Search

Many of the social media platforms that surround us seem innocuous enough. They give us the options to share what we had for breakfast, the latest latte art, stay in touch with our friends and share our personal interests. But as we’ve seen over the past several years, users can deploy social media tools as weapons of division and misinformation. Now Pinterest, the popular platform for “pinning” how we cook, plan milestone events and design our home, announced yesterday that “pinners” who spread climate misinformation should pack up their digital pinboards and find another site to spew “alternative facts.”

Taking on climate denial

The company recently updated its community guidelines, and it doesn’t mince words. While Pinterest doesn’t pledge to outright ban users who spread falsehoods about climate change, the platform’s moderators say they will “remove or limit distribution of false or misleading content.”

Among the types of content Pinterest says it’ll crack down on: any content that denies the existence or effects of climate change; content about climate change solutions that contradict scientific consensus; posts that in any manner distort or cherry-pick the scientific data on climate change that could diminish trust in climate change experts; and any harmful misinformation about climate change-induced emergencies such as extreme weather events or natural disasters.

In a public statement, Pinterest also said any advertisements that appear on its platform have to follow those same community guidelines.

When it comes to other sources of misinformation and hateful speech, Pinterest also makes it clear that unsupported health claims, misinformation about election integrity or hate speech targeted at any group of individuals are also unwelcome.

“Pinterest believes in cultivating a space that’s trusted and truthful for those using our platform. This bold move is an expansion of our broader misinformation guidelines, which we first developed in 2017 to address public health misinformation, and have since updated to address new and emerging issues as they come to the forefront,” said Sarah Bromma, Pinterest’s head of policy. “The expanded climate misinformation policy is yet another step in Pinterest’s journey to combat misinformation and create a safe space online.”

Pinterest in comparison to other platforms

The company claims that currently, Pinterest is the only major digital content sharing platform that has crafted clearly defined policies that take a stand against climate misinformation and related conspiracy theories.

The stance Pinterest is taking is in sharp contrast to platforms such as Facebook, the founder of which, Mark Zuckerberg, has long argued that technology companies should be a neutral arbiter and not decide what content is true or not true. In the weeks before the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Zuckerberg argued during a speech at Georgetown University that “Political ads on Facebook are more transparent than anywhere else. We don’t factcheck political ads… because we believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. I know many people disagree, but in general I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy. And we are not an outlier here.”

When it comes to climate change discourse, Facebook has claimed that it would be more aggressive in tackling and labeling climate misinformation, but a study released in February claimed that the platform and its parent company fell short of labeling about half of such posts.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s approach to climate misinformation, which the company rolled out in the days before the COP26 meeting, was to “pre-bunk” any such climate misinformation by streaming content such as “hubs of information” and “explore” tabs across its platform.

As for Pinterest, the firming up of its community guidelines comes at a time when its users are increasingly researching sustainability on its platform. The company said data from recent months in comparison to a year earlier found that searches for “zero waste” tips surged six-fold, queries about “recycled clothes ideas” soared four times higher and searches for “recycled home decor” almost doubled.

Image credit: Brett Jordan via Pexels

Cryptocurrency has two faces. Some types are like plodding but reliable workhorses. They simply smooth the way for commercial transactions in the digital age. Speculative crypto is an entirely different animal. In a few short years, crypto mining has planted itself in the rarified atmosphere of the winner’s circle: male, exclusive, and, in terms of environmental and social impacts, absolutely destructive.

The bright side of cryptocurrency

Speculation in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency has monopolized the public conversation, but not all crypto is speculative. Cryptocurrency can serve as a community trading platform that does not rely on third-party, centralized entities for verification.

In this form, cryptocurrency can enable individuals and organizations with common interests to share resources, without shedding an excessive amount of value to profit-taking interests.

One pioneer in this peer-to-peer digital trading area is the Australian company Power Ledger. The company’s business model enables solar array owners to trade their excess solar capacity. The platform enables individual households to participate, as well as organizations and grid stakeholders.

Another good example is the Canadian startup Plastic Bank. The company partners with brands to pay residents in shoreline communities for collecting and returning plastic waste from their beaches. Plastic Bank’s digital currency is pegged to local currency, making it simple to convert and use locally. The digital format also helps protect the earner from being robbed of a paycheck in high crime areas.

The dark side of cryptocurrency

The digital “ledger” behind these cryptocurrencies is a form of software called blockchain. Like a shared online document, blockchain enables the buyer and seller to access the same information.

That sounds harmless enough, and it is. The problem is that Bitcoin and other speculative currencies are rigged from the start. Instead of relying on local currencies and nuts-and-bolts transactional platforms to create and maintain a particular value, speculative currencies are digitally mined by a rarified set of individuals with access to the massive amount of computing power needed to generate new cryptocurrency.

Speculative currencies were initially pitched as a more equal, unbiased and democratic form of money, the idea being that anyone with a computer could amass their own currency.

Instead, the opposite is true.

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

Last December, the Wall Street Journal reported that 0.01 percent of Bitcoin holders control 27 percent of the cryptocurrency. CBS News further noted that the concentration of traditional household wealth in the U.S. is comparable, with the top 1 percent controlling 30 percent.

NYU Professor of Marketing Scott Galloway cites similar figures in his No Mercy, No Malice blog. Comparing Bitcoin to the NFT market, he wrote that “Bitcoin is even more centralized: The top 2 percent of accounts own 95 percent of the $800 billion supply of Bitcoin, and 0.1 percent of Bitcoin miners are responsible for half of all mining output.”

