Search

As the world watches images of Louisiana flooding in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida, it all seems eerily familiar. Not just that it’s similar to post-Katrina flooding, but 2021 has seen some of the worst flooding around the world. From Germany to Turkey to Tennessee to New South Wales, the news seemed never-ending. Hurricane season is entering its most intense phase, so we can expect more flooding news. It is no wonder that floods sit at the top of the risk pile for investors concerned about the impacts of climate change.

To that end, climate change mitigation is the surest way to ensure floods don’t continue to worsen in the future. Communities are already feeling the impacts of climate change, however, so the focus must be on adaptation. At the 2021 World Water Week, one community showcased its integrative approach to flood management.

Valuing water principles in the era of climate change

In 2019, the Dutch prime minister launched the Valuing Water Initiative as an effort to implement the United Nations’ Valuing Water Principles. The Principles were formulated by the High Level of Panel on Water in 2016 to implement Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Ensure available of sustainable management of water and sanitation for all). The idea behind them was to create a common ground starting point for governments, nonprofits, and businesses in solving water problems. The five principles include recognizing the multiple values of water, reconciling disparate values, protect all sources of water, raise public awareness water to enable more inclusive participation, and ensure investment to harness innovation.

With about half the country’s inhabitants living in areas that are below sea level, the Netherlands has a long history of engineering water solutions. Considered one of the leaders in innovative water solutions, the country now faces the same challenges as other countries: what has worked in the past may need to be amplified to deal with the effects of climate change. By creating the Valuing Water Initiatives, the Netherlands is taking a more comprehensive approach to integrating stakeholder needs into water planning. One of the showcases of the Initiative is the city of Dordrecht.

Dordrecht has centuries of experience from being a target of floods

Dordrecht (shown above) is in the southwestern part of the Netherlands and sits at the intersection of the sea and three major rivers, making it prime target for flooding. In fact, Dordrecht is the site of one of the most catastrophic floods in the Low Land’s history: in 1421, when Dordrecht was the capital city of Holland, a major storm caused several of the dykes to break. Around twenty villages around the city were completely destroyed, with casualties of up to 10,000 people. For decades afterward, the city was an island, only accessible by boat, and as a result, Dordrecht lost much of its importance.

With that history in mind—and it was far from the only time the area has flooded over the centuries—the city is now the flagship in the Netherlands for the Valuing Water Initiative. The project focuses on how to change the view of flooding as part of sustainable urban design.

Previously, city planners focused on protecting the city through a system of physical flood defenses such as dikes, storm barriers, and walls, engineered to withstand occasional flooding. But with climate change, they recognized that a multi-layered approach was necessary. The added layers to the project include prevention and preparation, two strategies that can be controversial, so it’s where the necessity of including stakeholder input and attracting enough investment come into play.

Prevention is an essential cornerstone of every successful adaptation strategy in flood-prone areas. Each community or region must decide what is appropriate for their particular situation, based on historical as well as potential modeled outcomes, geology and other local conditions. For example, as part of the prevention strategy, the Valuing Water Initiative recommends Dordrecht not grant building permits in areas proven to be prone to flooding.

This is a serious consideration, regardless of where a community is located. After devastating hurricanes, like Katrina, Harvey, Irma and Michael hit the United States, outdated flood maps and loose permitting requirements became a major topic of conversation. Unfortunately, more often than not, without adequate policies in place to prevent rebuilding in flood-prone areas, we keep seeing the same areas flooded over and over again.

The final layer of the Valuing Water Initiative is preparation; that is, having a plan in place for the flooding inevitably happens. Focusing on the De Staart district in Dordrecht, which sits higher than the rest of the city, planners are developing a multi-faceted approach to getting its residents to safety in the event of a flood. The project includes developing sustainable housing, flexible spaces and a public transportation system to help with evacuations. In many instances, when people do not evacuate areas hit by natural disasters, it is because they cannot afford to leave. Further, it is often the most vulnerable who live in the areas most often hit because that land is the cheapest. Establishing an evacuation plan available to all residents requires input from affected stakeholders as well as significant investment to ensure the success of the plan.

