Search

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on the Erb Perspective blog, a publication of the Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute at the University of Michigan.

By Marianna Kerppola

As I entered the classroom, 26 girls between the ages of 10 and 18 chanted: “Welcome to More Than Me Academy. We are the girls of Power class, What is your name?” I answered “Marianna” and watched their charismatic teacher prompt the class to spell out my name phonetically as my heart melted.

More Than Me (MTM) Academy is a girls school in Monrovia, Liberia founded in September 2013. MTM enrolls 125 girls from a slum called West Point, a neighborhood known to have the highest rates of child prostitution in the country. MTM works towards making sure that “education and opportunity, not exploitation and poverty, define the lives of the most vulnerable girls from the West Point slum of Liberia.” Because of the 14-year civil war in Liberia, education has lagged for all children — but girls in particular. Most of the girls’ parents are illiterate, never having a chance to go to school while Charles Taylor pummeled the country. As a result, these families are stuck in a cycle of poverty, without the support of organizations, like MTM.

I traveled to More Than Me for my School of Natural Resources and Environment master’s project. My partner, a landscape architecture student, and I were tasked with redesigning the surrounding schoolyard of MTM. Tucked between the war-torn buildings in downtown Monrovia, MTM shines as a bright beacon of hope, painted in bright white, pink, yellow and green. However, the yard surrounding the schoolyard remains covered in sharp gravel, with traces of glass and metal shards. Passionate about community engagement, my partner and I decided to apply design thinking to our project to ensure that we designed for the MTM community needs, rather than our own presumptions. Still, before leaving for Liberia, we tried to scope the project to make sure we had some background information on possible solutions. Knowing the limited resources of MTM, we expected that we could offer the greatest benefit by installing solar panels, water catchment systems and a garden, so that MTM could offset its operational costs with renewable resources.

On our first day at at the academy, we interviewed Catherine, MTM operations manager, and quickly discovered that water and electricity make up less than a percent of their operational costs. Further, MTM did not plan to stay in their current building for more than five years. As a result, large investments in solar energy probably would not pay off. While food made up a larger portion of the MTM budget, there was scarcely enough land to grow food for five students, let alone all 125. With our initial assumptions so clearly negated, we learned to pivot and listen. Our next week was spent observing the community, interviewing staff and running workshops with the students.

We discovered that discipline issues escalated over the course of the day because students did not have enough space to play or to relax in between classes. We observed how the students primarily played in the front patio during recess — because it was the only area that offered shade. We were enchanted to see how the students loved the opportunity to perform and express themselves. These and many other impressions helped us realize that MTM didn’t need fancy engineering fixes, but rather an environment that helped them restore and explore.

Community development projects are often fraught with shifting goals and priorities. Yet I think these changes can be seen as positive turns for the project. Ernesto Sirolli, an expert in sustainable development, has a noteworthy TED Talk where he encourages aid workers to listen, rather than advise the people with whom they’re working. When we listen, we can offer more valuable support to communities. While this might change project priorities, we can be assured that the final outcome will be more meaningful and sustainable.

Today, Liberia is splashed across our newspaper headlines. In fact, West Point was quarantined for Ebola for 10 days last week. Yet even in the face of this deadly obstacle, MTM continues to protect its students and advocate for health services. Katie Meyler, founder of MTM, has spent the past week in West Point photo-documenting the impact of Ebola in the community. I was startled when I saw this picture of the main market in Monrovia — completely abandoned. I had seen the same market three months earlier filled with merchant stands and brightly-colored umbrellas. While Ebola has been a devastating shock, MTM has not let the situation sway them from their course to educate the girls of West Point. Instead, MTM staff, faculty, board members and donors have rallied to share ideas for how to further support and protect the girls. Thanks to their dedication and resilience, More Than Me will continue to help Liberian girls gain the self-confidence they need to speak up for themselves, and ultimately, help to transform their country.

Marianna is passionate about developing technology to enable businesses and consumers to make informed decisions about social and environmental issues transparently. She developed this passion through her undergraduate coursework at University of Chicago, where she saw that all too often poor social and environmental decisions were made due to inadequate information on the issue at hand. Prior to joining Erb, Marianna worked for Google, where she advised large advertisers on their digital marketing strategies. She also worked for Nationwide Insurance in corporate finance, investments, strategy and risk management. In her free time, Marianna writes fightingcancerwithsisu. blogspot.com, a blog about her mother’s fight against adrenal cancer. 