“If it were a country, Bitcoin would have the greatest inequality in the world,” he observed.

Crypto mining and the climate crisis

Another emerging issue is the contribution of Bitcoin mining to the climate crisis. Crypto mining became a phenomenon in 2009, and in the relatively short time span since then it has emerged as a disruptor of climate action efforts.

To the extent that speculative crypto is a pyramid scheme, as some allege, the use of renewable energy to assemble large arrays of computing power is a tragic exercise in wheel-spinning at a time when other sectors of the global economy are racing against time to decarbonize.

Even worse is the use of fossil energy for crypto mining. By 2019, researchers were documenting a gaping hole in the cryptocurrency mythos.

“A popular conception of the ‘virtual’ nature of cryptocurrency dominates, but cryptocurrency is deeply embedded in policy and physical environments,” University of Washington researchers Heidi Samford and Lovely-Frances Domingo explained in a July 2019 article.

“And, while most analysis of the phenomenon focuses on the disruptive impact of cryptocurrency on financial markets, cryptocurrency also negatively impacts the communities and the environment,” they added.

It’s not just a problem for vulnerable populations. Last spring, Stanford University professor and Wyoming resident Dave Dodson described Bitcoin as the “gas-guzzling SUV of currencies” due to the concentration of crypto mining in Russian and China, where coal pollution rules are lax. He noted that Wyoming could provide crypto miners with a more acceptable alternative, through its renewable energy and “clean” coal resources.

That sounds good on paper, but the reality is that speculative cryptocurrency could pull the U.S. right back into the pit of environmental injustice, poverty, and poor public health outcomes attributed to the fossil energy economy.

This worst-case scenario is already in motion. In the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York, for example, a little-used coal power plant was finally retired in 2011, only to restart in 2020 as a 106-megawatt, natural gas power plant that runs continuously, day in and day out.

As reported by Gothamist, the electricity goes to 20,000 computers in a Bitcoin operation that realized more than $100 million in Bitcoin revenue last year.”

Local residents and activists have been lobbying to stop the power plant from continuing to leverage its previous permit. Environmental advocates are also pressuring New York Governor Kathy Hochul to impose a statewide moratorium on crypto mining.

In an ironic twist, activists in the Finger Lakes region were in the vanguard of a movement to ban natural gas fracking in the state during the Obama administration, only to see gas powered crypto mining take its place.

Gaming the system

Looking at the boom-and-bust cycles of speculative crypto, Salon senior political editor Amanda Marcotte compares it to vaccine refusal and support for former President Trump. She writes that cryptocurrency’s loudest cheerleaders in the U.S. manifest “a “sense of white guy entitlement and a belief that people like them aren't constrained by the same biology and social obligations as everyone else.”

With that in mind, it’s no surprise to find high profile, libertarian-leaning Trump supporters like Peter Thiel continuing to insist that bitcoin is “the most honest market we have in the country,” or that well-known crypto investor Elon Musk appears to be leveraging his Tesla electric car company as a massive greenwashing campaign that offsets bad behavior in his other ventures, including racism at his Fremont, California factory, environmental and community impacts from his SpaceX venture in Texas, and, most recently, a new stake in Twitter that sent his own Dogecoin currency soaring.

“Criticizing and tweaking systems so they work better for everyone is a good thing. But that is not what is going on with modern horrors like cryptocurrency, vaccine refusal, and Trumpism,” Marcotte wrote. “None of those are genuine attempts to fix existing systems. It's about ‘alternatives’ for people who think they are above honoring the basic social contract.”

As Congress begins to assess the energy impacts of crypto mining in the U.S., the political lines have already been drawn, and the illusion of democracy in the crypto area is already fading from view.

Image credit: Art Rachen via Unsplash

The IPCC has released its most recent assessment report, its sixth since 1990. Like the annual letter from Larry Fink, each of its reports appears to score greater media coverage year after year. This week, much of the noise surrounding the report can be summed up as “hey, things aren’t quite as bad as they may seem,” which has a degree of truth. Nevertheless, if the world is going to reduce climate change risks to avoid any catastrophe this century, the measures that society will take must be aggressive – doubtful when you consider the state of politics worldwide along with many companies’ vague plans for following through on climate action.

Based on what we gleaned from the voluminous report (over 3,600 pages, while the technical summary is relatively thin at 96 pages), here are the big takeaways we see.

The rate of GHG emissions is slowing, but...

True, the annual rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions has slowed down over the past several years, from 2.1 percent a year during the early 2000s to 1.3 percent annually between 2010 and 2019. But at absolute rates, we’re spewing a lot of carbon into the atmosphere: almost 9 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) annually between 2000 and 2009 versus 6.5 GtCO2eq annually the following decade. In 2019, the world emitted 59 GtCO2eq alone. Do the math, and we can see we still have a massive problem on our hands.

At least 24 countries have been able to curb emissions, but…

Yes, to paraphrase a quote from that 1980s Pee Wee Herman movie, when it comes to most of us including scientists, everyone (we) know has a big but. That certainly applies to the statistics the IPCC has slathered throughout its report. According to the IPCC, 24 nations, most of which are in Europe, have slashed their emissions over the years, and some have been doing that as far back as the 1970s. Here’s the bad news: Those emissions reductions have been canceled out by greenhouse gasses from emerging economies, and meanwhile, the per-capita emission rates from Australia, Canada and the U.S. have remained high.

