Search

Imagine saving money on your electric bill and locking in today's price for your future bills with no money down. Solar leases have helped fuel the residential solar market boom, with installations increasing by 60 percent from 2012 to 2013.  Now that some homeowners with solar leases are putting their homes on the market, the deal doesn't seem as sweet. Solar leases may scare off potential homebuyers, particularly if they don't understand them.

Some homebuyers are shying away from buying homes with solar leases, seeing them as liabilities instead of assets. The lease does require the homeowner to purchase solar electricity from the lessor, typically at a slightly lower rate than what's provided by the utility. Homeowners typically save money from day one -- while locking in the power purchase rate for years to come. SolarCity locks the electric rates for 20 years, thus serving as a hedge against rising energy costs.

Considering that home equity lines of credit have become more difficult to obtain and many homeowners can't pay the upfront cost of a solar system, a solar lease is an appealing option to utilize solar energy, reduce electric bills and mitigate the impact of rising electricity costs.

“They’re essentially moving into a home with a lower cost of ownership, a lower cost of energy, so a solar lease shouldn't make it harder to sell a house," said Jonathan Bass, a spokesman for SolarCity. “It becomes a selling point instead of a point of misunderstanding.”

Why are homebuyers shying away from leasing homes with solar systems?

Lack of understanding may deter buyers

In many cases where homes with leased solar systems are harder to sell, it is likely fear and lack of information that deters buyers. Certainly, saving old electric bills and contracts to prove how much energy the seller saves is prudent, as is hiring a realtor that understands solar leases.

Credit standards limit transfer of solar leases

The solar leasee usually requires the homebuyer (who will assume responsibility for the lease) to meet certain credit standards. In most cases, if someone qualifies for a mortgage, they will also meet the solar lease standards. In some cases, this can limit the pool of potential buyers, or require the seller to pay off the lease before selling the home. In such instances, the solar lease is truly a liability.

Foregoing tax credit and solar rebates

For home shoppers that wish to own a solar system outright, a solar lease is not usually a good deal. Although solar leases may shave a chunk off of monthly electric bills and be a good deal for homeowners that cannot afford the upfront cost of a solar system or cannot obtain financing for a reasonable rate -- leasing a system instead of buying a system does have its drawbacks.

A leasee does not receive the 30 percent federal tax credit or any local incentives that may exist. A $20,000 solar system for example (that is not leased) qualifies for a $6,000 federal tax credit. This reduces the value of taxes owed by $6,000 and is of greater value than a write-off. In addition, some states also offer rebates and other incentives for the purchase -- but not the lease of a solar system.

During a seller's market, the downsides of having a leased solar system may not be as pronounced. In a slow market, misunderstanding, credit standards, and foregoing incentives may scare off potential buyers. Unfortunately, sometimes going solar can have its drawbacks.

Image credit: Solar Service Inc. of Niles, IL

Sarah Lozanova is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Green Building & Design, Triple Pundit, Urban Farm, and Solar Today. Her experience includes work with small-scale solar energy installations and utility-scale wind farms. She earned an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio Graduate School and she resides in Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage in Midcoast Maine with her husband and two children.

Thanks in large part to aquaculture, global shrimp production has increased by an average 13 percent per year since the 1980s. Prices have dropped nearly 30 percent. That's turned shrimp from a luxury food item into one of the most popular and affordable seafood products in the world -- and made shrimp aquaculture a lucrative and important industry in Asia and other developing regions.

While the benefits of lower prices and greater availability are clear for consumers to see, the social and environmental costs associated with shrimp aquaculture and fishing are often not. As a report from CSR Asia highlights, shrimp production as it's being practiced today is associated with environmental degradation, excessive use of antibiotics and chemicals, and land grabs -- not to mention scandals revolving around slavery and human trafficking.

In “Opportunities for Inclusive Business: A Case Study of the Shrimp Value Chain,” CSR Asia brings to light 10 key challenges facing the shrimp industry in three of the world's leading shrimp producing nations, then goes on to identify “possible entry points and interventions for inclusive business opportunities.”

Shrimp fisheries and sustainability

Shrimp is the world's most valuable seafood product, accounting for about 15 percent of the total value global fisheries products in 2010. Of the world total, 45 percent were wild-caught shrimp, which provided livelihoods for an estimated 900,000 fishers worldwide, CSR notes in its report.

