Search

By Gerald Huff

While most discussions of the impact of automation on jobs have focused on blue-collar and professional jobs, two recent articles have raised interesting and important questions about the impact of technology on the future of management jobs.

In Here’s How Managers Can Be Replaced By Software, Devin Fidler describes a prototype management tool (“iCEO”) that supervised a research project for a Fortune 50 client by coordinating the work of contract workers automatically.

"iCEO routed tasks across 23 people from around the world, including the creation of 60 images and graphs, followed by formatting and preparation. We stood back and watched iCEO execute this project. We rarely needed to intervene, even to check the quality of individual components of the report as they were submitted to iCEO, or spend time hiring staff, because QA and HR were also automated by iCEO. (The hiring of oDesk contractors for this project, for example, was itself an oDesk assignment.)"

With just a few hours of upfront task definition, the iCEO software managed the entire project over several weeks and created a 124-page report on the production of graphene. Fidler is optimistic that future iterations of iCEO will be quite capable of substituting for middle management:

"While management is an information-intensive activity, APIs (or software interfaces), are making it ever easier for computers to effectively route and track work projects … Our iCEO prototype points to a not-too-distant future in which these APIs will not only manage simple processes, but also help conceptualize and oversee an endless variety of projects  —  functions traditionally performed by management."

Peter Reinhardt’s Replacing Middle Management with APIs identifies the same kind of threat to middle management jobs in “platform” applications like Uber and Instacart that use software to automate the distribution of work to humans. He argues:

"The software layer between the company and their armies of contractors eliminates a huge amount of middle management, and creates a worrisome disconnect between jobs that will be automated, and jobs of increasing leverage and value."

The Uber driver and Instacart shopper have no upward career path into higher-paying supervision and management jobs because those jobs do not exist at those companies. The workers also have no social interaction with people in those positions who might mentor them or recommend them for such positions at other companies.

"Drivers are opting into a dichotomous workforce: the worker bees below the software layer have no opportunity for on-the-job training that advances their career, and compassionate social connections don’t pierce the software layer either. The skills they develop in driving are not an investment in their future. Once you introduce the software layer between “management” (Uber’s full-time employees building the app and computer systems) and the human workers below the software layer (Uber’s drivers, Instacart’s delivery people), there’s no obvious path upwards."

From Uber’s perspective, task assignment and supervision are delegated to the software, and performance evaluation is delegated to the customer reputation system. So, even if Uber does employ hundreds of thousands of drivers (before shifting to self-driving cars), it does so without creating any middle-class supervisory and management positions.

In addition to this kind of direct substitution of software that performs management functions, it’s important to note that another major threat to management jobs is the elimination of front-line workers themselves as they are replaced by automation. For example, in a decade or so, when most customer service reps are replaced by artificial intelligence that uses natural language, all the supervisory and management positions in call centers will be eliminated as well.

When confronted with concerns about technological unemployment, many people identify some jobs that “will never be replaced by a machine” and then feel free to disregard the risk. The job of “manager” is often put in this category. But as Fidler and Reinhardt warn, management and supervisory jobs are not immune to technological progress. And these jobs make up about 10 percent of U.S. employment, at wages 1.7 times the average wage  —  the core of our classic middle-class jobs.

Image credit: Flickr/Global Panorama

Gerald Huff is the principal software engineer at tesla motors, and featured speaker at the upcoming Closing The Gap: Solutions For An Inclusive Economy.

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

If you haven't already heard, the 21st Session of the Conference of Parties (COP21) kicked off this week in Paris -- and the TriplePundit team is on the ground taking in all the action.

The United Nations conference, where a global climate agreement will be discussed, is widely expected to be our last chance to ink a global commitment to halt climate change. While plenty of challenges remain, the attitude in the conference halls at Le Bourget in Paris remains positive.

Did you catch all the big news this week? Spend a few minutes this afternoon to make sure.

NGOs react to Obama’s opening speech

In a moving address at the opening session of COP21 on Monday, President Barack Obama called for resolve in the coming two weeks of negotiations, keeping in mind the long-term implications of the results.

“Our generation may not even live to see the full realization of what we do here,” Obama said at the close of his speech. “But the knowledge that the next generation will be better off for what we do here – can we imagine a more worthy reward than that?”

An afternoon press conference allowed leaders from several U.S.-based NGOs, including 350.org and the NAACP, to offer their reactions to Obama’s speech earlier in the day.

Read the full story here.

Public and private partners bolster smallholder farmers

Governments and food and agriculture organizations joined on Tuesday with a unified goal: to respond to the urgent climate challenges facing agriculture. The public and private partners launched six cooperative initiatives that will protect the long-term livelihoods of millions of farmers, help ensure food security for billions of people and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change.