Ida shows climate adaptation is the reality

The recently released IPCC climate report highlighted in the strongest terms that work must be done to stall and reduce carbon and methane emissions to slow the progression of climate change. But it also made clear that we already feel the effects. The intensity and frequency of natural disasters already occurring make undertaking substantive adaptation programs necessary. Without adequate adaptation planning, the economic impacts could be devastating. In order to be successful, they will need policy direction, diverse and inclusive stakeholder engagement, and private investment.

In our modern world, we have the engineering, policy, and financial understanding to develop and integrate sustainable design into adaptation schemes. Building a multi-billion-dollar dike in the Gulf of Mexico may help with a storm surge at the level of Ida, but it won’t stop the flooding from the concomitant rain, and studies show nature-based solutions need to be included. Understanding that these impacts are already here makes the need for a comprehensive plan to manage them imperative. The Dutch have been engineering water management solutions for centuries. As they continue to innovate, other countries should follow their lead.

Image credit: Aron Marinelli/Unsplash

In recent years, and especially last summer, we’ve seen social justice issues unfold and then spark bold calls for change. Citizens around the world have taken stand for justice, and corporate leaders were no exception to speaking up. Despite plenty of shortcomings, the work promised in committing to racial injustice, income inequality and hunger, and food insecurity did not go entirely in vain. In fact, as they are directly affected, social justice is still fresh in the minds of many Black business owners, according to a recent survey.

Bank of America surveyed Black small business owners about their priorities, the challenges of business ownership and the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey revealed that Black business owners are absolutely championing for social change and that social justice issues have had an impact on their business operations.

“We did find that 94 percent of the entrepreneurs are advocating for social change so it’s actually to the point where it’s really driven entrepreneurs to advocate for this change not just through their communities but through their business,” said Sharon Miller, head of small business at Bank of America, in an interview with TriplePundit.

According to Bank of America’s data, more than half of Black business owners surveyed have communicated a commitment to equality and giving back to their local communities. In addition, one-third of these business owners are either seeking more minority and women-owned vendors; seeking vendors who promote diversity, quality and inclusion; or are hiring diverse talent.

Where Black business owners have concern and seek change

Miller explained to 3p that the existing small business ownership challenges includes the juggling of several roles. Small business owners wear multiple hats, from chief executive officer to human resources, and this dynamic creates additional stress, according to Miller.

This is reflected in Bank of America’s data. In addition to being inspired by social justice, Black business owners are “acknowledging their own stress.” In fact, 64 percent of owners said their mental health was affected by the pandemic and 95 percent of owners said the pandemic created extra stress for operating their businesses. As a result, they dealt with the pressure by prioritizing time with family and friends, engaging in entertaining activities, adopting healthy habits, and practicing religion or spirituality.

It is no surprise that the pandemic has exacerbated another challenge: the challenge of working multiple roles and managing its stress. This is because of the pandemic-induced employee layoffs and business closures. To this point, Miller called attention to a silver lining. She explained to 3p that the pandemic has changed the way business owners work, including adopting healthy habits, striving for work-life balance and experiencing efficiency when switching to digital platforms.

Black business owners are also dealing with the high levels of stress that has come with the pandemic by carrying out new changes that prioritize employee wellbeing. The top changes include allowing a flexible work schedule, working from home, offering additional paid time off or vacation time, financial wellness programs, and expanding well-being programs to include behavioral and mental health programs.

Advocating for social justice amidst financial challenges

Black-owned businesses disproportionately faced financial challenges during the pandemic. In fact, 41 percent of Black owned businesses completely shut down, compared to 17 percent of white-owned businesses. While Black business owners are keen on advocating for social justice and implementing changes, they are also compelled to focus and work through financial hardships. This can slow down any of their efforts focused on advocating for social justice.

There is at least one way to slow or turn this situation around. Bank of America’s data reveals that funding is essential in helping Black business owners recover faster from the pandemic. This is because half of the owners intend to apply for a bank loan or credit this year, which is intended for payroll and staffing, new safety measures and expanding operations.

Miller explained to 3p that Bank of America recognizes what needs to be done. This is evident in its participation in the U.S. Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and partnerships with community development financial institutions (CDFIs). Bank of America has also made a $1 billion, four-year commitment to support local communities facing economic and racial injustice which was amplified by the pandemic. This commitment focuses on health, employment, small businesses, and housing. Advocating for social justice has a knock-on effect on business operations and employee wellbeing. With additional support from banks and conglomerates, Black owned businesses can thrive and continue to advance social justice.

