill-set" when asked if he could produce a paper countering research linking pollution from fossil fuels to millions of premature deaths annually. Clemente said he could be quoted using his Penn State professorship for attribution, and he set his price list at $15,000 for an eight- to 10-page report and $6,000 for a newspaper op-ed. When asked about funding disclosure, Clemente reportedly said, “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the U.S.”

Not surprisingly, according to the Greenpeace report, Peabody Energy uses Clemente's services on a regular basis.

Another academic for hire is Professor William Happer of Princeton University. For $250 an hour, Happer will promote the "benefits of CO2."

Happer was paid $8,000 by Peabody Energy in return for testimony in a key Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of CO2 on climate. Happer, a physicist and not a climate scientist, was also slated to appear as a "star witness" in senate hearing on Tuesday, called by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Eroding trust

Kimmel said the continuing disclosure of the ways in which fossil fuel companies have knowingly and purposefully misled the public "will have an effect."

"It will impact the social license of these companies to operate and be influential in the public sphere," Kimmel told us. "And I think with more of this evidence coming out people will call for them to be held accountable."

Image credit: Flickr/Kevin Dooley

While the above feels like a headline I've drafted a dozen times before, the business case for climate action remains stronger than ever. However, here at COP21 countries continue to quibble over the funding and implementation of the $500 million Green Climate Fund.  More specifically, for companies operating internationally (i.e., almost every company that manufactures a product of any kind these days), clear price signals and a long-term policy actually make it easier to conduct business.

Letitia Webster, global director of corporate sustainability for VF Corp., explained to me in Paris, where she is lobbying in favor of a strong commitment to climate eradication, that global regulations are absolutely necessary for her organization's forward planning. "We need predictability across globe because we lack certainty in the U.S. We have goals for reducing carbon, but we need to know what the rules are going to be."

VF Corp., a holding company for apparel brands including Timberland, The North Face, Reef, Vans, Wrangler and many more, has operations in 150 countries and a supply chain running through 70 countries including India and Bangladesh. This means it has an absolute economic imperative to monitor and ideally reduce impacts of climate change. For VF, it is a no brainer.

Webster shared an example from VF's U.S. headquarters to demonstrate how an uncertain policy environment can wreak havoc on the company's business decisions. The company usually uses a two-year payback to approve new capital investments. North Carolina's state legislator recently put the kibosh on renewable tax credits, which throws off all of VF's calculations on payback for efficiency upgrades and renewable installations for its headquarters. With hundreds of miles of conveyer belts moving around the world, this uncertainty means stagnation for improvements that could otherwise take place.

That's why VF is in Paris lobbying with Ceres, alongside six other apparel companies, in favor of:

"strengthening mechanisms in the climate deal to ensure net-zero greenhouse gas emissions well before the end of century,” including assurances that national climate commitments are strengthened every five years, starting in 2020. It also highlights the importance of "adaptation funding to build climate-resilient economies and communities."

The issue of the the adaptation fund, also known as the Green Fund, is a testy one, with everyone in favor until it comes time to pay the bills. The idea is that developed countries -- which caused the bulk of climate issues -- should finance adaptation and recovery for developing countries that stand to encounter the worst impacts.

Oxfam’s head of advocacy and campaigns, Celine Charveriat, said: “Climate funding is the glue that will make the Paris agreement stick. It will be the difference between a minimalist agreement and one that starts to deliver for the world’s poorest people.”

The issue of the developed world funding recovery from climate change impacts continues to be a key issue at the COP21 talks. In addition to mitigation and adaptation, "loss and damage" has become a key sticking point for the developing nation blocs. Developed countries dislike the term because it invokes a legal responsibility to act. As reported in Grist, "Rich countries adamantly do not want even the specter of admitting liability and compensation obligations for the effects of climate change." This is a non-starter with the U.S. Congress' Republican majority chomping at the bit to eradicate any responsibility for climate change adaptation, mitigation or even acknowledgement.

But recovery and economic development in the global south hinge on a fair response to climate change. While some countries quibble over the expenses and the responsibility, business leaders look to clean energy, energy efficiency and sustainability as the drivers of innovation and economic growth. By showing up in Paris to lobby for action, businesses send a message to global policy leaders that climate action doesn't have to mean negative economic impacts. As Webster puts it, "We're here to say climate policy is good business." We wish the documents coming out of the climate talks would be so clear and simple!