“It is essential that we speak about agriculture when it comes to climate change, because it is about our food security,” Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, general director of France’s Ministry of Agriculture, said during a press briefing on Tuesday.

Launched under the Lima-Paris Action Agenda, these partnerships will deploy money and know-how across both developed and developing nations to help hard-pressed farmers become key actors in the global drive to achieve a low-carbon, climate-resilient future.

Read the full story here.

World Bank launches $500 million plan to boost climate action

The World Bank's Transformative Carbon Asset Facility (TCAF), announced on Tuesday during the COP21 talks, will attempt to find new ways to create new greenhouse gas reduction programs in developing countries.

Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are the first countries to fund what the World Bank aims to be a $500 million effort to reduce the risks of climate change. Half of that amount has been pledged so far.

The World Bank also announced a new carbon pricing initiative at the conference.

Read the full story here.

Record $3.4 trillion committed to fossil fuel divestment

At a press conference on Wednesday at COP21, representatives from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the California Senate, the World Resources Institute and the London School of Economics joined 350.org to announce that $3.4 trillion in assets are now committed to some form of divestment from fossil fuels.

Read the full story here.

The finance gap still poses challenges

There is incredible optimism that the ongoing global climate talks in Paris will produce, finally, a strong climate agreement. That being said, there are still some serious barriers that need to be overcome, none more so than determining an equitable and transparent system for climate finance.

Read the full story here.

Island nations tackle shipping emissions

Small island nations have formed a voting bloc for U.N. climate change negotiations, called the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), to lobby for the issues and points of view of greatest concern to these small-but-mighty nations.

These islands are united by what surrounds them — ocean water — which is one of the reasons they’ve come together to call out the international shipping industry, a still largely unregulated source of emissions.

Read the full story here.

Al Gore calls for bold action

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore took to the stage at COP21 on Thursday in a side-event focused on stranded fossil fuel assets. The crowd expected the longtime climate activist to come prepared with a compelling narrative that made the case for strong action coming out of the conference — and Gore did not disappoint.

In a 20-minute speech, he laid out the many forces at play in the climate crisis and the solutions being presented by scientists, activists and indeed by the market itself.

Read the full story here.

Revised draft text agreement released

A draft text for a global climate agreement was announced on Thursday morning at COP21, now slimmed down another four pages from the document sent to Paris in late October.

At a press conference on Thursday hosted by Climate Action Network International, Kaisa Kosonan of Greenpeace said that negotiations of the current ADP session has “made progress,” especially on defining long-term climate and emissions goals.

Read the full story here.

To make sure you don't miss any big news from Paris, keep an eye on this page or follow the hashtag #GoParis on social media. 

Image credit: Flickr/Joe deSousa

By Jeff Hayward and Benjamin Hodgdon

Strengthening forest communities is mission-critical to fighting climate change. To understand why, you must first understand that, if the goal of the Paris climate talks is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, negotiators cannot be content with just reducing emissions from fossil fuels. We must also reduce emissions from the land sector -- deforestation, agriculture and other land use.

Deforestation generates 10 to 11 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The entire land sector generates about a quarter of all GHGs, making it the second largest emitter after fossil fuels. But it’s the largest emitter in nearly 60 developing countries, and as the energy sector moves toward decarbonization, and deforestation pressures and food demand grow, the land sector’s share of global GHGs will grow, too.

It is urgent that we reverse this trajectory, starting with tropical forests, which sequester the most carbon but are under the most pressure from logging and clearing for agriculture. COP21 may produce an agreement on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). But for REDD to work and save forests, we must help empower people and communities living in and around them to manage them sustainably.

If that sounds like a side note, think again. Forests where local communities and indigenous people have legal or official rights sequester 37.7 billion tons of carbon. That’s 29 times the annual CO2 emissions of all the passenger vehicles on the planet.  Managing those forests sustainably will keep more of that carbon out of the atmosphere.

Today about a third of tropical forests are under some form of local community control, and that share is growing.  Latin America, with its long tradition of land reform and local forest rights, is the trend’s epicenter. But it’s also taking hold in tropical regions of Africa and Asia as well.

Trying to save forests by handing them over to local communities might seem like a gamble. And it’s particularly hard to conceive if your model is the Western United States, where vast unpopulated areas were turned into strictly protected preserves by a distant, central government.  But after decades of investing in that approach, it’s now clear that it hasn’t worked in the tropics, where forests are home to many people who depend on them for livelihoods.