The quest to hold corporations liable for alleged human rights abuses committed abroad was dealt another blow late last month when a New York District Court judge tossed the last of the apartheid-related cases pending against two American corporations, Ford and IBM.

In a begrudging bow to current precedent, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, of the Southern District of New York, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint because they would be unable to meet the stringent demands of a test announced by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in the year.  More importantly, if the law of the Second Circuit becomes the law of the land, U.S. corporations could be effectively immune from civil liability for violations of international law that are perpetrated exclusively by foreign subsidiaries on foreign soil.

The Alien Tort Statute and a refresher on the Supreme Court’s Kiobel decision

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) grants jurisdiction to U.S. District Courts “of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nation or of a treaty of the United States.”  As I described in an earlier piece for TriplePundit, the question of the ATS’ application to corporations is muddy.  In the seminal 2013 case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Kiobel), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by Nigerian citizens who alleged that Shell and other oil companies aided in the Nigerian government’s violent suppression of resistance to drilling operations in Nigeria.  In affirming the holding of the Second Circuit, the majority held that, because all of the alleged human rights abuses occurred abroad, the plaintiffs could not overcome the presumption against the application of U.S. law to conduct occurring outside of the U.S. (aka “extraterritorial” application).

"Touch and concern"

In Kiobel’s most important passage, the Court added that:

 [E]ven where [plaintiffs’] claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application. Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices.  (my emphasis)

The Supreme Court did not define the all-important phrases, “touch and concern” or “sufficient force,” leading lower courts and pundits to fight about whether or not the opinion completely closed the door to lawsuits against corporations that allegedly violated international law in a country other than the U.S.  Further confusing the matter is that the Second Circuit, in its decision in the Kiobel case, held that the ATS “simply does not confer jurisdiction over suits against corporations,” and though the Supreme Court did not appear to go this far, it did affirm the Second Circuit’s holding.

Thus, after Kiobel, whether and/or how a corporation could be held liable under the ATS remains an open question.

Perhaps anticipating the fallout from the opacity of the majority’s opinion, two concurring opinions were issued from the Court -- one by a liberal, Justice Stephen Breyer, and another by a conservative, Justice Samuel Alito -- both of whom attempted to clarify the ambiguous “touch and concern” test articulated by the majority.  (More on this below.)

Background on the apartheid cases

The aforementioned In re South African Apartheid Litigation began in 2002, when numerous complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York against dozens of international corporations.  According to the plaintiffs, these corporate defendants allegedly violated the ATS by providing material and logistical support to South Africa’s former apartheid regime.

Over time, the District Court dismissed all of the corporate defendants except Ford and IBM, against which Judge Scheindlin allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaints to provide evidence that the companies’ activities “touched and concerned” the territory of the U.S, pursuant to the Kiobel decision.

In their revised pleadings, plaintiffs claimed that IBM’s South African subsidiary, at the direction of IBM headquarters in New York, intentionally developed computer technology to “purposefully facilitate and enable” the apartheid government’s repression of black South Africans.  With respect to Ford, plaintiffs alleged that the company supplied specialized vehicles to South African security forces -- including vehicles not otherwise available to the general public.

In both instances, plaintiffs alleged that the companies’ corporate headquarters in the U.S. actively pursued business relationships with South Africa’s apartheid government, in circumvention of the existing U.S. embargo and sanctions regime and clear international law prohibitions.

Justice Alito and the future of corporate liability

Following Justice Alito

Last year, the Second Circuit adopted the “touch and concern” test formulated by Justice Alito in his concurring opinion in Kiobel (the Alito Test), mentioned above.  Unfortunately for the apartheid plaintiffs, when it came time for Judge Scheindlin to rule on the claims against Ford and IBM, she was bound to abide by Second Circuit precedent and apply the Alito Test.