Stay tuned here for further discussion as the climate talks move forward. Missing something? Get caught up here. 

Image credit Jen Boynton

By Neil Hawkins

The next few decades will prove pivotal for mankind and for the planet.

The impact of climate change on our economic, social and environmental health is coming ever sharper into focus. Poorer countries are estimated to feel the brunt of this impact as our population nears 9 billion by 2050, spurring an increase in global demand for food by 60 percent and global energy use by two-thirds.

To build a better, more sustainable world, we must all change the way we live, work and play.

We must recognize that the incremental costs of an additional degree of warming will be the recurring kind and not a onetime penalty, impacting business growth every year as agricultural supply chains wilt or shift and migration disrupts employment and consumption patterns.

That cost – which would be largely borne by business – is projected to reach $700 billion by 2030. Every year.

As world leaders, government officials, business chiefs and others converge in Paris, there’s increasing hope that we will have a collective New Year’s resolution for 2016: a universal agreement to slow, stop and reverse climate change. This will drive everyone to work together to push forward faster and deeper efforts to curb climate change and help stem associated threats such as food safety and security, livelihoods, inequality and human rights.

Business efforts are already playing a central role and will continue to be critical. For all those organizations that have been touting corporate social responsibility commitments, now is the time to step forward and knit them together to become a powerful force for positive change. We must search for solutions at the local and global levels. We must learn to work together again. And we must continue to do our part, while using the power of our products and people to ensure a sustainable future.

For our part at Dow, we will do what we do best: innovate, adapt and collaborate -- courageously.

As a science-based solutions provider for more than a century, Dow combines the power of science and technology to drive innovation and help solve global challenges such as climate change. Earlier this year, we established a new set of sustainability goals to further refine how we envision the role of business in society; that business must help lead the transition to a sustainable planet and society. To start activating that vision, we are embedding sustainable factors into every single point of impact – through our footprint (internal operations), our handprint (sustainable solutions) and our blueprint (courageous collaborations).

Like our #EnergyBag that helped divert non-recyclable plastics from landfills and convert them into synthetic crude oil. Or our commitment to account for the value of nature in business decision-making on a global business scaled to generate $1 billion of net present value by 2025.

Another key sector where we are influencing change is in the world of sports.

Global sports events like the Olympics serve as an important opportunity to build momentum and catalyze social and environmental change. For many host cities, the games represent a time to refresh dated infrastructure, improve public transit and push development reform to shine a global spotlight on local economies and improve quality of life.

As the official chemistry company of the Olympic Games, Dow partners with organizing committees and host cities to create sustainable legacies through infrastructure improvements and behavioral change campaigns.

For the 2008 Beijing Games, Dow used water solutions and technology to provide adequate safe water access for the Games and thereby, creating a long-term, positive impact on the city’s drinking water supply. In 2013, Dow partnered with the Sochi 2014 Organizing Committee to implement economically viable low-carbon technologies in Russia, making the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games the first in history to mitigate its entire direct carbon footprint prior to the Opening Ceremony.

Building on our work in Sochi, we have designed a tailor-made program for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, including low-carbon and energy efficient technologies that can address Brazil’s and Latin America’s needs for years to come while helping mitigate the Games’ direct emissions. Partners in this program include Farmers Edge and Irriger, organizations that provide farmers in Mato Grosso with technologies to optimize productivity in corn and soybean crops while minimizing environmental impact; Roncador Group, a leading organization in farming and livestock in Mato Grosso; and some of the leading manufacturers of insulation solutions in Brazil, in an effort to disseminate knowledge and technology for more energy efficient construction throughout the country to help build long-term sustainable agricultural and manufacturing infrastructure.

We must also target human behavior and habits to shift consumer perception and use of our natural resources. So we’re partnering with Rio 2016’s Transforma program to educate four million school children in Brazil on chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology and sustainability and climate change.

A core commitment to advance the wellbeing of humanity by helping lead the transition to a sustainable planet and society is what’s driving us forward. We recognize that creating innovative products is not enough to build a world where sustainability is status quo. And we’ve put our stake in the ground.

Now the delegates converging in Paris must annotate this moment in time to turn the page. Together, we can and must push the boundaries of innovation, collaboration and public discourse to correct course on climate change. The costs are high. And the time to act is now. Dow is ready.

Image credit: Flickr/Oliver Hopkins

Neil Hawkins is Corporate Vice President, EH&S, and Chief Sustainability Officer for the Dow Chemical Company.