There’s growing evidence that these people are the ones who can protect their forests best. Field research shows that local groups can conserve forests at least as well as government-run preserves, often better. To do this, they need clear authority to manage the land, harvest resources sustainably and sell them into good markets. Otherwise, deforestation risks can actually increase.  But where those conditions are met, community forests dramatically outperform strict government-protected areas, or just about any other conservation approach.

For example, northern Guatemala has one of the highest rates of forest conversion in the Americas, mainly from illegal ranching. In the 5 million-acre Maya Biosphere Reserve, the largest protected area in Central America, about a third of the area is government preserves, which still experience considerable deforestation (1 percent a year). But other areas are community-managed forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable extraction of timber and other forest products. Studies show those areas have near-zero deforestation, conserving about a quarter of the Reserve’s forest cover while driving economic development.

That is not an isolated example. Deforestation rates in community forests in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula are also effectively zero. In Brazil, indigenous lands have less than a tenth of the deforestation of lands outside. In the Bolivian Amazon, they have a sixth of the deforestation of lands outside.

Such outcomes are remarkable. But to achieve them, community forests need to be be incentivized -- profitable enough to withstand economic pressures driving deforestation and allow communities to thrive while distributing economic and social benefits justly. In many places where local communities are gaining rights to their forests, that’s still a long way off.

Over the last 15 years, the Rainforest Alliance has worked with hundreds of community forests and local enterprises, to understand and help overcome the barriers they face. We’ve documented many cases where community-managed forests were both profitable and sustainable. We also found cases where large areas of forest were lost after communities obtained title to them, for example in the Peruvian Amazon, where forests titled to indigenous communities were subject to government concessions for mining and oil and gas extraction. They need help building capacity to defend their land rights, establish stronger governance and participate in land-use planning.

As the negotiations in Paris unfold, expect to hear a lot about halting deforestation and rural development in country-by-country emissions reduction plans, known as INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions). We probably won’t hear much about community forestry per se, though some INDCs refer to it, such as Brazil’s, which mentions “the role of indigenous lands in forest managed areas.” But to make REDD+ and INDCs more effective, countries should build community forest rights into their INDCs.

Forest communities seek economic development, and the financial resources and credit access that could come with REDD+ and national government programs may help.  But what they need most of all is justice -- clear rights to their land and a supportive legal framework from governments so they can determine how their forests are managed and how benefits can be distributed equitably. Given those inputs, community forestry could be the single greatest untapped resource for closing the “emissions gap” between the agreements made in Paris and what’s required to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

Benjamin Hodgdon is Director of Forestry at the Rainforest Alliance.

Jeff Hayward, Rainforest Alliance, Vice President, Climate, is at the climate talks in Paris as part of the Rainforest Alliance COP21 delegation.

Let's be real for a second. United Nations negotiations are complex. Here in Paris, there are continuous, simultaneous meetings with delegates from dozens of countries all contributing to a draft deal that is, by the minute, getting more complex and more difficult for us, regular people, to understand. It's tough for an experienced journalist to get a grasp on, much less a layperson.

“International negotiations are incredibly opaque, incredibly difficult to understand,” said Peter Wood with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), at the Global Landscapes Forum in Paris, taking place alongside COP21. "It is really incredible how these people have managed to make something very straightforward into a completely foreign language.”

That is definitely what we're seeing right here in Paris. A new draft text agreement was just released that elicited criticism from countries including the Philippines, India and many in the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), a grouping of nations that are likely to face the worst impacts of climate change. But to regular citizens, it is hard to get worked up about the fact that human rights is only mentioned in this section, or that. What difference does it make if loss and damage is included within adaptation and not as a separate section? In the end, what's a few words in a thousand-plus-page document anyway?

“Because of the language used – acronyms, different issues – [it creates] a cloak of invisibility,” Wood said. “People don't want to look at what is happening.”

The solution, Wood continued, is transparency. IISD seeks to change this by providing detailed, easily-digestible information to the public about what happens at negotiations – not only high-profile ones like the Paris climate talks, where over 3,000 are media attending. But other ones, too, where, sometimes, IISD is one of just a few civil society representatives.

Transparency is the key to not only U.N. negotiations, but also to how we fight climate as a whole. We need information about emissions – to ascertain whether or not countries are meeting their agreements. This applies to the private sector, too: At TriplePundit we often write about companies making green commitments, but if those companies are not being transparent about their operations, those commitments will, in the end, mean little. Without transparency, there cannot be accountability.

One new, powerful tool is social media. It if forcing governments to be more responsive to their situation, and, through the million-plus tweets with the hashtag #COP21 (not to mention 3p's custom COP21 hashtag, #GoParis), allowing millions to participate in the discussions taking place right here in Paris.