Global COVID-19 lockdown policies haven’t had any effect

Remember back in March and April of 2020 when many of us gushed on Zoom calls and virtual conferences about how we could see the sky again? It was almost biblical, as some of us humans witnessed the emergence of wildlife such as deer, and even bears, among the other creatures we didn’t recognize. Sure, there was a large drop in emissions during 2020: almost a 6 percent decline compared to the previous year. That decrease was due largely in part to the fact that the global transport sector, which screeched to a halt, saw its total emissions fall by 45 percent during 2020. But by the end of 2020, those reductions were becoming erased, and the IPCC isn’t hopeful about current economic recovery packages, especially the ones that include financial support for the fossil fuel sector.

Good news for deforestation, but can current trends be sustained?

Net forest cover worldwide has actually increased since 2010, and overall deforestation has declined. But as documented here on TriplePundit and elsewhere, deforestation has surged in the Amazon, and the IPCC has noted other regions in the world where the loss of trees is on the upswing. Depending on how one slices and dices the numbers, about half of the world’s emissions can be linked to deforestation. That’s a sad statistic that obviously needs to change.

Net zero is a thing, but there’s little substance, says IPCC

We’ve seen the surge in net zero commitments as more nations have set goals, and many multinational companies have followed suit. And, nationwide emissions targets have covered 90 percent of global emissions in 2020 as compared to less than half of all greenhouse gasses back in 2010. But the IPCC isn’t impressed. “Many net zero targets are ambiguously defined, and the policies needed to achieve them are not yet in place. Opposition from status quo interests, as well as insufficient low-carbon financial flows, act as barriers to establishing and implementing stringent climate policies covering all sectors,” conclude the report’s authors.

Activists are being listened to, but their ideas aren’t being implemented

We’ve heard a lot about activists who have made their voices heard at Climate Week in New York City as well as during the COP meetings in recent years. Along with the work of those activists, the IPCC acknowledges companies’ efforts to curb emissions, take on reforestation and improve the sustainability performance of their value chains. It also helps that the mainstream media is covering climate change with greater frequency in contrast to a decade ago.

But as the IPCC says, “There is no conclusive evidence that an increase in engagement results in overall pro-mitigation outcomes.” Further, any such progress, insists the IPCC, has been undercut but “climate change counter-movements,” as well as misinformation on conventional media and social media platforms.

Image credit: Mika Baumeister via Unsplash

The latest assessment report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released on Monday, and as expected, the scientists’ outlook is ominous. Sure, there is some hope to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by mid-century, but only if the most aggressive measures are taken. What stands out, however, is the report’s acknowledgement of the role that Indigenous communities worldwide can have on mitigating climate change.

IPCC scientists share a grim reminder that the economic policies over the past several decades have made wealthy nations (i.e., the Global North) wealthier while poorer nations and Indigenous people paid a huge price for the extraction of resources without gaining any of the benefits. The latest report is also the first time the IPCC has directly called out centuries of colonialism for creating much of the mess in which we find ourselves today — and the authors warn against any top-down approach where the terms for climate action are set by wealthy nations. “The necessary transformational changes can be positive if they are rooted in the development aspirations of the economy and society in which they take place, but they can also lead to carbon colonialism if the transformations are imposed by Northern donors or perceived as such,” the report reads.

At the same time, the scientists make clear that if governments, the private sector and nonprofits can cooperate, Indigenous populations can (finally) start to reap some benefits, too.

Within this massive, 3,600-page document, the IPCC looks at how the world must engage Indigenous citizens if society is to have any chance at curbing the risks of climate change. But don’t take it from us, continue to read the IPCC’s very own words. At a higher level, here are three takeaways.

Again, Indigenous people face the greatest risk from climate change

The latest report, the final in the IPCC's current assessment cycle, focuses on climate mitigation and practical solutions for combating the climate crisis, but scientists are quick to note that not all solutions are equal (or equitable). “…Carbon sequestration and GHG emission reduction options have both co-benefits and risks in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, food and water security, wood supply, livelihoods and land tenure and land-use rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and small land owners,” the 270 authors of the IPCC report observe. In a subtle swipe at industries such as mining and energy that tout tactics such as carbon capture and storage as a solution, they add: “Many options have co-benefits but those that compete for land and land-based resources can pose risks.”

Further, while Global North countries generated benefits from the extraction of resources such as petroleum and palm oil, “worldwide, racialized and Indigenous people bear the brunt of environmental and climate injustices through geographic location in extraction and energy ‘sacrifice zones,’ areas most impacted by extreme weather events, and/or through inequitable energy access,” says the IPCC.

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

It's not only the usual suspects, mining and energy, that are behind many of these challenges that Indigenous communities face. Most recently, the harsh impacts of the palm oil industry have not only exacted their own environmental problems, but social problems as well. “In the absence of the policy intervention, the expansion of oil-palm plantations has provided limited benefits to indigenous and Afro-descended communities," the IPCC observes. "Even when oil-palm expansion improves rural livelihoods, the benefits are unevenly distributed across the rural population."

Conducting business as usual will have its own consequences, particularly in South America. “…If current policies and trends continue, the Amazon may reach an irreversible tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to remediate lost ecosystems and restore carbon sinks and indigenous people knowledge,” the scientists wrote.

Indigenous communities have a large role in sequestering carbon

As Indigenous activists and nonprofits have long argued these communities are in the best position to safeguard land that is important for climate mitigation, it’s clear that the IPCC has gotten the message.

For example, the U.N. body notes that “Indigenous Peoples, private forest owners, local farmers and communities manage a significant share of global forests and agricultural land and play a central role in land-based mitigation options.” In other words, these communities must be a part of these conversations: “Scaling successful policies and measures relies on governance that emphasizes integrated land use planning and management framed by the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals], with support for implementation.”