Love or hate the idea, Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! initiative, like other past first lady pet-projects, falls in the tradition of improving social good. Previous first ladies have advocated for issues including mental health awareness, drug abuse, literacy and, in Ms. Obama’s case, the improvement of public health through instilling better eating habits. Considering the struggles many Americans have with heart disease and obesity, the cause is a noble one. One result of Ms. Obama’s advocacy is the Partnership for a Healthier America, which espouses a variety of goals to make Americans more active and make better eating choices.

One of the aims of Partnership for a Healthier America was to open more supermarkets in America’s food deserts: areas that lack grocery stores and other options for fresh, healthy food. Like many initiatives that involve corporate responsibility, this idea attracted all kinds of attention. Many retailers promised to open stores that would expand options for fresh food in poorer neighborhoods. As as is the case with many big ideas (such as the activity around the current COP21 talks), the quest to expand better food options inspired a lot of “me too!” activity, as food companies pledged that they would take action so that 18 million or so Americans could have easier access to supermarkets and, most importantly, healthful food.

But as a recent Associated Press analysis explains, following the hype around this announcement in 2011, very little has happened. Of the 2,400-odd grocery stores that have opened the past four years, less than 10 percent of them are in these so-called food deserts.

One question, of course, is whether this is really a problem at all. Some evidence suggests that getting more fresh meats, dairy, fruits and vegetables into poor neighborhoods really does not cure the health problems associated with poverty. And some companies have tried to base themselves in neighborhoods lacking grocery stores, only to fail. Unfortunately, this problem has less to do with the neighborhoods than with the way in which supermarkets operate.

For example, take Tesco’s Fresh and Easy, which opened with much fanfare across central and southern California almost a decade ago. Neighborhoods such as Hollywood and Eagle Rock/Mount Washington in Los Angeles, as well as downtown Fresno, suddenly had a full-service grocery store. But the nicely laid-out, clean stores, with well-priced items, had several problems.

Many shoppers found the chain neither fresh nor easy. Never mind the fact that many shoppers found the automated check-out lines annoying and confusing, or that the sample corner often looked as if it were warehousing last week’s samples. Like many chains, including Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, Tesco standardized its product offerings across all of its stores. So, while that organic masala curry sauce may have been a hit in Eagle Rock with Occidental College students down the street, it was a miss in many other stores. Other customers, expecting fresh food, instead saw produce so over-packaged that even Trader Joe’s would blush, and simply moved on.

And while the corner store in that underserved neighborhood may be criticized for having higher prices and less of a selection, the chances run high that it knows what its customers buy — like the many corner stores serving the immigrant Armenian populations in Glendale, Little Armenia and a few hours north in Fresno. But the business model of many supermarkets do not take into account the demographics of individual neighborhoods. Sadly, your closest Costco will probably be more inclined to serve local products and understand the ethnic makeup of your community rather than its competing supermarket chains.

Unfortunately for these communities, the odds of a large grocery store opening up in these areas is becoming slimmer. The food retail industry is in flux, with more mergers underway and profit margins become thinner as the Krogers and Safeways of the world cope with consumers who increasingly buy their groceries at the likes of Target, and of course, Walmart or even Amazon.

Nevertheless, there is a chance at developing some creative ideas here. Depending on now 'food desert' is defined, that closest grocery store is still only one to three miles away. True, that is hardly convenient when you are grocery shopping for a family of four, but the sharing economy has an opening here. Why can’t Lyft and Uber partner with chains that claim to have a social mission, such as a Kroger’s or Publix? These companies can work together on making it affordable to get from these underserved neighborhoods to these food oases. Or, bring the store to these neighborhoods: Take a play from the food trucks’ playbook, and schedule drives to these neighborhoods with basic staples, as well as fresh produce. Will these ideas work? Who knows; they have not even been tried. But surely a compromise can be found, because considering the costs of opening a store, hiring staff and maintenance, no business will open in a location unless it can make that 1- to 3-percent profit margin and be profitable after eight to 10 years.

Food deserts and oases aside, these companies that made promises should be held accountable. The challenge, however, is that the Partnership for a Healthier America’s list of partners reads more like a who’s who of academia and food brands, with retailers lacking. And the organization’s news releases are more of a public relations love-fest than suggestions of real, workable solutions. As with many noble causes, the ideas are good, but the execution is lacking.