“It’s never been so cheap to get your message out,” Wood said. The costs for transparency are going down due to social media and mobile communication.

This, more than anything else, gives me hope that Paris will help us achieve a real agreement that can produce real change. The accountability, though, will not be up to the negotiators. It will be up to us.

Photo credit: Le Centre d'information COP21

Long gone is the narrative of climate change as a crisis manufactured by bleeding-heart liberals. Institutional investors are moving assets away from fossil fuels to the tune of $3.4 trillion. Stranded fossil fuel assets are pegged at $2.2 trillion. And regulatory bodies like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have mandated that companies disclose climate change risks to their investors.

No, bleeding hearts won't solve the climate crisis -- or lead to a bold resolution coming out of Paris. It will be the pursestrings of big-money investors and multinational companies that will make the difference, as Ceres CEO Mindy Lubber underscored at a COP21 side-event focused on stranded assets.

"As we, as a community, take on the complex issue of climate change and its implications for humanity, for the environment, for public health, for national security, for our children, some people don't hear that message quite well enough," Lubber said on Thursday. "The issue with climate change is also one of the greatest financial risks facing us, which is why companies and investors are acting -- and acting now in greater ways than they have before."

Earlier Thursday afternoon, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore compared the financial risks associated with stranded assets to the sub-prime mortgage bubble -- a notion Lubber doubled-down on in her remarks.

"We saw sub-prime mortgages … nearly take down our economy internationally," Lubber said. " ... Whether you want to believe every scientist or not -- we may want to, other skeptics may not -- this is a financial issue of unknown proportions."

After thinking a moment on that last bit, she rephrased: "Well, frankly, we now know it. But we've got to look at it, and we've got to act on it."

A reality check for the fossil fuel industry

The price of oil is plunging. At press time, prices sat at $39.98 a barrel, down from just under $100 a barrel this time two years ago. Late last month, Barclays released a white paper predicting prices would settle at around $60 a barrel by 2016, but even that puts a serious dent in oil company profits. But somehow the industry has yet to accept these realities.

"Right now, the fossil fuel industry somehow thinks that, in most cases, they can keep going on the track they're going. But oil is no longer $100 a barrel," Lubber continued. "It is a very high-priced industry. They can't succeed and be a good bet for the financial community if in fact the price of oil goes down to $60 as Barclays says, or it goes down to $40 or $50 as we're seeing [now], and survive as a profitable industry. They just can't."

Citing changes in the energy market, she added, "They also can't survive if demand keeps going down." She referenced two underlying factors driving down demand for fossil fuels:

Falling renewable prices and rising electrification: As oil prices continue in a free-fall, the cost of renewable energy technologies, much to the chagrin of the fossil fuel industry, continues to do the same. And investors are taking notice, moving their money away from risky fossil fuel assets and into promising new clean-technology solutions.

"As the vice president said, this is the first year in history we've seen more money invested in renewables than in fossil fuels -- and that's only going to grow," Lubber emphasized on Thursday. The continued electrification of the transport sector, a trend we're already seeing around the world, will only further the drop in fossil fuel demand, Lubber added.

Efficiency driven by big data: "The other reason demand is going down, well beyond just the obvious ... is the big-data world," Lubber continued. "We are seeing changes -- whether it is in the way railroads are run, how aviation is run, how technology is used -- that is changing the dynamic overnight." The aviation industry, Lubber explained, is already projecting a 10 to 20 percent decline in its fossil fuel needs due to efficiency improvements driven by big data. A similar drop is expected in the rail sector, Lubber said.

Investors respond

"The bottom line is: We have an industry that can function at $50 a barrel or at a lower demand, and that is changing the mix in the eyes of investors -- again, not because it's the right thing, the moral thing, the compelling thing, but because it is a financial risk that no longer makes sense," Lubber continued, with a forthright pragmatism that would make even Milton Friedman sit up and take notice.

In response, Lubber explained, investors are beginning to demand transparency about climate change risks -- a trend TriplePundit first noticed last year. The SEC guidance, issued in 2010, is also helpful. Lubber noted that it's not always executed properly, but that it's a step forward on the way to appropriate disclosure of risks. "There's more focus particularly because of the size of the stranded assets," she explained. "It is hard to deny that is a material risk that every fossil fuel company that files an SEC filing ought to be showing."

Additionally, led by Ceres, 70 global investors managing more than $3 trillion in collective assets petitioned 45 of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies in late 2013 to stress-test the financial implications of conducting business in a 2-degree world (i.e., a world in which we stay below a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise, considered by scientists to be the climate tipping point).