Further along in the IPCC report, scientists also indicate that people often most overlooked should be listened to the most: “The contributions of women, racialized people, and Indigenous people who are socially positioned as those first and most affected by climate change — and therefore experts on appropriate climate responses — are substantial.”

And while there is no shortage of “experts” who can speak to how society can approach climate action, the IPCC admits that the ones who know the lay of the land have been there all along: “Indigenous knowledge is an important source of guidance for biodiversity conservation, impact assessment, governance, disaster preparedness and resilience,” the scientists conclude.

IPCC: Communities who know the land best are the ones who must be consulted

For activists who have appeared at the U.N. COP (Conference of Parties) climate talks and events like Climate Week in New York City, even if seats at the decision-making table haven’t been extended, at a minimum, IPCC scientists indicate they have been heard. Witness the IPCC report: “The extent to which civil society actors, political actors, businesses, youth, labor, media, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities are engaged influences political support for climate change mitigation and eventual policy outcomes.”

Such invitations, infers the IPCC, are past due. “Indeed, development decisions often do not properly integrate the burdens and risks placed on marginalized groups, like indigenous peoples, while risk assessments tend to reinforce existing power imbalances by failing to differentiate between how benefits and risks might impact on certain groups.”

Part of the problem in taking on global climate change is that many local and Indigenous communities have ideas and potential solutions, but they have not been taken seriously. “Indigenous knowledge can be a unique source for techniques for adaptation,” the scientists say, “[but] expert driven, technical solutions such as infrastructural interventions can undermine the knowledge of lower income countries, communities or indigenous knowledge holders."

Further, many of the solutions that are constantly discussed don’t address the challenges that many of these communities face: “Technical solutions, such as electric vehicles or smart grids, rarely address the needs and capabilities of disadvantaged communities that may not be able to afford these technologies,” the scientists write.

Why do these conclusions matter, especially for Indigenous communities? Each IPCC report is not only discussed and vetted by the scores of scientists who contribute and add to the report, but also by diplomats from the 195 member countries of the IPCC. Considering that Indigenous people have had their rights trampled on, and then ignored, for years, the fact that such discussions make up a significant part of the IPCC report indicates that some progress could soon be at hand.

Image credit: alevision.co via Unsplash

Back in the early 20th century, disposable coffee cups were a thing unknown, trolley cars were practically the only electric vehicles in sight, and labor unions held sway over many worksites. Now the script has flipped, and Starbucks once again is positioning itself to lead the vanguard of change – willing or not.

The beginning of the end of disposable coffee cups

Starbucks did not start the take-out coffee trend, but the company has enough influence to help reduce single-use coffee cups across the industry. In a recap of its sustainability efforts last week, the Starbucks noted that it is testing a new “Borrow a Cup” model in the U.S. and several other markets.

Borrow a Cup is a twist on the typical industry practice, which is to make customers buy a reusable cup for permanent ownership. As piloted last year, Starbucks customers who chose to borrow a cup added a deposit on their order per cup. A return deadline provided customers with the option of keeping the cup as their own, or turning it in for a credit equal to their deposit. The company also provided an incentive of bonus Starbucks Rewards points for participants.

A high-tech version of the Borrow a Cup program launched in Singapore earlier this year, with a return deadline in May.

Starbucks also continues to encourage customers to bring their own personal cups. As for those choosing disposables, the company has been working with a paper manufacturer to improve recyclability for paper cups, and it has introduced a new waste management app to help its partners step up their recycling efforts.

No more PFAS

Starbucks also included the notorious “forever” chemical PFAS in its sustainability recap, declaring that it is on track to eliminate PFAS from its U.S. packaging by the end of this year. By the end of next year, the company expects to eliminate PFAS from its operations globally.

The announcement was hailed by public health and environmental groups, including Toxic Free Future.

“Though the company’s announcement comes after similar commitments by other major restaurant chains, their timeline is faster than many—including McDonald’s, Burger King and Taco Bell that have made commitments to phase out PFAS in food packaging by 2025,” the organization said.

Toxic Free Future also credited Wendy’s with committing to an earlier 2021 timeline.

The third place becomes your EV charging place

The COVID-19 pandemic has motivated fast food companies to reduce or eliminate indoor seating, making more room for drive-through lanes or grab-and-go.

In contrast, when the pandemic struck in 2020 Starbucks argued in May of that year that its model of a “third place” for people to linger between home and work was needed more than ever.

Now, as restrictions continue to ease, the third-place model has emerged as a perfect fit for the growth of the electric vehicle (EV) market. Though low-speed charging systems can take hours to recharge a vehicle battery pack, EV drivers can recharge their cars in a matter of minutes at a DC fast-charging station, while taking a break or running an errand.

Accordingly, this year Starbucks will install Volvo-branded DC fast-charging stations at up to 15 stores, under an arrangement with the leading EV charging company ChargePoint. The charging stations will be spread along a 1,350-mile route from Denver to Seattle, where the company is headquartered.

Starbucks references EV “range anxiety” to underscore the value of its sit-down stores as a third place.

“These DC Fast Chargers will be placed at Starbucks stores about every 100 miles, adding much needed peace of mind for EV drivers, who we know see today’s limited charging infrastructure as a major barrier to purchase,” the company explains. “While customer’s cars are recharging outside, drivers can relax comfortably inside with their favorite Starbucks beverage.”