Image credit: The White House (Flickr)

Concerned American tuna consumers have something to rejoice about. Thai Union Group (TU), a company linked to human rights and environmental abuses within Thailand's tuna industry, recently announced it terminated its acquisition of American canned tuna company Bumble Bee Foods.

TU announced in December 2014 that it agreed to acquire Bumble Bee. TU and the Lion Capital “vigorously advocated the merits of the deal to the U.S. Department of Justice,” as stated in a press release, but it concluded that it was unlikely to receive clearance in the stipulated time in the share purchase agreement.

“We have put a lot of efforts to get this deal approved. However, we also recognize that the clearance is now unlikely due to a higher level of complexity in the process,” said Thiraphong Chansiri, president and CEO of TU. “We have decided to focus our energy on our existing business. Thai Union remains committed to the North American seafood market.”

Greenpeace launched a campaign to improve the tuna industry, targeting TU because the company is the world’s third largest seafood company. It produces nearly a fifth of the global tuna supply, and about 40 percent of all Thai tuna is sold by TU. As a recent Greenpeace report puts it, “Every second, the company exports the equivalent of about 157 cans of tuna from Thailand.”

TU's decision to back away from the acquisition of Bumble Bee tuna is “good news for consumers globally,” said Greenpeace USA oceans campaigner, Kate Melges, in a statement. “Thai Union has been linked to far too many serious labor abuses and destructive fishing practices to be taking on new brands without sorting out its existing problems."

Thailand's tuna industry is rife with human rights abuses and environmental destruction

The Greenpeace report reveals just how bad the conditions are in Thailand’s tuna sector. The report links the Thai industry to human trafficking, debt bondage, child labor and forced labor. Tuna workers also regularly suffer from a slew of human rights abuses and labor violations. There are human rights abuses perpetrated against those who help catch the tuna and those who process it. “Research indicates that egregious human rights and labor abuses are also present in tuna supply chains,” the report states.

Thai Union owns the popular American canned tuna brand Chicken of the Sea. Earlier this year, reports by the Associated Press and New York Times revealed the human rights abuses that are part of the Thai tuna industry. The AP investigation revealed that slave labor is part of the industry, tracking 40 Burmese slaves who worked on tuna vessels. The New York Times investigation discovered that labor abuse at sea “can be so severe that the boys and men who are its victims might as well be captives from a bygone era.”

A 2014 U.S. State Department report ranked Thailand as a country that is a “source, destination and transit country for men, women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking.” The report found that many are exploited in the Thai fishing industry.

Environmental destruction is also tied to the Thai tuna industry, according to the Greenpeace report. There is evidence that Thailand’s fish stocks have greatly declined over the last 50 years. There is a link between the dwindling fish stocks and the human rights abuses in the tuna industry. Since the yields are “increasingly poor” in Thai territorial waters, as the report points out, there is pressure put on the operators of fishing vessels: They are forced to go further out for longer periods of time “using unsustainable methods.” So, vessel operators have turned to human trafficking networks to supply their crews and decrease labor expenditure.

Image credit: Flickr/Rusty Clark

Pharma company Novartis has supplied 300m antimalarial treatments without profit to treat children suffering from malaria.

The Swiss drugs giant has been delivering treatments since 2009, helping to reduce the disease burden for children in more than 30 malaria-endemic countries, using Coartem Dispersible which was developed by Novartis in collaboration with Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) specifically to meet the needs of children (weighing 5kg and above). 

“This milestone underscores our long-standing commitment to the fight against malaria and to the children who are most at risk from the disease,” said Joseph Jimenez, CEO of Novartis. “We are proud of the part we have played in helping to reduce childhood deaths from malaria. And we continue to provide medicine at no profit to people who need it, contributing to the goal of a world free from the disease.”

Dr David Reddy, CEO of MMV, added: “The WHO World Malaria Report 2015 shows that we are making significant strides in reducing child mortality from malaria, and this is largely thanks to sustained international commitment and the availability of a range of innovative tools and solutions, including quality child-friendly medicines like Coartem® Dispersible.”

On Tuesday morning in Paris, Oxfam Australia’s executive director, Helen Szok, issued the following statement about the ongoing COP21 negotiations: "Developing countries are at risk of being squeezed out of critical negotiations as the pace of talks intensifies. The small delegations of the poorest countries are being stretched, and it is vital that ministers ensure their voices are heard on critical issues like climate funding as the deadline for the Paris deal looms."