"It can be done," Lubber insisted. "BHP Billiton did it, and other companies are starting to say they will -- Shell and BP committed to doing it. But those other 40 companies that the investors have sent letters to are part of negotiations and part of shareholder resolutions, and they will be in play this year."

A new messenger

So now, in this new scenario, rather than patchouli-wearing activists waving the climate action flag, it's the big-money stakeholders in their custom Brooks Brothers. And, predictably, that's changing the tide quickly.

"What makes this Paris set of discussions different than any before is that the financial leadership and corporate leadership are here in strength, saying we need to act on climate; we need a price on carbon; and we need to move sooner rather than later," Lubber said firmly. "That wasn't the case at Copenhagen; that wasn't the case at COPs before that.

"The message has changed. The messengers have changed. The arguments are stronger; they're more compelling. And I think with the strength of the financial and corporate community coming together with the policy community, the NGO community, the city and state community, we've got a great shot at moving forward -- and I think we're going to see it this week."

Image credit: Mary Mazzoni

It's clear that the Bay Area needs a transportation revolution. You've probably experienced our challenges – whether it's crowded, standing-room-only BART and Caltrain, the worsening traffic jams across the region, or the lack of integration that makes it difficult, or prohibitively expensive, to move from one of the region's 27 transit systems to another.

There are a lot of current proposals regarding our regional transportation mess, but they're not enough. Tech companies can play a roll in helping enable progress toward a better, more mobile and, importantly, more sustainable Bay Area.

Limited proposals

Here's the bad news – current transportation iniatives are, suffice to say, lacking. While cities like Taipei, London and even Los Angeles are in the process of adding many miles and multiple lines of new mass-transit infrastructure, the Bay Area has in the pipeline two small spur Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) expansions to the suburbs, and a billion-dollar plus, mile-long subway that will do little to alleviate the downtown transit crunch. The Transbay Terminal is currently being built – far over budget – in San Francisco, but it won't add any rail capacity to the city, as its much-awaited Caltrain extension to downtown San Francisco is now pegged to cost $3 billion and may not even start construction until sometime in the next decade.

There are some bright spots – Bay Area Bikshare is planning to expand tenfold in the coming year, from 700 bikes scattered across downtown San Francisco and near a couple of Peninsula Caltrain stations, to throughout San Francisco and the East Bay.

“The Bay Area is prime for us,” said Kansas Waugh with Motivate, who runs bikeshare systems across the United States, during a public seminar. “This is an area that bikeshare will work – it's dense, walkable and transit-connected.”

Moreover, transportation network companies, most notably Uber and Lyft, have begun expanding their carpool systems Uberpool and Lyft Line, with massive success. Both companies are also now realizing that their systems work in tandem, not in competition, with public transportation.

“We don't think we should be the mode choice for every trip,” said Tommy Hayes, Lyft's transportation policy manager. “We are stronger when we work with other transportation options.” Hayes added that 20 percent of Lyft rides in the Bay Area end near a Caltrain or BART stop.

Still, there is a major challenge that is being solved, so far, by piecemeal solutions, especially when you look at the Bay Area as a region. Bikes and Uber won't solve traffic, overcrowding and congestion. We need bigger, bolder solutions that reflect the new reality of how the region is integrated.

“Somebody will live in Mountain View and commute to San Francisco, and they're crossing city lines, county lines ... The reality is that we move across all these political boundaries and restrictions in our daily life – the planning and transport network is based on these little, discreet political entities,” said Gerry Tierney, an urban mobility expert at Perkins + Will’s San Francisco office.

Beyond tech shuttles

It is that lack of planning that has led to the infamous, controversial tech shuttles, which fill a gap in mass-transit options between the big tech campuses in Silicon Valley and residents living in San Francisco and more distant parts of the Bay Area

Companies are doing more. Facebook has said it will put in $1 million to fund a Caltrain extension to the Dumbarton bridge, which would put a station closer to its headquarters in Menlo Park. Google is working with Mountain View to build more housing, including low-income housing, around its Mountain View campus. And LinkedIn has said it will implement a plan to reduce single-occupancy vehicles at its headquarters, pushing more of its employees to either take transit or carpool to work.

The problem is that these plans are great in isolation, but they're focused on either employees or just the surrounding community. They are not yet integrated with wider Bay Area transit challenges, or wider communities that are feeling the impact of the region's rapid, tech-led growth.