The electric vehicle revolution has yet to hit the mass market, but within the next few years millions of EVs will take to the road. When that happens, other fast food companies may need to rethink their decision to focus on the quick in-and-out model.

Starbucks and the rebirth of the labor movement

Starbucks has also found itself on the cusp of change as surge of interest in unionization sweeps through workplaces around the country, most recently underscored by the unionization of an Amazon warehouse on Staten Island in New York.

Somewhat ironically, Starbucks has sailed through one customer boycott after another over the years. The union movement has presented the company with its first effective “boycott,” in the form of worker action against its anti-union policies.

In recent months, employees at three Starbucks stores in Buffalo, New York have voted to join a union.  Out of thousands of Starbucks stores nationwide, these three are the first and only stores in the U.S. to organize – so far.

The voting was finalized after eligibility challenges raised on both sides, as described by Buffalo News reporter Matt Glynn.

“The organizing campaign was closely watched nationally because of its implications elsewhere for Starbucks and potentially other fast-food chains, where worker turnover is high and pay is toward the bottom end of the pay scale,” Glynn also observed.

Another reason to keep an eye on Starbucks’s reaction to the union movement was raised by Associated Press reporter Dee-Ann Durbin last month. She noted that longtime Starbucks leader Howard Schultz “consistently — and successfully — fought attempts to unionize Starbucks’ U.S. stores and roasting plants” during his tenure.

Schultz bought Starbucks in the late 1980s and stepped down as Chairman in 2018, to be replaced by former COO Kevin Johnson.

Now Johnson has retired, and Schultz has returned as interim CEO until a replacement is found. The unusual shift in leadership surprised and puzzled industry observers. However, the growing strength of the union movement could explain the return of a CEO with an anti-union reputation.

Image credit: Athar Khan via Unsplash

Financial inequity has become a significant factor in the U.S.’ growing societal rift. State and local governments have been making strides to the address the issue by raising the minimum wage and requiring personal finance education in high schools. In fact, Florida became the 11th state to mandate personal finance coursework as part of high school graduation criteria. Twenty-six other states have a combined 54 personal finance education bills pending.

Of course, financial literacy goes hand-in-glove with living wages. So, teaching the next generation of voters to budget, to build savings, to invest, to realize financial goals and to manage debt is an essential part of creating a more equitable society. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told members of the federal government’s Financial Literacy and Education Commission last May that although not a panacea, “…education about how to navigate personal finances can have a lasting, positive impact on people’s lives.”

However, the U.S. is somewhat late in coming to this realization. Sweden recognized the issue as far back as 2011 when the country National Agency for Education introduced a personal finance education curriculum to the school system. The financial technology sector saw the gap in financial literacy extended to working adults. To that end, in 2012 George Friedman founded Swedish start-up Qapital, a personal finance management (PFM) app. Two years later, the company launched in the U.S., where it is now has dual headquarters. To date, Qapital has helped its users save almost $3 billion collectively.

Qapital Co-Founder and Swedish national Katherine Salisbury points out that American financial technology companies’ PFM apps are akin to pay-day lending with the primary intent of profiting off of users. “In Sweden, there is a fundamental belief that people should be able to live a financially stress-free life so they can live and thrive,” she said. “Qapital questions why it’s so hard for 80 percent of Americans to get through their day without having severe financial stress and we want to fix that since government and society aren’t. We want to handle privately for our customers things that the government handles for people in Sweden.”

Salisbury cites retirement as one example. Typically, users turn to Qapital when they’re about to embark on a milestone life event that requires some financial planning such as starting a new job, getting married, having a baby, buying a home or even starting a freelance career.

The app was designed to assist users in reaching specific financial goals by helping them to essentially reallocate disposable income in a way where they don’t feel like they’re downgrading their lifestyle. Salisbury describes the process as helping users to tweak some behaviors and habits to effortlessly reach their goals.

“Our users are looking for a simple way to take control of their money that doesn’t leave them feeling overwhelmed or deprived,” said Salisbury. “They want a system that helps them make good financial decisions effortlessly.”

The app also offers a budgeting feature, as it goes hand-in-glove with the concept of moderating spending habits, in addition to a robo-investment feature.

Qapital users have also found another purpose for the app: teaching their children about personal finance and particularly, goal setting and making tradeoffs in order to realize their financial objectives. Currently, Qapital also has a joint finances feature, a “Qapital Dream Team,” for couples who share a common aspiration. According to Salisbury, the company is now looking at adding debit cards for kids that would be tied to a finance account with their parents. But even without these features, parents are still opening accounts with the intent of teaching their kids about money management in order to teach them to save for purchases like an Xbox or iPhone.

The concept of kids’ debit cards certainly isn’t new, as major U.S. financial institutions such as Chase and CapitalOne already offer them. But a new Qapital feature designed specifically for children would certainly align with the company’s Swedish ethos.

At the 2021 Sweden Global Money Week, the country’s financial supervisory authority Finansinspektionen joined forces with The Economy Museum, the Swedish Bankers Association and seven other financial entities to launch “Pengalabbet,” or The Money Laboratory, an online educational game to teach kids about everyday economics. The Swedish Bankers Association also created a Money Quiz and several online lectures for secondary school students.

Hopefully Janice Yellen and the U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Committee are taking note of these additional educational tools.

Image credit: Tirachard Kumtanom via Pexels

During November 2021 alone 4.5 million people quit their jobs—the highest number on record. The pandemic work experience encouraged many employees to draw a line in the sand between what’s important (family, flexibility, and free time) and what’s not (toxic work cultures that lead to exhaustion, mistakes and ultimately burnout.) Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) have particularly felt the strain of office life  with 97 percent wanting a hybrid or full-time remote working model (compared with 79 percent of white knowledge workers in the U.S.)