The majority of shrimp are raised on small-scale, open-air farms, mostly in developing countries, where the costs of land and labor are relatively low. Falling shrimp prices have been raising the pressure on shrimp farmers, leading them to decrease already-low wages for the predominantly poor residents and migrants who work for them.

In its report, CSR Asia zooms in on the shrimp fishers, farmers, processors and processes in three leading shrimp-producing nations: Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, the world's second, third and fourth largest shrimp producing nations after China, the world's largest.

There are some important differences among these leading shrimp-producing nations, however. China's shrimp production is mostly consumed domestically. Most of the shrimp produced in Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, in contrast, is exported to major markets in the U.S., Japan and the European Union (EU). Thailand is the world's largest shrimp exporter.

10 critical challenges

Greater awareness of economic, social and environmental problems along the shrimp value chain has led to increased scrutiny by international NGOs and other public interest groups, which are exerting pressure on governments and multinational businesses to take actions that could resolve them.

The fact that the shrimp is industry is made up of many small enterprises with low revenues makes this all the more challenging, CSR Asia points out, but the seriousness of the problems merit prompt, concerted action.

“Whilst the complexity and limited transparency of the shrimp value chain may make it difficult for companies to take action, it is clear that ‘business as usual’ is neither sustainable nor consistent with increasing the incomes of poor people involved in shrimp fishing, farming and processing.”

CSR Asia identifies the following as the 10 critical challenges facing shrimp industry participants:

1. Overfishing


2. Fishing practices


3. Mangrove destruction


4. Pollution


5. Ecosystem disruption from introduction of non-native species


6. Disease


7. Consumer health and food safety


8. Human rights


9. Child labor


10. Land grabs

In turn, these ills bring along a host of associated business risks, CSR Asia notes. These include risks to reputation and the sustainability of supply and food security, the risk of embargoes and tariffs, volatility in prices and quality, the risk of worker protests, and the risks associated with ineffective implementation of industry standards.

Possible entry points for inclusive business

In its report, CSR Asia urges the entire spectrum of stakeholders to actively seek out “opportunities to develop much more inclusive value chains that can better involve the poor and increase benefits accruing to them.” As the report authors state:

“Businesses, consumers, NGOs,development organizations and local governments can work together to find solutions to problems through examination of new opportunities for inclusive business.”

CSR Asia defines inclusive business as “a sustainable business model that includes the poor in commercial value chains as producers, suppliers, distributors, employees, business owners and customers in ways that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously improving economic, environmental and social conditions in the communities in which it operates.”

An inclusive business strategy for the shrimp, or any, industry, CSR continues, requires “a package of interventions, including access to finance and capacity building for small fishers, farmers and processors.”

Leading companies along the shrimp industry value chain, CSR Asia asserts, “can help to increase the incomes of small producers and workers at the same time as modernizing the industry, ensuring improved labor practices, integrating sustainability factors and improving the traceability of products.”

So can other key stakeholders, including government, community leaders and NGOs. CSR Asia identifies 10 possible entry points that stakeholders can leverage in executing an inclusive business strategy.

*Image credits: CSR Asia

Has the sharing economy concept gone to far?

This week San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued a cease-and-desist demand to the mobile-to-mobile bidding app that’s been gaining a popular footing in the parking-poor Bay Area, MonkeyParking. The service, which is currently used on iOS devices, allows drivers to auction off their public parking places. As of this week, it was still available on the Apple Store, with the tagline that the app “lets you make money every time that you are about to leave your on-street parking spot.”

And that, says the city, doesn’t fly.

Herrera has apparently sent a letter to one of the CEOs of the Rome, Italy-based startup, Paolo Dobrowolny, to let him know that there is “a key provision of San Francisco's Police Code that specifically prohibits individuals and companies from buying, selling or leasing public on-street parking.” And, the letter says: “Police Code section 63(c) further provides that scofflaws – including drivers who 'enter into a lease, rental agreement or contract of any kind' for public parking spots – face administrative penalties of up to $300 for each violation. Because MonkeyParking’s business model is wholly premised on illegal transactions, the letter contends that the company would be subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation under California's tough Unfair Competition Law were the city to sue from buying, selling or leasing public on-street parking.”

Oops.