This was unfortunate for the plaintiffs because the Alito Test is virtually impossible to meet.  In short, the test states that a defendant's behavior can only be said to “touch and concern” the U.S. with “sufficient force” to overcome the presumption against the extraterritorial application of the ATS if a plaintiff can show that the defendant engaged in conduct (i) in the U.S. that (ii) itself constituted a violation of international law.  In other words, Alito is saying that what U.S. corporations do abroad is irrelevant unless they are in violation of international law here at home.

The Alito Test protects corporations with foreign subsidiaries

Applying the Alito Test, the Second Circuit had previously stated that defendants’ control over their foreign subsidiaries would, in and of itself, never be sufficient to invoke the ATS.  Judge Scheindlin, in her final opinion in the apartheid case, explained why this is true.  While a parent is typically liable for the bad acts of its subsidiaries, under Kiobel, violations of international law that occur exclusively on foreign soil are simply not actionable claims.  Therefore, because vicarious liability requires that the underlying conduct of a subsidiary be actionable, in Alito’s world, the parent could never be held liable for a subsidiary’s conduct occurring entirely abroad.

It seems, then, that all an American corporation has to do to protect itself from ATS exposure is ensure that, to the extent it engages in violations of international law in another country, it does so through a foreign subsidiary.  Under the Alito Test, such conduct could never reach an American court.

As for Judge Scheindlin, her hands were tied.  “That these plaintiffs are left without relief in an American court is regrettable,” she wrote.  “But I am bound to follow [precedent], no matter what my personal view of the law may be.”

Image credit: Flickr/chrisdag

Power systems company Rolls-Royce has entered into a three-year partnership with UK education charity Teach First, to help provide inspirational science teaching to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Teach First trains and supports people with leadership potential to become inspirational teachers in schools in low-income communities across the UK. The partnership with Rolls-Royce will enable Teach First to recruit and train an additional 75 science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) teachers.

Colin Smith, Rolls-Royce, director of engineering and technology, said: "Advanced manufacturing companies like Rolls-Royce offer fantastic career opportunities to people who excel in STEM subjects and it is important that these opportunities are open to children from a diverse range of backgrounds. Teach First is making significant progress in increasing the uptake of STEM subjects among young people and we are delighted to help support the great work that they do."

Brett Wigdortz, ceo of Teach First, added: "The UK economy needs 40,000 extra STEM graduates each year to fill the 104,000 graduate-level STEM jobs the economy requires. But too few students are taking up these subjects and the problem is even worse for pupils in low-income communities.

"Talented and passionate teachers are vital to solving this educational and economic challenge and we are delighted that through the support from Rolls-Royce we will be able to reach and inspire another 11,250 pupils."
 

Retailers such as Carrefour, Costco, IKEA, Tesco and Walmart should aim for more comprehensive carbon disclosures and collaborate to define meaningful GHG emissions reduction strategies for the industry, says a new report from independent analyst firm Verdantix.

The analysis finds that while retailers are addressing carbon disclosures relating to fuel use and electricity, disclosure relating to emissions data on product use, procurement, logistics and waste disposal is ‘patchy’.

The detailed analysis of GHG emissions by the firm covers grocery retailers Aeon, Carrefour, Costco, John Lewis, Metro Group, Tesco, Walmart and Whole Foods; home improvement stores IKEA and The Home Depot; drugstore chain CVS Caremark; and apparel firms H&M, LVMH and TJX Companies.

The Verdantix report, Carbon Strategy Benchmark: Retail Sector, finds that the retail sector is struggling to define and achieve carbon reduction targets.

Only four retailers in the study have valid targets for absolute carbon reduction. Tesco aims to become carbon neutral by 2050. John Lewis Partnership is aiming for a 15% reduction, relative to 2010. Carrefour aims for a 40% reduction in 2020 compared to 2009 levels. The Home Depot aims to cut its scope 3 upstream transport and distribution emissions 20% in absolute terms by 2015 versus 2009. 

The variations in start dates, end dates and coverage of emissions sources makes “comparison meaningless for investors and stakeholders”, Verdantix maintains.

“The retail brands in this benchmark have invested in carbon disclosures but the sector has not yet grasped the nettle of carbon reductions,” commented Ross MacWhinney, Verdantix senior analyst and GHG accounting expert.