TriplePundit sat down with Heather Coleman, who manages Oxfam America’s climate policy work, to find out more about the unique challenges facing delegations from small, low-income countries, and what that means for their ability to engage effectively with the negotiations in Paris.

"Some of [these countries] only have 100,000 people living in them. And even if they're not that small, certainly they're not very well-resourced," Coleman explained. "So, when they come here, they're coming with a few delegates. Many of them will badge folks from civil society to help them on their country teams."

This presents a huge roadblock as the pace and complexity of the talks heated up at the start of this week. Multiple bilateral and small group meetings are being held in parallel, making it increasingly difficult to ensure that the voices of the poorest and most vulnerable country delegations are raised. Last week, 3p correspondent Nithin Coca pointed out that the complexity of the talks can make it challenging for the average person to grasp what's going on. And, as it turns out, the same is true for some of the most vulnerable nations at the conference.

"They don't have the capacity to cover it all," Coleman continued. "For them, they need to try to figure out a way to streamline and simplify. So, that's the real issue.

"And I think that any ways that the [COP presidency] can work to ensure that the process is happening in a way that's not only overly transparent, but also that allows for these counties to be able to engage, is really important."

The G77 raises concerns

G77 and China raised some concerns about the process for drafting language for Wednesday’s new text -- namely that the text might emerge out of small group or bilateral meetings instead of a larger setting where any country can participate.

While Coleman understands these concerns, she warns that an undue focus on process issues could muddy and slow down the negotiations -- hurting the chances of a robust deal that works for everyone.

"I think it's legitimate that they're raising concerns about the ability of vulnerable countries to engage effectively, but I also think that we need to continue to be moving forward at a fairly quick pace," Coleman told us. "We have a situation where we're trying to get a legal agreement done by Thursday … to be then adopted officially here at this COP."

"Process issues can get us hung up," she said simply, "and we don't have the time to get hung up."

Finance language removed from the Paris text

While many were disappointed with the outcome of COP15 in Copenhagen, at least one good thing came out of it: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) committed to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 in public and private resources to support climate action in developing countries. But the “sources, instruments and channels that should count toward this goal remain ambiguous,” the World Resources Institute reports (PDF).

Now, things appear to be getting even more complicated: “One casualty of this race for the new text is the deletion of language referring to interim finance targets toward the $100 billion goal by 2020, and to a separate goal for adaptation within the $100 billion,” Oxfam said on Tuesday. “This language was on the table in a COP decision on long-term finance in a text that will feed into the final agreement but was sacrificed last night in favor of a much reduced text with little or no new agreements.”

So, what gives? Coleman explains:

"The numbers that were pulled out last night I think were pulled out because the G77 has to focus on some of the top issues that are most critical to them moving forward," she explained. "Those numbers were in reference to money that was already on the table for the next five years. They weren't in reference to what's going to happen once we hit 2020 hand beyond. So, I think what it signals is that [the G77] really want to focus on 2020 and beyond."

A consensus appears to be reached on language recognizing that the $100 billion goal will be a floor for the post-2020 period, Oxfam said. But Coleman added that negotiations on finance for the pre-2020 period are by no means off the table.

"It's very much still on the table, and I think that it may come back in the form of another text," she told us. "There's still an important issue to be addressed regarding adaptation finance for developing countries even before 2020, and that's the piece that did get pulled out. So, we can't loosen pressure on that issue ... Even though [the G77] hasn't prioritized it as a top ask, it still remains one of the issues to be addressed here."

Although the pre-2020 finance landscape remains murky, the fact that developing countries are more clearly communicating their needs for 2020 and beyond -- essentially new versions of the $100 billion goal -- is not without significance, Oxfam noted.

"Bolivia for the G77/China made this call, supported by countries like Argentina, Peru and Colombia, alongside Mexico," Oxfam reported. "The U.S. has indicated an openness to agree to embedding a process of setting such funding targets in the post-2020 agreement, provided an agreement can be reached that encourages complementary finance contributions on a voluntary basis from developing countries."

These issues will continue to be discussed at ministerial level on Tuesday, facilitated by the ministers of Germany and Gabon, Oxfam said.

"The U.S. needs vulnerable countries"

Although it's still unclear how adaptation in the most vulnerable nations will be financed, Coleman remains optimistic that an effective deal can be reached by Friday. She credited U.S. President Barack Obama for creating a constructive environment from the get-go.