Reading city bylaws is always a good thing to do before launching a locally-based startup (this appears to have been one of the worst cities to choose for a hang-loose premise like auctioning public property use). But it also looks like the enthusiasm for sharing-economy startups may be wearing just a bit thin in SF. Only last year, the city launched a suit against another three-member partnership, FlightCar for its airport drop-off-and-share concept. It seems the service overlooked the sizable revenue that the city gets from traditional car rental companies that operate at the airport.

FlightCar's growing popularity has highlighted consumers' frustrations with airport parking costs, but it also dug into the revenue that the city uses to cover airport operating costs. San Francisco's suit against the startup, which launched last year, is still ongoing and, not surprisingly, could ultimately have an impact on the rights and responsibilities of similar car-sharing programs in San Francisco.

Still, can you really blame three up-and-coming entrepreneurs for trying to solve city parking woes? The city has been struggling with parking issues for more than 40 years (I speak as a former Bay Area native) and get-ahead tactics like an online auction platform seem like a natural, if not extreme, outgrowth of the problem.

But what MonkeyParking and the city’s struggle really highlights – unfortunately – is where the sharing economy seems to be going. Remember the days when people shared because they could help, or because they valued the exchange it fostered? In this case, I think it's a fair bet that few, if any, of the drivers who swap parking places via MonkeyParking ever exchange glances, a smile or a casual word. Sharing, in this case, is a major misnomer.

The question at hand may not be how the city addresses a sharing economy startup that it feels encroaches on public-run property or city bylaws, but what it is going to do to replace the incentive by residents and ticked-off tourists who hate searching for parking places.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the city were to sit down with six (or more) new entrepreneurs from FlightCar, MonkeyParking, Lyft, Uber and other sharing-economy initiatives and pick their brains for alternative, city-friendly ways to solve parking, traffic and consumer woes. (And yes, I'd love to be a fly on the wall with that one.)

As the city no doubt noticed last year, NerdWallet's 2013 list of the 10 best cities for entrepreneurs --which looked at things like funding availability, cost of living and networking/collaboration options -- was missing a key mention: San Francisco. That should be a wake-up call to a city that has made its reputation from innovative approaches. It just might find that smart, edgy professionals that have the moxie and the brains to find out-of-the-box solutions for city growth problems (especially those that aren't the city's favorite concepts) might have something unexpected to offer. The outcome, however awkward that first brainstorm might be, just might offer the next evolution to the sharing economy.

Image of parking meter: Jason Tester Guerrilla Futures

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a wide-ranging Public/Natural Resources trailer bill into law this past weekend. Among a host of significant new measures and amendments, Senate Bill 861 (SB 861) adds impetus to the California state government's pioneering energy storage initiatives, which extend down from utility-scale energy storage mandates to incentives for small- and medium-sized companies to deploy intelligent solutions.

More specifically, enactment of SB 861 maintains annual funding of $83 million of California's Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), allocating a total $415 million in state funds to assure its operation through 2019. Run by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), SGIP provides “rebates for qualifying distributed energy systems installed on the customer-side of the utility meter.”

In addition to wind turbines, waste heat-to-power systems, pressure reduction turbines, internal combustion engines, micro turbines and fuel cells, qualifying SGIP technologies also include advanced energy storage systems, which are poised to play a significant role in the emergence of a clean energy ecosystem in California.

Building a distributed, clean energy ecosystem

Fostering adoption of intelligent energy storage solutions among small- to medium-sized commercial, industrial and residential utility customers, SGIP now plays a key role in realizing the goals set out in California's Assembly Bill 2514 (AB 2514), “landmark legislation that will create a smarter, cleaner electric grid, increase the use of renewable energy, save Californians money by avoiding costly new power plants, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollutants through the use of energy storage technologies by utility companies.”

Whereas AB 2514 focuses on the energy storage at utility scale, SGIP is focused on fostering adoption of distributed energy systems, including intelligent energy storage solutions, “behind the meter” among utility customers. As explained in Section 156 of SB 861:

“It is the intent of the Legislature that the self-generation incentive program increase deployment of distributed generation and energy storage systems to facilitate the integration of those resources into the electrical grid, improve efficiency and reliability of the distribution and transmission system, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, peak demand, and ratepayer costs. It is the further intent of the Legislature that the commission, in future proceedings, provide for an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of the program.”