Image credit: Pexels

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered a “code red for humanity." Global temperature rise has reached 1.5 degrees Celsius, and human activity is “unequivocally” to blame.

As TriplePundit’s Leon Kaye wrote last month in the wake of that report, “… the key takeaways are plain: The consensus is that climate change is here, it’s undeniable, the outlook is bad, and while there is hope, some of the damage already or to be inflicted cannot be rolled back.”

So, where do we go from here?

This fall, countries will gather for COP26 to discuss global climate action, but in the meantime, the team here at 3p and 3BL Media is asking the big questions about the role businesses can take in the fight against the climate crisis.

To that end, join us on next Wednesday at September 8 at 1 p.m. ET (10 a.m. PT, 6:00 p.m. BST) for the third installment of 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands - LIVE!. We’ll talk with leaders from top companies about how businesses can cut their own emissions, engage with governments, suppliers and peers on climate-smart policies and ensure climate justice for at-risk communities worldwide. We’re pleased to offer this event for free.

REGISTER FOR FREE HERE

During this session’s 45 minutes, you’ll hear from senior leaders, including:

• Thomas Lingard, global sustainability director of Unilever
• Emma Stewart, Netflix’s first sustainability officer
• Clinton Moloney, managing director of sustainability solutions at Engie Impact
• Rebekah Moses, head of impact strategy for Impossible Foods
• Caroline Bushnell, vice president of corporate engagement at the Good Food Institute
• Diandra Marizet, co-founder and executive director of Intersectional Environmentalist
• Sabs Katz, co-founder and partnerships lead of Intersectional Environmentalist
• Jami Lewchik, senior brand manager for Tazo Tea

Throughout the year, 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – LIVE! has convened various companies’ leaders from top brands for a series of sessions meant to explore "the why" and "the how" behind business leadership at this critical moment in history.

Again, register at no cost here.

Image credit: Patrick Perkins/Unsplash

As companies start bringing people back to in-person work at offices and facilities, the health protocols of those work environments are more top-of-mind than ever, often in ways that never occurred to people before the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature of how office spaces are designed will likely change as well, moving from high-density workspaces to reconfigurations that allow for greater distancing, changing utilization patterns, and more opportunities for employees to control their work environment — building job satisfaction and ensuring staff feel safe. 

No matter what, people will be more likely to demand to know that their work spaces are healthy. To that end, the International WELL Building Institute (IWBI) built upon its widely adopted WELL Building Standard to develop the evidence-based, third-party verified WELL Health-Safety Rating for Facility Operations and Management for building managers to both help protect occupants from COVID-19 today as well as build resilience for the future.

A science-based standard for healthier and safer spaces

Released in July 2020, the new rating includes more than 20 features across five core areas: Emergency Preparedness Programs, Cleaning and Sanitization Procedures, Health Service Resources, Air and Water Quality Management, and Stakeholder Engagement and Communication. At least 15 of these criteria must be met in order for a space to be rated.
 
When considering a well-being rating for a building, emergency preparedness may not come immediately to mind, but having a plan in place to effectively and efficiently handle an emergency ensures that a building owner is equipped not only to immediately address a crisis, but also successfully recover in its aftermath. Consider how, in March 2020, most offices shut down at once when the coronavirus began to spread. Now over a year and a half later, those same building owners have to figure out how to safely return to operation. Lessons learned from responding to the pandemic can also apply to preparing for other emergencies.

A focus on emergency preparedness builds resilience for the future

According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, natural disasters have killed more than 410,000 people in the past 10 years and have affected a further 1.7 billion. Stress, a common side effect of surviving a natural disaster, can weaken the immune system, putting people at greater risk of contracting viruses like COVID-19 and encountering other health problems. The pandemic itself is an emergency that has moved with alarming speed due to factors such as international trade and travel and increased urbanization, infecting over 213 million people and counting.
 
Therefore, in considering what core areas should comprise the rating, IWBI naturally went to emergency preparedness as one of them. “Building code sets a foundation for several types of emergencies,” Nathan Stodola, chief engineer at IWBI, told TriplePundit. “For example, requiring strategies to fight fires and allowing for egress, or structural seismic design requirements in areas prone to earthquakes. But this only touches the surface of what those in a building should be preparing for, with gaps in topics such as entry requirements and business continuity plans.”
 