"The president, when he came here at the beginning of the week, he gave a lot of credibility to small island nations and vulnerable countries," she told 3p. "He had a direct meeting with leaders of small island states and really addressed them directly as an island boy and said: 'I understand your issues. I understand the vulnerabilities you face, and we're not going to put them aside in this deal.' And I think that was the most important signal we've gotten that this deal is going to be a deal that works for vulnerable countries."

While it may seem, on the surface, as if developing countries need rich nations like the U.S. to help them pay for climate change adaptation strategies, Coleman pointed out that -- politically speaking -- U.S. delegates are just as reliant on the G77.

"The U.S. needs vulnerable countries and they need countries in Africa on their side, if we're going to get a deal that the U.S. wants to see," she said in conclusion. "So, politically, they have to be on it."

Image credit: Mary Mazzoni

Last August, when three Congressional Black Caucus members paid a visit to some of Silicon Valley's largest tech employers to investigate the lack of diversity in computer science-trained professionals, the media listened.  The fact that only 2 percent of Google's workers in 2014 were African American, and 1 percent or less of the leadership in the tech industry's most powerful companies were women, made headline news.

For weeks, many of us were riveted about the question of how and when Silicon Valley's tech industry would take the challenge and transform its diversity numbers to reflect the census at large. The employment numbers coming out of companies like Twitter, Apple, Facebook and Google, said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), "showed a shameful lack of diversity" and had to change.

But what the news didn't highlight at the time was the bigger picture: According to a Gallup poll released in 2014, 90 percent of elementary and high schools throughout the U.S. didn't teach computer science (CS), and while parents overwhelmingly supported tech education for their kids, only 1 in 4 schools surveyed offered computer programming.

Moreover, many states are still way behind in ensuring that CS education is an accepted criteria for high school graduation. In 2013, only nine states allowed CS to count toward science or math credits. Today, that number is up to 27 states plus Washington, D.C. The 41 percent of states that don't give science and math credits for CS eduction include tech-wannabes like Colorado and Nevada. And in California, while CS can count toward graduation requirements, it's still an elective.

Some tech companies have been trying to change these statistics. Google offers the Rise Award to enterprising students under the age of 18. It also offers the Bay Area Impact Challenge Grant to nonprofits whose programs show promise in social change. In some cases these funds have the opportunity to trickle down to CS engineers-to-be.

But it's fair to say that much of the transformation in the technical education frontier these days is coming from enterprising small organizations and for-profit coding companies that see a dire need to redesign Silicon Valley's employment culture

Reshma Saujani's decision to launch Girls Who Code didn't start in Silicon Valley, but rather in New York. She realized in 2010 that, even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics says there will be more than 1 million computing jobs on the market by 2020, "women educated in the U.S. are currently on pace to hold just 3 percent of them. [There’s] just no way our country can be competitive in the 21st century without diversifying the tech sector," Saujani told 3p. Girls Who Code offers summer immersion classes and more comprehensive training to middle-school an high-school students.

"We provide girls-only classes, which makes our students comfortable and builds a community," Saujani said. "We also recently unveiled our Alumni Network, which will be a great resource for connecting [Girls Who Code] graduates to career opportunities in the field."

Moreover, she notes, even though statistics show that girls who try out CS in high school are 10 times more likely to choose the topic as their university major, girls aren't encouraged sufficiently at home and in school to follow their dreams. "Our society simply has not provided enough female role models in this field – kids today have just been socialized, especially through movies and TV, to believe that coding is a male activity."

"You cannot be what you cannot see."

To jumpstart that exposure at the youngest age possible, the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula sponsors summer classes for Bay Area youth in elementary, middle and high school. This summer, its Google CS First program was launched at six BGCP sites with the help of Americorps volunteers.

"Our elementary-school students take basic game design classes, our middle-school students are learning robotics programing, and our high-school students take video editing electives," said David Cruz, a development associate for BGCP. "STEM (science technology engineering and math) is at the heart of Silicon Valley and key to successful careers in our area; we want our youth to be able to grasp STEM-related career opportunities."

Ensuring that STEM training is accessible to low-income students is crucial, Cruz continued.

"The more our education system incorporates STEM and tech education to disadvantaged students, the more balanced the tech career playing-field will become."

Like Saujani, he commends tech companies that are willing to step outside the bounds of conventional recruiting practices and create new avenues for aspiring coders.