Energy storage, demand response, load shifting and frequency regulation

SGIP received more rebate requests for energy storage systems ($53 million or 34 percent of the total) than any other eligible distributed energy technology over the course of 2012, according to CPUC's latest, publicly released SGIP Budget Review. SGIP requests for combined heat-and-power (CHP) fuel cells followed a close second with $52 million (33 percent of total SGIP requests).

While the majority of SGIP energy storage applications were submitted by “just a handful of developers,” the variety of applications ranged from peak load shifting and demand reduction to back-up power generation and electric vehicle (EV) charging.

The average storage size of SGIP advanced energy storage rebate requests ranged between 5 to 25 kilowatts (kW), which, SGIP notes, “is relatively small compared to the average size of other participating SGIP technologies.” As a result, SGIP energy storage requests accounted for just 27 percent of overall funding from 2011 through 2012 but over 80 percent of SGIP application volume.

The California Energy Storage Alliance

Janice Lin, chair of Energy Storage North America (ESNA) and co-founder of the Global Energy Storage Alliance (GESA) and California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), has played a central, pivotal role in California's groundbreaking energy storage initiatives.

Solar energy captured Lin's attention back in the mid-1990s, when she left management consultants Booz, Allen to join Power Light, which evolved and is now known as SunPower Corp., a leading U.S. provider of high-efficiency silicon solar photovoltaic (PV) products and solutions.

Lin's involvement in helping promote and foster development of advanced energy storage systems started gaining momentum post-2005, following her co-founding Stratagen Consulting LLC, a strategic clean energy consulting company.

At that early stage, Lin told 3p in an interview, “there really was no organized advocacy work related to advanced energy storage being done anywhere in the world.” Today, they are cropping up around the world, including in China, Germany, Japan and Ontario, as well as elsewhere in the U.S., in states such as Hawaii and New York, Lin noted with some sense of pride.

Teaming up with Douglass & Liddell principal Don Liddell, Lin in 2009 co-founded CESA. Since then, she and CESA have been working to organize support and help craft California's pioneering advanced energy storage initiatives, including expanding the SGIP to include energy storage systems as qualifying technologies.

California's Self-Generation Incentive Program

Some six years and three bills later, “Storage is now solidly in the [SGIP] program and is absolutely strategic, not only behind the meter, but as the primary vehicle via which investor-owned utilities (IOUs) meet their customer-sited procurement targets for energy storage in California,” Lin explained.

Encouraging investment in advanced energy storage deployment and projects is “really the only way to sort out how to incorporate storage on the grid,” she continued. “You learn by doing. To a utility, storage devices can look like load or they can look like supply.”

Streamlining and how best to carry out the interconnection process and local permitting are among the issues CESA and Stratagen Consulting are focused on at present. “We're helping build the 'ecosystem,'” Lin said.

California AB 2514 set an overall energy storage procurement target of 1.3 gigawatts (GW) by 2020. This will be broken out across three tranches: one for distributed interconnection; a second for transmission interconnected; and a third, totaling 200 megawatts (MW), for customer-sited deployments in which SGIP plays a key role as a provider of incentives.

“We're moving up the energy storage learning curve through SGIP,” Lin elaborated. “Energy storage systems are flexible assets; they can look like load or generation. Many of the behind-the-meter systems today are being used to reduce customers' peak demand and peak demand charges. They're also being used to support the grid, participating in CAISO's (California Independent System Operator) frequency regulation market.

“This [the SGIP] program serves a very important role in encouraging technological innovation for behind-the-meter systems in terms of both generation and storage. All these distributed storage technologies are a tremendous resource for the grid; they can provide services back to the grid.”

Through CESA, Lin and Stratagen Consulting are now looking to fine-tune the energy storage aspects of SGIP. “One of the things we have realized in implementing SGIP projects is that, though small, these behind-the-meter energy storage systems are acting like a wholesale asset.”

The problem is that commercial, industrial and municipal organizations making use of energy storage systems to help balance grid supply and demand, and earn extra revenue in the process, are often buying electricity at retail rates and then selling into CISO's frequency regulation market at wholesale rates.

CESA is looking to level the playing field by enabling those using advanced energy storage systems in the frequency regulation market to be charged and sell at wholesale rates.