What we need is more support for big plans. San Francisco's subway plan, a second transbay tube or Envision Silicon Valley. Companies should be working with Clipper as it designs version 2.0, which, SPUR, a Bay Area nonprofit pushing for better, more integrated transport, hopes will include regional transit passes like those which exists in cities all around the world. A million dollars from Facebook and some housing is not enough. Companies can play a far more active role.

A model could be what happened recently in Boston, when, as part of its new headquarters project, New Balance invested $15 million in building a new commuter rail station. This station provided benefits for the entire community and is helping Boston build a better transportation system -- and it's a model that could be replicated by Bay Area companies.

In fact, Rod Diridon Sr., with the Mineta Transportation Institute, sees hope in current action – and the potential for more a la New Balance.

“Most of the large companies are offering leadership through the community, and through the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, but they could invest a little bit of their own capital in transit,” Diridon said.

Uber and Lyft, if they truly believe that their future lies in working with mass transit, should also work with cities to develop better transportation systems. To do anything else would be, quite honestly, hypocritical.

The climate factor

There is another angle, of course: climate. Right now, global leaders are gathering in Paris for the UNFCCC COP21, which many hope will lead to a historic climate agreement. Sustainable transportation is a key facet of any carbon-neutral future, and the Bay Area, as a hub for global technologies, could – and should – be a leader for a country that has fallen far behind the rest of the world in this field.

“It is the crippling issue,” Diridon said. “We've been underfunding our transport infrastructure since '50s and '60s. There is not enough money to maintain current transport systems, and we're now No. 28 in the world on transport infrastructure.”

There a lot of people to blame for this – oil companies that shifted us to automobile-centric design, lack of integration, and years of unstable, unreliable national transportation investment. But as we aim to move forward toward a more sustainable world, we need a better way to move around that's not only more efficient economically, but more efficient for the environment as well.

“Climate change is a crisis – one way to solve it it is electric-powered transport. Cars, and mass transport, high-speed rail, light rail and a better BART,” Diridon concluded.

According to Alex Mackenzie Torres, CMO of SF-based public transit app Moovit, all of these systems need to work well together, through better, integrated technology.

“We believe that the future of transportation technology lies in a multimodal model: When users have access to more and more forms of transportation in a city, they’re able to get around their neighborhoods in more convenient ways, shorten their time spent waiting for a bus that’s delayed, and spend more time doing the things they love,” Torres said.

Image credit: Jim Maurer/Flickr

The island nations have it tough. Most people think of them as vacation destinations and nothing more. But countries like the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Maldives and many more are on the front lines of the battle against climate change. With sea levels on the rise, the very land they sit on could cease to be. And, as small nations with little in the way of industry, they didn't do very much to cause the problem.

These island nations have formed a voting bloc for U.N. climate change negotiations to lobby for the issues and points of view of greatest concern to these small-but-mighty nations. The group, called the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), shares common challenges including small but growing populations, limited resources, remoteness, susceptibility to natural disasters, vulnerability to external shocks, excessive dependence on international trade, and fragile environments. They also collectively understand that climate change is a huge threat.

Which is why they are lobbying hard at this week's Paris talks for strong, immediate action.

These islands are united by what surrounds them -- ocean water -- which is one of the reasons they've come together to call out the international shipping industry. The shipping industry was the recipient of the "fossil of the day" award (if you can call it that) on Wednesday due to the volume of international shipping and the lack of regulations for this industry.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations' specialized agency responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships, and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have the same emissions as Japan and Germany combined! What's more, emissions are set to increase -- IMO estimates that they'll go up 50 to 250 percent by 2050. Right now, they're responsible for 2.2 percent of total global emissions.

Yet this international industry has continued to fly under the radar (no pun intended) when it comes to emissions regulations. That's why the Marshall Islands, with SIDS at its back, is calling for regulations for the global transportation provider:

"Parties [shall][should][other] pursue limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization, respectively, with a view to agreeing concrete measures addressing these emissions, including developing procedures for incorporating emissions from international aviation and marine bunker fuels into low-emission development strategies."

While this is an entirely modest request, and the EU claims emissions can be reduced with existing technology, one fears that this sector will continue to go unregulated due to its international nature.

Supply chain emissions are a key issue for every global conglomerate, and shipping disruptions due to climate change will cost corporations billions. One would think regulation would be a no-brainer, but we've left it to the good people of the Marshall Islands to sound the alarm. Let's not let them down.

Image credit: Flickr/Andrew

While certain U.S. elected officials continue to tar renewable energy as a job-killing economic disaster, the state of Texas seems delighted to show that the opposite is true.

The state's long-term planning has included a healthy dose of wind energy, and it is also emerging as a solar leader in the U.S. Far from killing jobs, strong renewable energy policies in Texas appear to be one of the factors enabling this oil-producing state to weather the ongoing collapse of the global oil market.