"A successful model is for companies to take the extra step and partner with youth organizations to develop and inspire the next generation," Cruz told 3p. "Low-income youth need scholarships and internship opportunities" in order to succeed.

Approximately 20 percent of Oakland, California's population reported being below the poverty level in 2009-2013. With almost a third of the city's population under the age of 18 in 2010, East Bay companies like Pandora, Uber and Kaiser Permanente have a growing employment resource at their fingertips, led by educational organizations and companies like Hack the Hood, Telegraph Academy and YesWeCode, all of which offer coding courses in and around the Bay Area.

But as Code.org points out, the tech boom faces another growing challenge: Many of today's jobs require a comprehensive computer science engineering education, and oftentimes an education that goes beyond coding.

Sixty-seven percent of STEM jobs require knowledge in computing. And only 8 percent of STEM graduates major in computer science. Furthermore, as Saujani pointed out, providing the incentive for students to choose CS as a college major is key: According to ExploringCS.org, the number of students that take CS advanced placement exams for qualification in college has actually declined in recent years, and significantly fewer women take the AP test compared to men; the same is true with African Americans and Latinos when compared to white students.

So, recognizing the importance and incentive of CS education, Code.org points out, is the first step to ensuring there will be enough trained applicants to fill those 1 million jobs in 2020: "Every 21st-century child should have the ability to learn about algorithms, how to make an app, or how the Internet works ... just like they learn about photosynthesis, the digestive system or electricity."

It's a vision that today's coding education networks like Girls Who Code and the BGCP's Google Code First program see as an educational must for Bay Area's youth.

Image credit: Woodleywonderworks

"The purpose of our company is sustainability," said Claus Stig Pedersen, head of corporate sustainability at Novozymes. That's why the organization has decided to use the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals as a test to determine if new business development projects are a good fit.

The Danish enzyme manufacturer was looking for a new way to measure social and environmental wellbeing last year. When the Sustainable Development Goals were published in September, Stig Pedersen suggested that his company use them as metrics, "because what’s better than a shared commitment from 193 countries?"

Novozymes' board quickly approved the proposal. As a first step, they've refined the 169 targets in the 17 SDG goals into 15 "material" impact categories that are relevant to the business: poverty, health, gender, sanitation, food supply, water supply, energy supply, land use, acidification, climate change, nutrification, forest, resources, chemicals and waste.

These impact areas will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of future projects. "If it’s good enough for the world, it’s also good enough for us," Stig Pedersen explained. Now, technology impacts will also include a measure of the impact on people -- ideally, the number of people impacted. For example, if an enzyme product can improve agriculture yields, there will likely be a boost in human health. If a product can reduce industrial use of formaldehyde, this will also have a positive impact on human health.

This methodology will not only be used to measure the impact of the organization, but also to determine the return on investment for a particular project and, in turn, to determine whether the company should move forward with a given project or not.

When asked what would happen if a project showed a high social or environmental return but not big profit, Stig Pedersen laughed. “This is going to be very exciting, isn't it? We don’t have a plan to handle it yet; we are going to have to see how it goes."

This isn't entirely new ground for the biotech company; environmental and social issues have long been a consideration. However, up until this point, they were something of a negative screen -- negative environmental and social consequences could derail a project. Now, these SDG impacts will help Novozymes determine which projects can have a positive impact on the society and the planet, and this positive benefit can be the nudge that moves a borderline project forward.

When asked if this new plan would have any impact on Novozymes' exceptional sustainability reporting, Stig Pedersen explained that, while it might have some impact on how the company reports its impacts, "this is much more about business development."

Image credit: Global Festival of Ideas for Sustainable Development/Flickr

When American businessman and author Seth Siegel went looking for a country whose water-management plan could help solve the planet's advancing water woes, he settled on a country with an unusual profile: a tiny nation with only one major fresh-water lake to its name and excruciatingly small amounts of rainfall to count on each year; a nation whose pioneers have been transforming vast deserts for centuries and now provides water for its neighbors as well. And most importantly, a country that had already faced a life-threatening drought, that knew the humanitarian price of losing its water independence, and had the moxie to search for truly unorthodox answers: Israel.

Siegel's New York Times best-seller, "Let There Be Water: Israel's Solution for a Water-Starved World" (St. Martin's Press, 2015), explores the steps that led to Israel's gradual success as a water-resilient nation. He says that his interest in Israel's water technology came about as a result of his concern over the planet's increasing water shortage.