Image credits: 1) PNM Prosperity Energy Storage Project; 2) OSI; 3) DOE Global Energy Storage Database; 4) California SGIP Budget Report 2013

Prudential Financial, Inc. is to build a $1bn impact investment portfolio by 2020 in its continuing effort to direct investments to companies, projects and funds that create positive social change and help individuals and communities achieve economic success.

Prudential made the announcement at the White House during a meeting of the US Advisory Board of the G7’s Social Impact Investing Taskforce, which presented its recommendations on how policymakers can spur more impact investments.

“Impact investing enables us, as a company, to make a deeper and more sustainable commitment in a way that has enduring impact,” said Lata Reddy, vice president of Corporate Social Responsibility at Prudential. “These investments are part of our broader strategy to eliminate the barriers that prevent individuals and communities from achieving financial and social mobility.”

Impact investing is the deployment of capital with the intention to generate a positive, measurable social or environmental impact in addition to a financial return.

“With this commitment, we are building on Prudential’s long history of using our resources to generate more than just a financial return,” said Ommeed Sathe, vice president of Impact Investments at Prudential. “For decades, we have strived to find innovative approaches that reach communities and individuals whose needs are underserved by traditional capital markets.”

Prudential formalized its impact investing program in 1976. Since then, the group has invested nearly $2 billion, including $300 million deployed in the company’s hometown of Newark, New Jersey.

The group invests in three core areas: social purpose enterprises, financial intermediaries that redeploy capital to individuals and organizations, and real assets, like affordable housing, that improve lives and communities.

"Prudential has been a leader in the impact investment arena for decades,” said Jean Case, ceo of the Case Foundation. "We have witnessed how instrumental impact investing can be, and it is encouraging that such a large private sector corporation understands the importance of using its capital to address complex social challenges." The Case Foundation is recognized for its efforts to increase giving and catalyze civic and business participation, as well as promote innovation, collaboration and leadership in the nonprofit sector.

 

Picture credit: © Dana Rothstein | Dreamstime Stock Photos

Cyber security sounds awfully complicated, and, well, dashing, doesn't it? The type of thing a hacker-meets-James-Bond fellow might do during the day to cover expenses while he builds the next BitCoin at night?

Symantec wants you -- and the young people of America -- to know that not only is this career path well-paying and approachable, but also, in many cases, it doesn't even require a college degree.

The security software giant isn't just getting the word out, it's launching an initiative to educate young people and train them for the field. The Symantec Cyber Career Connection (SC3) launched yesterday to address the global workforce gap in cyber security positions.A pilot of the program will start in August in New York City, Baltimore and the San Francisco Bay Area and will be implemented through a network of partners, including Year Up, NPower and LifeJourney, working in conjunction with the Symantec Foundation.

Cecily Joseph, vice president of Corporate Responsibility at Symantec Corporation, told me that the cyber security field is facing an unprecedented skills gap: 300,000 cyber security jobs are currently unfilled. Sixty thousand could be filled by those who don’t have a college degree. "The goal with SC3 is to fill that gap over the next five years," she said.

These positions exist in every large company and do everything from help desk support through keeping networks free from spam and hackers. You've probably had help at one point or another from a cyber security professional; when they start, they have job titles like Help Desk Administrator. Motivated employees can move up along a compelling career path with average salaries in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. At the top of the field, Network Defense Technicians and Computer Crime Investigators can earn up to $120,000, according to Symantec. Despite the compelling salary and career path, young people in the 18- to 29-year-old range are underrepresented in this industry, as are women and people of color.

The pilot SC3 program will start off modestly, serving approximately 50 students, in order to work the kinks out of the partnerships and curriculum. Students will earn an IT certificate with a specialization in cyber security.  While the programs developed by the nonprofits vary in length, they all focus on both technical skills and soft skills -- giving students resume and interview training alongside the computer skills they will need to succeed. Said Joseph, "This is high-touch training that can’t be completed online." Following their training, students will be placed in cybersecurity internships to learn how to utilize their classroom skills on the job. Symantec will help program graduates seek jobs through its network of customers and partners, namely in the financial and government sectors. 

While the company has a robust corporate responsibility program and has always encouraged employees to volunteer in their communities, leaders at Symantec wanted a new corporate responsibility initiative that would be more impactful and in line with their core competence in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). Symantec turned to the Shared Value Initiative and FSG to find the right path. Says Joseph, "The Board of Directors challenged us to look for a larger societal impact than we could have with the traditional philanthropic approach." The Shared Value Initiative gave them that dual impact. Companies that utilize shared impact use their core competence to benefit society, creating a win-win. Nevertheless, Joseph had her work cut out for her getting buy-ins for the shared-value approach.