A renewable energy surge, Texas style

The latest figures on Texas renewable energy come from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the agency that manages a grid supplying 24 million customers, or about 90 percent of the state's total electric load.

Earlier this week, ERCOT released its updated analysis of future renewable energy growth as Texas adapts to President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, which effectively prevents the state from relying on new coal power plants to increase its energy supply. Though state and federal policies enable natural gas as a replacement for coal, ERCOT projects that wind and solar will far outstrip natural gas over the next couple of years. Here's a summary from our friends over at FuelFix.com:

"Since May, the grid has added nearly 3,000 megawatts of power capacity — about two-thirds from new wind farms and the remainder from two new gas-fired power plants. In 2016, ERCOT anticipates adding more than 4,200 megawatts of new power capacity, including nearly 2,800 megawatts of wind power, more than 1,000 megawatts from solar farms and the rest from a new gas plant."

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) also paints a glowing picture of wind energy growth in Texas.  According to the organization's latest figures:

"Texas is a national leader in the wind energy industry. Texas ranks first in the country for both installed and under-construction wind capacity, while supporting over 17,000 wind-related jobs. The wind energy industry in Texas has provided over $26 billion in capital investment and has thrived thanks to smart state policy, such as legislation that created Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) for wind power transmission."

As a corollary to its renewable energy growth, Texas is also expanding its energy storage capacity, highlighted by a major new grid-scale solar energy storage project that is expected to provide relief for the state's notorious "electricity island."

For the record, TriplePundit is not surprised. Back in September 2012, we took note when the integrated energy company Direct Energy began marketing 100 percent wind-powered electricity for its Texas customers. Under the title, "For a Look at the Future of U.S. Energy, Go to Texas," we said:

"Texas is lagging a bit when it comes to solar power, but it is becoming a national centerpiece for algae biofuel research and its wind power industry is coming on strong."

Texas survives the petroleum roller coaster

Black Friday is over. Cyber Monday is over. Even Small Business Saturday is behind us. It’s time to take a deep breath and look at the numbers, starting with Black Friday, which wasn’t that successful this year: According to ShopperTalk, in-store sales decreased 10.4 percent over Black Friday weekend (Nov. 26-29) compared to last year.

If you’re not a fan of Black Friday this is good news, right? After all, Black Friday is probably the best reflection of an unsustainable culture of over-consumption, contributing to many of the problems we face. Therefore, weaker sales numbers on Black Friday could indicate that this unsustainable culture is losing steam, which is a step in the right direction.

But before you run to open a local, organic bottle of champagne, you need to ask yourself if there is a real reason for celebration. Have Americans really had enough of Black Friday madness? Well, it’s complicated.

While Black Friday sales were somewhat disappointing for retailers, Cyber Monday seemed to compensate for it: According to Adobe's Digital Index, total online sales on Cyber Monday rose 16 percent from last year to $3.07 billion. Overall, “sales for the five-day period starting on Thanksgiving totaled $11.11 billion, 2.4 percent more than the expected $10.85 billion and 17 percent more than last year,“ Adobe reported.

These figures apparently show a shift from shopping in brick-and-mortar stores to shopping online, especially on mobile phones, which reached a new record - $800 million in spending in the five-day period. In addition they might reflect changes not just in the way consumers shop, but also in their expectations – consumers “might be holding out for even better deals as the season progressed,” as Matthew Shay, the National Retail Federation’s president and chief executive, explains. Last not least, it could be that year-round deals cause consumers to feel that almost every day is a Black Friday, resulting in what the New York Times described as sales fatigue.

So, does it matter at all that Black Friday’s sales have gone down, if Cyber Monday’s sales have gone up and the overall retail sales this holiday season are expected to be up by about 3.5 percent compared to last year? Isn’t this, at the end of the day, nothing but business as usual?

The first answer that comes in mind is yes – this is business as usual. After all, the shopping frenzy of the holiday season hasn’t changed much, even with the demise of Black Friday. As Gerald Storch, CEO of the Hudson’s Bay Co., which owns Saks Fifth Avenue and Lord & Taylor, puts it: “Christmas always comes, and people have to shop. They will be back.” In addition, while a shift toward online shopping could actually reduce the carbon footprint of shopping, the fact that it takes off some of the friction involved in traditional shopping like the need to spend time in very crowded brick-and-mortar stores could end up in increasing consumption, and thus erode the somewhat positive impact online retailing could have on the environment.