"I learned of the coming global water problems about four years ago," Siegel told TriplePundit, and he began looking for answers. "I started looking for models that worked well in solving water problems. And in case after case, I found Israel was probably the most sophisticated example. Then, I started looking at it in a holistic way: that Israel would be an extraordinary model for the world at large, with countries rich or poor, large or small."

Israel's steady success in building a self-sufficient water system, Siegel continued, lies in its diversity of approaches, what Siegel refers to as its "all of the above" principle: the idea that a resilient economy and a dependable water program thrives because of its creative approaches.

"What they have done phenomenally well is develop many different technologies and governing structures with legislation, pricing market mechanisms; they radically rethought agriculture." Innovative technologies to cut down on water loss, like the transformative introduction of drip irrigation in the 1950s and the development of distant meter reading (DMR) technology to eradicate unchecked leaks, have dovetailed with the government's efforts to ensure that all water use is protected, priced and paid for equitably.

But as Siegel pointed out, it may be the social mindset that truly sets apart Israel's success in creating a comprehensive water management program.

"No decision made by the Zionist pioneers and the young state of Israel has had a greater impact on Israel's water culture than the decision to make water the common property of all," he explains in the book.  Israel's shifting focus from a socialist to more capitalist-centered economy hasn't undermined the country's success when it comes to ensuring that its water serves every single resident equally and without prejudice or price discrimination.

"Israel's water system may be the most successful example of socialism in practice anywhere in the world today."

There have been many studies of Israel's innovative water programs, but few books or articles have been as successful or as eloquent in tying together the multiple facets that have bolstered Israel's success as a water-independent country. Its comparison to places like California -- which we covered earlier this year -- only scratches the surface when it comes to what it takes to guarantee global (or national) water stewardship.

It isn't just developing a broadly-adaptable wastewater distribution program for agriculture and other uses, or boosting desalination plant production, or taking advantage of water management technology that will improve our water independence, Siegel explains, but changing the mindset when it comes to the relationship with water as a whole. And that means setting standards for how water is drilled, how seeds are developed and how crops are irrigated.

It also means changing the way water is regulated: creating a water culture that is governed not by politicians and lawmakers (who often must balance their attention between citizens, lobbyists and companies with commercial interests), but by regional nonpolitical water utilities. Although Israel's water has been nationalized since the 1950s, it has been the local water utility boards, Siegel pointed out, that have served as "local labs for innovation." Both the drip irrigation system and the DMR concept were created by engineers that had the latitude to look for answers, and were unencumbered by corporate profit margins when it came to implementing water-saving mechanisms.

With COP21 just winding up, the debate over how to adapt to the world's rising seas is still intensive.The Coastal Visualization Environment (CLIVE), designed at the University of Prince Edward Island Climate Change Lab in Canada and announced this week at COP21, is one of several tools that have been developed to give people a bird's-eye view of just how and where sea-level rise will affect them. What it doesn't do as succinctly as some may wish, perhaps, is offer an answer as to how to stop sea-level rise.

That, Siegel said, can only be accomplished through introspective discussion about our agricultural water management approaches and culture. Current research, he said, shows that the "each to his own" approach when it comes to agricultural practices like flood irrigation has a bearing not just on our local water access, but on sea level rise. And the alternative, he says, may not be easy for Americans to swallow. Just like how we price, monitor and regulate water, irrigating agriculture must have standards that ensure the preservation of that resource.

"[We] must have a reformation of agriculture, so that whether it is federal or state dollars, you have to incentivize farmers to stop flood irrigating and, whether by mandate or by tax dollars, encourage the use of drip irrigation," Siegel said. By implementing controlled irrigation practices and refined wastewater distribution, "we can have a good shot at getting over the rest of this crisis."

Siegel is best known as the founder and co-founder of several trend-setting companies including the tech company Vringo, financial services firm Sixpoint Partners, and the trademark licensing company Beanstalk Group whose success in the 1990s led to its eventual purchase by the Ford Motor Co.

He is well positioned to understand the American debate over private versus public control of resources like water, and why this issue speaks to the heart of America's own self-definition. "Let There Be Water" is as much a treatise about the optimism and benefits of reaching water independence and security, as it is about the current struggle that lays ahead for our water-challenged planet.

Images: 1) Betty Nudler; 2) Neil Ward; 3) Eran Finkle; 4) Jessica Reeder; 5) USDA.