"When we first started, people asked: 'Is this altruistic enough?' People asked if we should be planting gardens instead. We still have programs in diversity and environment and will continue to support those types of things. However, if we’re really going to have an impact, we need to focus on those areas where we can add value and address a need at the same time. In addition to educating tomorrow's workforce, this initiative provides a business opportunity by serving our customers."

SC3 allows Symantec will help its customers stay secure and, at the same time, provide job training in a lucrative field to underserved populations. Sounds like a win-win-win to me.

Image credit: Element5 Digital/Unsplash

Naysayers, you’re on. If you’re convinced that climate change isn't man-made, a physicist in Texas wants to hear from you. Bring your virtual chalk, polish up your math, hone your argument and prove your point. Your time won’t be misspent: If you can irrefutably prove your hypothesis, he’ll pay you $10,000.

Dr. Christopher Keating, author of "Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming," has offered the challenge to anyone who can “prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.” Keating, who is well versed in climate change research, has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

He’ll also pay $1,000 “to the first person to show there is any scientific evidence that refutes the conclusion of man made climate change.”

He posted the first submission to the two challenges this week on his blog, Dialogues on Global Warming.  The competition entry, which was posted initially as a comment by an anonymous poster, received a full-page analysis by Keating – and an in-depth explanation (which must have been excruciating for the candidate) for why it didn’t pass muster for either category.

In two words: “cherry-picking.”

“Cherry-picking is invalid science,” Keating explains, “no matter which way you go. I cannot do it any more than Mr. Anonymous can. It is still invalid and only serves to provide someone with a false argument.”

Ouch.

It isn’t hard to see that the submissions Keating receives serve more purpose than to prove his premise that man-made climate change is indeed true. In the process of analyzing each submission, he’s teaching his readers how to analyze scientific data, and hopefully, to be discerning of what’s true and what’s not (in other words: real science).

And those who feel they do indeed have a chance to prove climate change and global warming are not man-made will be happy to hear the qualifications for entering this competition are fairly simple and straightforward.

“If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point, and the $10,000 is yours!” says Keating.

But he says he is sure that will never happen “because it can’t be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.”

But, alas, where does this monetary challenge leave those who already have a strong, steady conviction that man-made climate change really does exist? Are there no opportunities for proving your point (or at least ones where you can be monetarily compensated)?

Fear not!

The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge takes the cake when it comes to earning potential – if you can meet the criteria of the judge(s), that is. Keating says he’s already entered the challenge and lost. The competition offers a $500,000 award for anyone that can “prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.” The argument will be required to reject two hypotheses cited by UGWC.

Before you start making a list of all of your irrefutable sources and mapping out your award-winning argument, you may wish to take note of No. 2 and No. 4 of the competition rules, which specify that, “Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment,” and that the website has the sole discretion to determine “the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.” It also admits that there’s no guarantee that the $500,000 will ever be awarded.

The competition began in 2007. That alone may suggest that the judge is a hard audience to impress (Keating asserts that it is only one person judging the entries). It also highlights the fact that there is still a wide breadth in opinion when it comes to just how important science is in defining climate change, as well as our role in global stewardship.

Image of Earth: Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center

Image of pollinating bee: Michael Gil

She’s been around for over a half century, has aged less than the late Dick Clark, and has been in high demand by countless girls (and some boys)—while suffering criticism by many others. But Barbie is still proving that life in plastic is fantastic—even at age 55, for which now she can score some senior citizen discounts.

Now Barbie is going full-on MBA with the launch of Entrepreneur Barbie, available online or at a toy store near you. Based on what I can see, she is the combination of a business leader, diplomat and of course, entrepreneur—as in part Sheryl Sandberg, part Hillary Clinton, but mostly Kim Kardashian.

Going entrepreneurial is a hugely positive step for Barbie during her (what some would say is too long of a) life. After all, she suffered through a 45 year relationship with Ken, only to have no children—though the fault was clearly Ken’s. She has had a love-hate relationship with her owners, even suffering “maiming and decapitation,” as a leading British study revealed. On the sustainability front, she has even been accused of causing deforestation in Indonesia. And of course, there is the long standing criticism that she sends mixed messages to women, from past dieting tips including “Don’t Eat!” to bathroom scales maxing out at 120 pounds (54.5 kilos).