 

Picture credit: © Eugenesergeev | Dreamstime.com - Supermarket Shopping Carts Photo
 

Join Triple Pundit and a panel of experts for 3p Traceability Week to discuss traceability in four controversial arenas — seafood, fashion, minerals and medical marijuana.  Ask your questions in the comments section, and follow along here. The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

Fact: More than one-third of the seafood sold in North America is mislabeled, by either type of fish, catch method or provenance. And upwards of 24 million tons of seafood is caught and sold illegally every year.

Traceability is a hot-button issue in all supply chains, but when it comes to the food we eat, these figures become even more unsettling. As Cheryl Dahle, founder of Future of Fish and CEO of Flip Labs, noted in a recent op/ed on Triple Pundit: "Beyond what that deception may mean for your health, it is also a window to other more systemic challenges, including pirate fishing, human trafficking, and widespread fraud and corruption."

She went on to explain that these problems can't be addressed by a few consumers making the choice to "eat local." "We need to rebuild the systems and behaviors of the global interconnected brokers, corporations and governments that touch your food before it hits your plate," she wrote.

To accomplish this, stakeholders in the seafood industry have come together to compile verified data on where and how a fish is caught. Regulators already require any seafood caught or sold in the U.S. to provide documentation of where, when and how it was caught. But, as 3p correspondent Lauren Zanolli pointed out, that information is still often filed on paper forms, and there is no way of knowing if it will follow the right piece of seafood through the supply chain. So, naturally, some questions remain about how to improve traceability in seafood supply chains.

As part of 3p Traceability Week, Cheryl Dahle of  Flip Labs will be on-hand all week to answer your questions about seafood traceability. Respond with your questions in the comments section below!

To get the conversation started, we have a few questions of our own:

1. What are the biggest barriers you face in creating end-to-end traceability in the seafood industry?


2. How has technology changed the game in terms of monitoring inventory? What technology do you think is most promising for offering an end-to-end solution?


3. Imagining that every business at every step of the seafood supply chain has technology in place to monitor their stock in and out; what else is needed to achieve whole-chain traceability?


4. What strategies or initiatives have been useful in making progress towards better traceability in the seafood industry? Are there any examples or initiatives you can point to that have had some success?

Check the comments section below for Cheryl's answers to our questions, and don't forget to ask your own! The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

Image credit: Flickr/good_day

Join Triple Pundit and a panel of experts for 3p Traceability Week to discuss traceability in four controversial arenas — seafood, fashion, minerals and medical marijuana.  Ask your questions in the comments section, and follow along here. The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

Sustainability is inching ever-closer to the mainstream, but it isn't the only green revolution sweeping the nation. I'm referring, of course, to marijuana legalization. The "Reefer Madness" days are long gone: Medical marijuana sales are now permitted in 23 states and Washington, D.C., and two states (Washington and Colorado) have outright legalized marijuana for adults 21 and over.

The industry has proven to be a big money-maker -- Colorado raked in about $12.6 million the first three months after marijuana was legalized -- but some growing pains remain. Washington and Colorado, where recreational pot is legal, have seen a wave of 'marijuana tourism.' As flocks of tourists seek out a taste of legalized marijuana, some inexperienced smokers may catch a sour buzz -- as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd experienced firsthand when she took one too many bites of a pot edible while visiting Denver. As Dowd found out, some edibles do not include dosage instructions; the candy bar she ate, for example, was intended to be divided into 16 pieces for novices, but that recommendation was not included on the label.

When it comes to medical marijuana, these concerns can become even more pronounced. Things like dosage instructions, predictable levels of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and verification that the marijuana contains no additives are necessary if the product is to be dispensed for therapeutic purposes. For both medical and recreational use, it is also pertinent for legal processors, infused product manufacturers and retailers to verify that the marijuana they sell was sourced from legal grow operations. All of these concerns make traceability a big issue for this fledgling industry.

As part of 3p Traceability Week, the MJ Freeway team will be on-hand all week to answer your questions about medical marijuana traceability. Based in Denver, Colorado, where both medical and recreational marijuana sales are legal, MJ Freeway provides software solutions that help producers, processors, infused product manufacturers and retailers track the product throughout the supply chain -- from field to cash register. Respond with your questions in the comments section below!