Digital tech was instrumental in creating the always-on model of work.  For instance, the average office worker checks their email 74 times a day, creating a never-ending game of email whack-a-mole. However, that was the last generation of digital tech. There is a new generation that has the potential to remake work in more humanizing ways.

“Smart tech” is an umbrella term we coined for advanced digital technologies that make decisions for people and instead of people. It includes artificial intelligence (AI) and its subsets and cousins, such as machine learning, natural language processing, smart forms, chatbots, robots, and more. Its use is skyrocketing and it is being embedded in every functional area of company life from HR to communications, accounting and service delivery.

Smart tech is currently best at doing rote tasks like answering the same questions over and again online or automatically reconciling budgets with real-time numbers. When companies find the sweet spot between smart tech and people, it creates what we call the “dividend of time.” This new time can be used to do things that only people can and should do: build relationships, tell stories, and solve problems. This is also time that can be used to reduce burnout and re-humanize workplaces — but only if it is implemented carefully and strategically. 

Using smart tech well isn’t a technological challenge but a leadership imperative. The C-Suite will be making choices about when, where and how to use smart tech. For instance, they can choose to institute “bossware” surveillance technology to track employees activities throughout the day. Or they can use software like CultureX to remind employees to stretch and move and take breaks. They can grab smart tech products off -the-shelf without asking whether and how the system may be biased against women and people of color, or they can use software like UInclude that has anti-bias DNA built right into the company. UInclude drafts job announcements based on extensive research and data that increases the quality and diversity of job applicants.  Why is this so important to this particular tech company? Because UInclude was founded by three women of color who have made reducing bias in hiring a core principle of their work.

Here are a few ways company leaders can use smart tech to improve work and workplace cultures:

Invest in online chatbots. Chatbots are online conversational interfaces. They are the fastest growing use of smart tech by organizations and the least expensive way to begin using the technology. They are available 24/7 to answer questions like “When is your store open?” and “Where are you located?” Chatbots relieve staff from constant interruptions. The addition of chatbots allows front line staff can shift their focus to problem-solving, empathy, and ultimately inspiring repeat customers.

Improve workflow. Workflow bottlenecks are enormous sources of inefficiency and frustration for workers. “Intelligent virtual assistants” can schedule meetings without the back and forth that even a tool like Doodle involves by regularly cruising through participant’s files, correspondence, and calendars. Poorly designed meetings are also a huge organizational time suck. Meetings, particularly those that happen back-to-back, can be petri dishes for miscommunication and microaggressions as well as create stress if people talk too much or if they don’t engage enough. Otter.AI is among the many smart tech tools that can help make meetings more efficient. It provides voice to text transcripts for meetings. It can also provide metrics on what percentage of airtime participants took up to help managers facilitate more balanced conversations. Smart tech products can also help make meetings more inclusive by automating captioning and language translation.

Improve physical health. Smart tech can support physical safety and health by monitoring environmental risk factors, tracking worker health indicators, altering job profiles and ways of working that improve physical health, and nudging workers to healthy habits and behaviors. For example, smart tech can encourage work-life boundaries, and encourage employees to move, take screen breaks, and stretch. It’s good for workers and organizations to keep everyone healthy.

Smart tech is not a panacea for improving work or workplaces.  However, when used carefully and strategically, when piloted to understand its effect on workers, it can create new time that can be used to re-humanize work and workplaces.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at editorial@3BLMedia.com and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.  

Image credit: Pavel Danilyuk via Pexels

There’s good news for the plant-based protein industry and the planet as a whole in a recent report out by Kearney. As prices become competitive with traditional meat, plant-made alternatives are expected to experience a sudden and dramatic increase in market share. But while price parity could lead to a 20 percent expansion, that increase could in turn further fuel falling prices and lead to a snowball effect where plant-based meat and other proteins are cheaper, and thus potentially in higher demand, than thought possible at present. This is even more true if governments choose to encourage this trend through health warnings and ad campaigns.

The cost to produce plant-based protein is currently about the same as it is to raise and slaughter animals for food, but that is set to change as brands step up production. However, it isn’t production costs that are keeping the price of these alternative products elevated by 50 to 300 percent above regular meat, but rather the need to supply shareholders with continuous returns on their investments while also financing research and development as well as marketing. As these additional costs wane, the resulting price decreases should lead to intensive growth — with a 3 percent increase in market share expected to come from a mere 1 percent drop in price.

So, how long will price matching take? That depends on numerous factors, but a 2021 report from Boston Consulting Group and Blue Horizon expects parity for most meat and dairy items by 2035. Still, many categories are expected to reach it before then. Beyond Meat, for example, intends to have at least one product priced at or below the protein it is imitating by 2024.

Falling prices on plant-based protein isn’t the only issue pushing toward parity. Another element to consider is the rising price of meat. Thanks to a variety of factors that haven’t affected its alternatives, beef is up in price more than 10 percent while other animal proteins are up 22 percent. And while it is estimated that by 2035, 11 percent of the protein that humans eat will come from plant sources, mitigating factors such as increases in the price of animal protein could cause that number to be much higher.

Another factor to consider could be government influence. Many readers likely remember slogans such as Got Milk? and Beef. It’s what’s for dinner. Likewise, consumers could be nudged toward plant-based protein through similar campaigns. On the flip side, warnings against meat consumption can be effective if they are specific and related to health, not just the environment.