This is also a move in the right direction for her parent company, Mattel, which has enjoyed success due to Barbie and, in fairness, has given Barbie many glass ceiling-breaking jobs: astronaut, surgeon, Marine Corps officer and firefighter. At this same time, this is a company that also eaten it with other versions of Barbie. Among them, there was the passport-carrying Mexican Barbie, which looked like an anorexic piñata; Teen Talk Barbie, some of which blurted out “Math class is tough!”; and in one of the most poorly thought out co-marketing campaigns ever, the company rolled out an Oreo Barbie. (Check out this slideshow of Barbie misfires that were truly gifts that keep on giving.)

To show this is no ordinary vapid Barbie Doll, Mattel has enlisted the support of a posse of impressive entrepreneurs, including the founders of Girls Who Code and Plum Alley. The campaign will include articles from this group of 10 women as well as an aggressive social media push. In a response to the ongoing standard criticisms that Barbie is still a pallid high heels-wearing doll shrouded in pink fabric, Mattel has defined this Barbie as a smart, sophisticated professional: with, of course, the glam necklace and cool clutch. There’s one caveat, however: we do not know exactly what kind of business she’s in. It’s doubtful Barbie even knows: Mattel has given her at least 150 jobs over the years. Who wouldn’t be confused?

As with just about every other Barbie iteration, the debate will rage on: is Barbie still sending unattainable messages about women’s body images or will this resin skeleton deliver inspiration and empowerment to girls? Is there a middle ground, as Claire Cohen of the Telegraph believes—can a woman can wear high heels, pink viscose and take the business world by storm?

To the dismay of Barbie haters, it does not really matter to Mattel. Barbie will march on, even using the hashtag #unapologetic to get their new Barbie messaging out. But in the end this new Barbie is about business: as demographics and attitudes about gender roles continue to shift, Barbie will find herself more culturally challenged. Sales have dipped the last few years, and that is bad news for Mattel as she has long raked in a massive chunk of revenues for the company. Barbie will have to change with the times, as she always has, if she is going to survive in the long run. And hence the challenge for Mattel—rather than reacting to consumers, the company has to find a way to get ahead of the curve to inspire girls and their parents jaded by Barbie’s message—and resuscitate its sales in the meantime. Discussion aside, women will be less inclined to plunk down $12.99 for her.

Leon Kaye currently lives in the United Arab Emirates, where he works for the Abu Dhabi office of APCO, a communications consultancy. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter.

Image credit: Mattel

U.S. honey bee colonies are declining by an annual rate of 30 percent.

Experts believe pesticides, parasites and habitat loss are likely culprits. Since bees and other pollinators are needed for more than two-thirds of all crop species, the lives of bees and humans are intricately connected. In fact, even cheese, milk and butter depend on bees.  They are even essential to the reproduction of clover and alfalfa -- staples in the diet of grazing animals.

"Honey bee pollination supports an estimated $15 billion worth of agricultural production, including more than 130 fruits and vegetables that are the foundation of a nutritious diet," says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The future security of America's food supply depends on healthy honey bees."

The bee crisis is already impacting some types of crop production, including almonds. Large orchards in California bring in numerous bee colonies to pollinate the flowers.

“Other crops don’t need as many bees as the California almond orchards do, so shortages are not yet apparent, but if trends continue, there will be,” said Tim Tucker, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation. "Current [bee] losses are not sustainable. The trend is down, as is the quality of bees. In the long run, if we don’t find some answers, and the vigor continues to decline, we could lose a lot of bees.”

Many companies are showing their support by partnering with the Xerces Society, a nonprofit organization that protects pollinators and their habitat. Whole Foods, General Mills, Burt's Bees, Boiron, Annie's, Cascadian Farm, Celestial Seasonings and Talenti are among the long list of supporters, having donated more than $100,000 to the Xerces Society. Whole Foods stores are also hosting “Human Bee-In” events and “Give Bees A Chance” promotions.  The White House even announced the creation of a Pollinator Health Task Force, a multi-departmental effort for "understanding, preventing, and recovering from" the rapid declines in the U.S. honeybee population.