Yet, on a second thought, Black Friday is a symbolic image of everything that is wrong about capitalism, and symbols do matter -- if Black Friday becomes weaker, maybe what it represents also becomes weaker. As sociologist Fred Polak wrote in his book “The Image of the Future”:

“The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.”

In other words, the decay of Black Friday, the ultimate image of unsustainable capitalism, could possibly lead eventually to the decline of the same type of capitalism it represents. It’s true that this reasoning may not go hand-in-hand with more factual reasons other thinkers like Paul Mason or Jeremy Rifkin give for the decline of capitalism as we know it, not to mention that the holiday season shopping orgy itself isn’t going away, but perception matters as much as the facts.

This also has to do with the principle of social proof, which describes our tendency to conform to social norms, or in other words: We tend to do what everyone else does. As Dan Ariely and Wendy De La Rosa explain: “Black Friday has become the 'social norm.' Because so many people are spending, it becomes socially acceptable for one individual to spend. It’s the classic 'everyone is doing it' excuse.”

While Ariely and De La Rosa contextualize this idea that Black Friday has become a social norm in terms of having impact on people on that day only (“That day, for many American households, might be serving as a spending cheat day. Over the years it has becomes socially acceptable to spend a substantial amount on this day," they write), I would take it one step further and suggest that Black Friday may also help excessive consumption become an acceptable social norm in general. Therefore, if Black Friday is gone and we don’t see “herds of people throwing their dignity and morals away just for that last flatscreen TV on sale and in stock," people may see over-consumption differently and won’t accept it as an appropriate behavior. After all, as Robert Cialdini wrote: “Persuasion can be extremely effective when it comes from peers.”

While I doubt if any of the leaders debating our future in Paris has been paying attention to the decline in Black Friday sales, this trend could become an effective ally for policy makers in creating a more sustainable world, or at least in helping us imagining one.

Image credit: Flickr/Clotee Allochuku

Here in the U.S., coal has fallen out of favor the past several years due to cheap and cleaner-burning natural gas, but it is still one of the most popular sources of fuel on the planet. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates it provides 30 percent of the world’s energy, only second to oil. Coal is also the base of 40 percent of the world’s electricity generation. And why wouldn’t coal be used? It is easy to source and transport, is cheap and, unlike oil, it is not beholden to geopolitical conflict. No one ever sniffed at a wad of cash and dismissed it as “coal money.”

But coal is also a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution worldwide, as photos from China, the world’s largest coal producer, have starkly reminded us in recent years. The coal industry has pointed to technologies such as “clean coal” plants and carbon capture and storage, but technology has not kept up with demand. And with global leaders currently in Paris trying to hammer out a climate deal during the COP21 talks, coal in many ways has become a fuel of the past.

To that end, a Dutch NGO, Fern, has issued a report that advocates turning away from coal -- not for the typically stated reasons, but because of the impact the loss of land, as in forests, has on the world’s climate when they are transformed into coal mines. According to Fern’s researchers, the loss of land to coal production, especially in Canada, India, Indonesia and Australia, lead to “double jeopardy.” Not only is that newly produced coal contributing to climate change and air pollution, but the loss of forests also poses an additional danger to the planet.

Fern's analysis suggests that almost 12 million hectares (about 46,000 square miles) of forest, a land mass larger than Portugal, are at risk of of being cleared to make way for coal mines. Much of that risk, insists Fern, is concentrated in a few countries:

• Over 5,000 square miles in Australia, the equivalent of 2.1 million football fields. Concerns over the impact of coal mining have led to protests and even the arrest of Australian rugby star David Pocock.


• In Canada, over 4,200 square miles of forest are threatened in British Columbia alone.


• Almost 3,300 square miles in Indonesia, or 9 percent of that country’s forest cover. The rush to mine coal, according to many sources, has led to “land grabs” and devastation for indigenous populations who have lived in central Borneo for generations.

Fern’s report goes on to cover the multiple effects that would result if all this forest were to be converted into land for coal production. In addition to the millions of tons of sequestered carbon that these forests would emit into the atmosphere, the roads, new mining camps and other developments necessary for coal mining would also create more air pollution and contribute more greenhouse gas emissions.

So, what is the solution? According to Fern, the evidence suggests that the best stewards of these forests are the people who live within and near them. With its estimate that 1.6 billion people, including 60 million indigenous people, worldwide are dependent on forests for their livelihoods, Fern suggests more local control and stronger protections of land tenure rights. And while Fern does not offer alternative sources of energy for this coal that would otherwise be kept below ground, readers of this report will be left thinking that a real solution derived in Paris, and continued investment in clean energy and technologies, are needed more than ever.

Image credit: Andrew Taylor/WDM (Flickr)