Price parity is one thing — meat alternatives that undercut the original present a situation where consumers could potentially find the plant version more attractive. No doubt the rising prices on animal proteins have consumers feeling the pinch, though the increases are still quite a bit shy of the 50.6 percent that has been reported as the average threshold purchasers are willing to accept. But at least one brand has declared its intention to price its entire line of products below real meat competitors. The full ramifications of this remain to be seen. When faced with a cheaper alternative that is comparable in taste, it seems reasonable that real meat could become something to splurge on as opposed to something that is eaten multiple times per day.

Pushback from the meat industry might well be expected, but instead major players are getting into the fake meat game. With big names like Tyson and Unilever involved, it appears the industry has chosen the "if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em" tactic.

The advent of generics and private-label products on the scene will undoubtedly have a tremendous effect on price parity — assuming they maintain the taste and mouthfeel of successful name brands. President’s Choice and Aldi already make their own. WalMart’s Great Value has vegan cheese and plant-based chicken patties — not much, but it’s a start. It seems natural to wonder what effect the retail giant could have on prices should it choose to join the fray with a full line of products.

Three-quarters of consumers are willing to consider plant-based protein if it is priced equal to or less than the real thing, according to the Good Food Institute. In the U.S., 57 percent of households already bought a meat alternative in 2020. As price parity approaches, more and more people are willing to include alternatives in their diets, which creates a cycle driving prices down even further. Governments interested in curtailing climate change, biodiversity loss and health issues related to high rates of animal protein consumption could use nudges to bolster this trend. It remains to be seen how consumers will react once the other side of parity is reached and plant-based proteins are cheaper than their animal counterparts. Nevertheless, it is likely to have a huge effect on market share and could lead to dramatic changes in how we eat. 

Image credit: Rob Martin via Unsplash

A financing agreement between the government of Bolivia and the United Nations' International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) will increase the resiliency of nearly 20,000 smallholder Bolivian farmers battling crop shortages in the face of climate change. The funding for the $26.5 million ACCESOS Rural Project will be sprinkled throughout 430 communities and enable the farmers to improve their production of staple foods like potatoes, tomatoes, onions and beans.

The struggle in a region already coping with inflation

The investment hopes to offset raging inflation rates threatening the region by pumping money into high-demand foods and thus keeping prices at bay. High inflation and South America have long been infamously intertwined: For example, hyperinflation paired with political instability and rampant corruption beset Venezuela into a crisis after inflation reached a bewildering 1,300,000 percent in 2018.

After a year of maintaining below average inflation rates compared to other emerging market economies, high inflation again crept into major Latin American markets like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Peru. Soaring food prices, which had already started climbing before the pandemic, are among the biggest inflationary drivers. Supply chain disruptions, lockdown measures and the unrelenting presence of climate change spiked food prices at an accelerated rate. The war in Ukraine will worsen this reality in Latin America.

“After the sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe, we can expect interruptions in global supply chains, this can translate into product shortages and price increases due to social and political instability,” wrote Carlos David Carrasco Muro for the World Economic Forum earlier this week.

In Bolivia, add the impacts of climate change

The impacts of climate change have been devastating in Bolivia, where widespread droughts have led to paltry crop yields for some farmers. In each of the last three years, Bolivia’s dryness has sparked severe wildfires that have burned millions of acres of land, killing crops along their path.

The ACCESOS Rural Project, which builds on a previous $59 million program spanning 2014 to 2019, will provide funding for technical farming assistance that will improve farmer’s production techniques in the face of extreme weather shocks through tools like an early climate warning system.

Along with enabling farmers to better adjust and anticipate pricing fluctuations, the improved adaptation techniques will lead to more fruitful harvests, IFAD hopes. And more fruitful harvests go hand in hand with a core objective of the Bolivian government: reducing food imports.

How the war in Ukraine affects Latin America

Look no further than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to see how reliance on foreign nations for food can have disastrous impacts locally. Collectively, Ukraine and Russia account for a quarter of the world’s grain and wheat exports, much of which flows to the Middle East, North Africa and East Africa.

Not only is the war limiting the exports able to reach these populations, but it’s also rattling the markets and sending commodity prices through the roof. On top of that, prices for vital energy supplies like natural gas, as well as fertilizers and pesticides, are also nearing record highs due to Russia’s invasion. Limited access to fertilizers and pesticides is among the best ways to guarantee a poor crop yield, further perpetuating the nasty cycle of food price increases due to limited supply — and the effects have spread as far as South America.

This is what’s stoking World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley into telling the U.N. Security Council that this is a “catastrophe on top of a catastrophe.” Beyond creating millions of new Ukrainian refugees, a report from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization supports Beasley’s sentiment. The FAO estimates the global population of undernourished people could increase by 8 million to 13 million due to the conflict.

Bolivians, who rely far less on Ukrainian and Russian exports, will likely not contribute to that FAO estimate. And with successful implementation of the ACCESOS Rural Project, farmers in Bolivia just may be able to chip away at their nation’s food insecurity, all while creating stable marketplaces and building the resiliency of their smallholder farmers.

Image credits: Lesly Derksen via Unsplash; Andrés Condarco via Pexels

Cryptocurrency offers the world a transformative new financial instrument. It’s the first global currency. The currencies themselves are encrypted strings of data that relate to a single unit of currency. It’s digital money that’s organized through a blockchain. The blockchain is the ledger that stores transactions, and it’s built using cryptography that’s impossible to change after transactions are created. While there’s considerable benefits with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, the process of creating new coins comes with environmental costs. Pushing the industry towards a more sustainable future will require a host of changes and new developments.