To get the conversation started, we have a few questions of our own:

1. What are the biggest barriers you face in creating end-to-end traceability in the medical marijuana industry?


2. How has technology changed the game in terms of monitoring inventory? What technology do you think is most promising for offering an end-to-end solution?


3. Imagining that every business at every step of the medical marijuana supply chain has technology in place to monitor their stock in and out; what else is needed to achieve whole-chain traceability?


4. What strategies or initiatives have been useful in making progress towards better traceability in the medical marijuana industry? Are there any examples or initiatives you can point to that have had some success?

Check the comments section below for the MJ Freeway team’s answers to our questions, and don’t forget to ask your own! The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

Image credit: Flickr/trawin

Join Triple Pundit and a panel of experts for 3p Traceability Week to discuss traceability in four controversial arenas — seafood, fashion, minerals and medical marijuana.  Ask your questions in the comments section, and follow along here. The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

The fashion industry has one of the most controversial supply chains out there: Finding a garment that's made from sustainable materials by workers who were paid fair wages can seem next to impossible for concerned consumers.

Since clothing manufacturing is typically contracted out to third-party factory operators, it was once possible for big brands to claim ignorance and hide behind their convoluted supply chains -- but those days are long gone. Ever since the tragic Rana Plaza factory collapse claimed the lives of 1,129 garment workers in 2013, the spotlight has increasingly centered on sustainability within the fashion supply chain -- and a growing number of consumers are asking where their clothes came from.

Behind relatively simple questions -- such as what a garment is made from, who made it and where -- lie even more complicated queries: Is end-to-end traceability even possible? Will brands jump on board? What is already being done to pull back the veil on the fashion supply chain?

As part of 3p Traceability Week, Matthew Reynolds and Scott Leonard, co-founders of the fair trade fashion label Indigenous, will be on-hand all week to answer your questions about fashion traceability. Respond with your questions in the comments section below!

To get the conversation started, we have a few questions of our own:

1. What are the biggest barriers you face in creating end-to-end traceability in the fashion industry?


2. How has technology changed the game in terms of monitoring inventory across the supply chain? What technology do you think is most promising for offering an end-to-end solution?


3. Imagining that every business at every step of the fashion supply chain has technology in place to monitor their stock in and out; what else is needed to achieve whole-chain traceability?


4. What strategies or initiatives have been useful in making progress towards better traceability in the fashion industry? Are there any examples or initiatives you can point to that have had some success?

Check the comments section below for Matthew and Scott's answers to our questions, and don't forget to ask your own! The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

Image credit: Flickr/joebrent

Join Triple Pundit and a panel of experts for 3p Traceability Week to discuss traceability in four controversial arenas — seafood, fashion, minerals and medical marijuana.  Ask your questions in the comments section, and follow along here. The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

On August 22, 2012, the SEC issued a final rule on conflict minerals in accordance with Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The rule requires companies to disclose annually whether any conflict minerals -- tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold that originated in the Democratic Republic of Congo or an adjoining country -- are necessary to the functionality or production of a product. If these minerals are deemed necessary, as defined by the provision, companies must provide a report describing "the measures taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of those minerals." Each report must include an independent private-sector audit.

Outside of the jewelry you'd expect, these minerals are used in a wide array of products, including the beloved technology many Americans now consider to be essential to their way of life. In fact, some estimates suggest that at least half of all SEC issuers will be impacted by the regulation.

June 2 was the first filing deadline for registrants to comply with the SEC's conflict minerals rule -- which sent the Web into a flurry about how companies were handling the requirement. While disclosing the presence of conflict minerals may sound simple, most companies had to complete rigorous supply chain investigations in order to discern where minerals came from in the first place. This challenge begs the question: If companies don't know where minerals come from, how are consumers supposed to make informed decisions about the products they buy? And, perhaps even more importantly, how can we hope to eliminate conflict minerals -- and other minerals mined in socially or environmentally irresponsible ways -- from store shelves?

As part of 3p Traceability Week, Tristan Mecham, director of product development for Source Intelligence, will be on-hand all week to answer your questions about minerals traceability. Respond with your questions in the comments section below!