While some companies are launching campaigns to protect pollinators, Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta are trying to draw attention away from the link between neurotoxic pesticides (neonics) and the bee crisis. These pesticides have been shown to kill a variety of species, including bats, ladybugs, dragonflies and lacewings. Neonics are typically applied to the surface of plants and found in the nectar and pollen. They are widely used on corn, soy, wheat and canola seeds. As a result, the European Commission implemented a two-year continental ban on the three most common neonics -- imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

"These industry public relations strategies come straight from the tobacco industry’s playbook, and were used for years to mislead the public about the danger of their products by manufacturing and magnifying uncertainty about the cancer risk of cigarettes," according to a recent report by Friends of the Earth. "Coincidentally, neonicotinoids are synthetic derivatives of nicotine, a toxin produced by the tobacco plant."

Despite dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies linking bee collapse to pesticide use, Syngenta's website states: "Since we do not believe pesticides cause bee losses, banning them will not make any difference to bee health. This is also the view of the Swiss and other governments ... Banning neonicotinoids might remove one of the possible causes of bee losses in the sense that accidental misuse by farmers of neonicotinoids-based seed treatments could not then occur if the product was not available."

It is completely logical that food companies are launching campaigns to save pollinators, while pesticide companies dispute evidence. Each is acting in their own best interest. Perhaps Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta even have something to gain from food scarcity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdJNWjeyuBQ

Image credit: Whole Foods

Sarah Lozanova is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Green Building & Design, Triple Pundit, Urban Farm, and Solar Today. Her experience includes work with small-scale solar energy installations and utility-scale wind farms. She earned an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio Graduate School and she resides in Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage in Midcoast Maine with her husband and two children.

Ford's latest corporate social responsibility (CSR) report really caught my attention.

I read at least two or three CSR reports a month. When you read as many as I do, one that devotes a lengthy section to climate change stands out. In most reports, climate change is a sub-section tucked within the section on environment. It may get a few paragraphs, or maybe even a whole page. But Ford devoted an entire section to “Climate Change and the Environment.” Clearly, Ford takes climate change seriously.

Ford’s position on climate change is that reducing emissions “calls for an integrated approach -- a partnership of all stakeholders, including the automotive industry, the fuel industry, government and consumers.” The company states that reducing emissions can “only be achieved by significantly and continuously reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over a period of decades in all sectors of the economy.” For the transportation sector, that requires improving vehicle economy, developing lower carbon fuels, and working with the government on measures to encourage consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and lower carbon fuels, according to the report.

Ford even has a long-term climate strategy to contribute to climate stabilization specifically, the strategy consists of the following:

• Continuously reducing GHG emissions and energy use of its operations


• Developing the flexibility and capability to market lower GHG emission products


• Working with industry partners, energy companies, consumer groups and policy makers to establish an  effective and predictable market, policy and technological framework for reducing GHG emissions

Ford supports the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate of GHG emissions and fuel economy standards. However, the company believes that focusing on only one sector of the economy “will not enable us to achieve the necessary level of GHG reductions.” What Ford thinks is needed is an “economy-wide program” that allows “market mechanisms to determine where GHG reductions can be achieved at the lowest cost.”

Ford’s climate strategy is worked out through specific goals, and the vehicle manufacturer is on track to meet its environmental goals, including reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent per vehicle by 2025 compared to a 2010 baseline. The company already achieved a 31 percent reduction from 2000 to 2010, and its efforts to reduce carbon emissions per vehicle have been recognized. In 2012, Ford received a Goal-Setting Certificate at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Leadership Awards Ceremony and Conference for its carbon dioxide strategy.

Ford has also reduced waste, improved fuel economy, and increased EcoBoost engines. From 2012 to 2013, Ford reduced waste sent to landfill by 14 percent per vehicle, and implemented a plan to reduce waste to sent to landfill by 40 percent per vehicle from 2011 to 2016. The company improved the fleet-average fuel economy of its U.S. car fleet by two percent and U.S. truck fleet by three percent from 2012 to 2013. By 2013, Ford surpassed its goal of producing 1.5 million EcoBoost engines globally by producing over two million.

Ford is proving to be a car company that has an eye on the environment. It will be interesting to see where its climate change strategy takes the company that sends American made vehicles down the highway.

Image courtesy of Ford Motor Co.