Cryptocurrency mining, explained

Creating new Bitcoins requires mining. Mining involves computers solving complex equations that produce new coins over a certain amount of time. Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies are digital records, so there’s a risk of someone creating copies or counterfeits. Mining prevents such actions because it requires more money and time to “hack” the blockchain than it does to join a miner network. Mining also functions as governance over the blockchain. Since there’s no bank or government in charge of Bitcoin, mining creates a consensus known as a proof of work (PoW) that serves as validation for transactions on the blockchain. The reward for performing these proofs is received in Bitcoin, which then fluctuates continually in price.

Mining requires individuals to solve complex mathematical puzzles with special devices called application-specific integrated circuit devices, or ASICs. Miners work together to pool computing resources to solve the puzzles faster, because the first miner to successfully complete the algorithm receives a certain amount of the Bitcoin’s value. The difficulty of mining changes over time. In the earliest days of Bitcoin, someone could run a mining program from their PC and create a meaningful number of coins. As the network grew and more people and groups took up mining, the algorithm for Bitcoin creation also grew in complexity. The system is designed to find a new “block” every 10 minutes. If there are millions of miners instead of thousands, then the difficulty must increase exponentially to hit that 10-minute target.

The downside to the ever-increasing mining process is the required energy consumption and mixture needed to power the mining equipment. Thankfully, there’s new developments in technology, regulations, and the promise of newer types of mining that can push the industry towards a more sustainable future.

Cryptocurrency mining requires energy

As organizations including Fitch Ratings have pointed out, electricity comprises up to 90 percent of crypto mining costs, which puts their business models at risks due to volatility in the market. As most electricity generation still comes from fossil fuels, crypto mining’s energy usage creates a significant environmental problem. Reports such as this recent profile on the Washington Post also show how crypto plants can generate noise pollution and have an adverse affect on local communities’ quality of life, especially during the night when these data centers take advantage of off-peak utility rates.

Within the context of climate change and energy efficiency, Bitcoin mining stands out as a massive use of electricity-related resources. This is because miners engage in computational “races,” where the first to solve Bitcoin puzzles earns the prize of actual Bitcoin. It’s a fair process, but it’s one that drives massive demand for large-scale operations with hundreds of computers and cooling equipment. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work structure reinforces this demand in a loop.

Miners need to balance several costs and conditions, including the cost of electricity for running and cooling the equipment, the efficiency of the system’s calculations, the time spent mining compared to the reward, and the current value of Bitcoin. In areas where fossil fuels or other inefficient and “dirty” sources are used to generate electricity, mining can contribute to local pollution and broader climate change. To remain profitable, miners look for ways to cut their costs, and are turning towards alternative energy sources and other practices to reduce their mining expenses.

Potential solutions for making cryptocurrency more sustainable

As Bitcoin usage becomes mainstream by the broader public and financial institutions, there’s increased attention paid to the environmental consequences. While some countries ban mining, these actions shift the mining to other countries, and don’t address the environmental impacts of mining at a global scale. To change these impacts the mining industry and governmental bodies need to take a different sustainable approach that could involve the following steps.

Regulatory requirements including more transparency about the environmental impacts of crypto as well as carbon taxes for those mining operations utilizing fossil fuel energy sources. This could include more transparency about energy usage and sources, carbon taxes, and other similar efforts. For example, a securitized carbon market could mean a crypto mining company could purchase credits from another firm to offset emissions or transition to green energy sources and earn money from selling its own credits. 

The use of alternative fuel sources such as solar and hydropower. Some firms leverage hydropower by installing mining equipment directly at hydropower plants, to reduce operational costs and lower pollution outputs. Hydropower is stable and reliable (solar does not work at night), and provides steady and lower-cost power.

Mining firms can offset their emissions and energy usage by partnering with a reputable carbon offset program that conducts reforestation and other efforts.

Improvements in the efficiency and electricity usage of mining equipment can lower the environmental impacts. For example, Intel offers improved ASICs it’s calling “blockchain accelerators” which promises to increase computational speeds at a considerably lower energy requirement.

Changing the mining procedures of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to a proof-of-stake method uses much less computing power. Other methods include proof-of-history or proof-of-burn, which contrast to the energy-intensive current methodology called proof-of-work. Ethereum will eventually transition to proof-of-stake, a move that’s calculated to reduce energy consumption by 99.95 percent.

Different approaches to cryptocurrency mining

Another way to improve cryptocurrency mining’s sustainability is to change the mining process. Miners DeFi is a startup taking a novel approach to reducing mining’s environmental impacts. It’s a utility token that supports a decentralized collective for hydropower and clean energy bitcoin mining. This collective uses transaction fees for growth, with some paid out in BTCB (Binance-Pegged Bitcoin) and another percentage used to purchase hydro-powered mining rigs that mine Bitcoin for the collective. It leverages the efficiency and availability of hydropower and partners with firms like Cyberian Mine that offer mining in Siberia leveraging techniques such as natural cooling due to the area’s low ambient year-round temperatures and abundant hydropower. 

Ideally, the Bitcoin mining community will embrace new ways to reduce their environmental impacts that also translate into higher profits. Advances in hydropower and solar, ways to incentivize miners such as carbon markets and new mining equipment can all reduce waste and improve sustainability. Miners can reduce consumption while continuing to provide valuable cryptocurrency that are integral to daily life and global economies.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at editorial@3BLMedia.com and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: Maxim Hopman via Unsplash