To get the conversation started, we have a few questions of our own:

1. What are the biggest barriers you face in creating end-to-end traceability in the minerals industry?


2. How has technology changed the game in terms of monitoring inventory? What technology do you think is most promising for offering an end-to-end solution?


3. Imagining that every business at every step of the minerals supply chain has technology in place to monitor their stock in and out; what else is needed to achieve whole-chain traceability?


4. What strategies or initiatives have been useful in making progress towards better traceability in the minerals industry? Are there any examples or initiatives you can point to that have had some success?

Check the comments section below for Tristan's answers to our questions, and don't forget to ask your own! The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

Image credit: Source Intelligence

Companies including Google, UPS, Ford Motor Co., Microsoft and eBay have long positioned themselves as leaders in the fight against climate change — their work, in fact, has been regularly featured here in Triple Pundit by many of our writers, including me. But Forecast the Facts, a project of the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, has issued a scathing report on what it describes as their funding of “climate change deniers.”

And it is the aforementioned companies for which Forecast the Facts has the harshest words. This report “raises questions about Google’s own honesty”; calls out Bill Ford for his company’s donations to climate deniers who “thwart, even mock, sustainability”; equates US$1 million in Microsoft donations to funding Big Tobacco scientists; and in turn is dismissive of eBay’s and UPS’ efforts related to sustainability based on some of the donations these companies have given out the past few years.

But is it fair to paint these companies as hypocritical based on some of their political donations?

True, political donations to the likes of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, as well as to Reps. Darrell Issa and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, would make anyone with environmental street-cred cringe. But these donations, no matter how opposed one may be to the policies of these politicians and their kin in Congress, need to be taken in context. Just as it is unfair to taint a retail chain’s half-century of community work because of a clod of a CEO, we may want to step back and look at these companies’ policies in their entirety before we sharpen the knives.

For decades the modus operandi in Washington was that business interests donated to Republicans while organized labor wrote checks to the Democrats — and Republicans had long outpaced the Democrats in fundraising. But over two decades ago there was a shift in the flow of political donations, and it accelerated under President Bill Clinton during the 1990s. Wall Street donated generously to Clinton, which was one reason he was able to beat Bob Dole during his 1996 re-election campaign; only a last-minute scandal over renting the Lincoln Bedroom to sketchy donors prevented Bill Clinton from winning in a total landslide. Since then, it has become a common practice for business interests group to donate to both political parties. After all, you want to make sure you have friends on Capitol Hill after each election. Ethical? Probably not. Pragmatic? Definitely.

A closer look at to whom these companies donated will shed more light. Of course Ford is going to donate to Michigan politicians, irrespective of party. Google had an interest in a data center in Oklahoma. Issa’s district covers parts of both San Diego and Orange counties, home to Google offices. UPS will make sure its operations in Georgia are looked out for. And clearly any politician in Washington state will align with Google — with the help of a check, the sad reality in American politics.

The moral high ground dictates that companies truly committed to fighting climate change would avoid climate deniers entirely. But we are not talking about morals — we are talking about politics, and the Supreme Court has cleared the way for companies to donate money to the organizations they wish, completely unimpeded. For a company to withhold funds from a senator or representative because of his or her stance on an issue, from a business perspective, would be foolish. And remember, climate change is only one of many items on a firm’s agenda — immigration, environmental protection, energy policy and trade agreements, and a bevy of other issues, create a situation where one hand will write a check . . . while the other holds its nose in disdain.

Reports such as this #DisruptDenial tirade make for great conversation, a strong social media campaign and in the end, can fire up the base to send in those coveted donations. What would really be valuable, and in the end would drive the discussion in a more helpful way, is a report on how the likes of Google and Ford make an overall difference on climate change. Is there a way to quantify the benefits these firms have done thanks to investments in renewables, greening their supply chains, improving their efficiencies — and subtracting the alleged negative effects of donating to the likes of an Inhofe or a Ted Cruz. Then we can truly see who is walking the walk (while tripping on a few cracks in the pavement) and who is merely talking the talk.

Image credit: Wikipedia (Dave Parker)

Leon Kaye has lived in Abu Dhabi for the past year and is currently spending some time in Uruguay. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.