Understanding exit during and reentry after a disaster is critical for continuing business operations in the aftermath of an emergency. On average, about 25 percent of U.S. small businesses do not reopen after a natural disaster, according to the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The lack of an appropriate emergency preparedness plan thus affects not only the building owner, but also its occupants and the broader economic health of the community.

Prioritizing emergency preparedness in buildings

In determining what the emergency preparedness pillar of a building standard would look like, IWBI first had to decide what constitutes an emergency. “We include a number of categories that are relevant to most buildings,” Stodola told TriplePundit. These include the obvious like natural disasters, fires and health events, as well as others that are less expected, such as technological emergencies and human-caused events. “Within these categories, different buildings will have different emergencies that are most relevant,” he explained. “For example, a building in Japan might need a tsunami response plan while one in Oklahoma would more likely need to prepare for tornadoes.” 
 
Further, preparing for emergencies like global pandemics means having a clear exit strategy as well as a plan to ensure that the building is a healthy place for people to return to when it’s safe.

IWBI consulted with 600 public health experts, virologists, government officials, academics, business leaders, architects, designers, building scientists and real estate professionals around the world while updating its WELL Building Standard Version 2 to identify pandemic-related needs, and it crafted relevant features into the WELL Health-Safety Rating. The rating is third-party verified. 

The features of the rating “draw on recommendations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and leading academic research,” Stodola said. 
 
The rating requires building owners to develop an emergency preparedness plan that lays out procedures and protocols for reacting to an emergency situation when it arises. This feature already exists in IWBI’s WELL Building Standard, and is one of the most frequently pursued in the WELL Health-Safety Rating. Other features include requirements to develop a business continuity plan to preemptively prepare for operating during emergencies, and a plan for a healthy re-entry back into the building during or following an emergency.
 
Based on the experience with COVID-19, the core area has a recently-added feature, which requires building owners to establish health entry requirements. “This newest feature rewards buildings that, when there is a heightened risk of infectious respiratory disease transmission, require individuals to be vaccinated against the disease or present a recent negative test,” Stodola explained.

Preparing for emergencies and the future

In the past year and a half, as most people have worked remotely, a work environment that prioritizes health has become even more expected. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over, and anxiety about shared work spaces will likely increase. Knowing that a building owner has put in place certain safeguards to promote the health of the people within the space is reassuring.
 
Still, far more needs to be done to prepare for emergencies and unforeseen events into the future. As we witnessed during the pandemic, in addition to physical health, people’s mental health has also been impacted. Companies need to be prepared for any kind of catastrophe in order to protect their long-term viability and, of course, the well-being of their employees. A healthy building can help address both.

This article series is sponsored by the International WELL Building Institute (IWBI) and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image credit: Stocksy via IWBI

To help female athletes achieve their full potential, the beer brand Michelob Ultra recently announced a $100 million commitment to women’s sports over the next five years. In addition, the Anheuser-Busch brand pledges gender balance in its advertising creative, talent endorsements, lifestyle media and sponsorships by 2025.

Michelob Ultra made this commitment to women's sports with the launch of the “Save It, See It” campaign, urging fans on social media to boost the visibility of female athletes. As part of the push for equal pay, the brand says it is working to elevate female athletes. The company made the announcement on Women’s Equality Day, which just occurred last week.

“Coming off the [Olympic] Games where women did exceptionally well and brought home more medals than men, we believe it’s the right time to keep people watching women’s sports,” said Ricardo Marques, Michelob Ultra’s marketing vice president said in a Forbes interview.

Historically, women have had fewer opportunities to participate in sports, but significant gains have been made since the early 1970s. Yet, 1.13 million more boys participate than girls in the U.S., according to 2018-2018 data from the National Federation of State High School Associations. It’s clear much work still lies ahead.

The advantages of participating in youth sports are undeniable, especially for teenage girls, who often suffer from a lack of confidence. The physical benefits of sports include lower obesity, blood pressure and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Psychologically, the benefits include improved wellbeing, a stronger sense of belonging, and greater self-esteem. Academically, studies have suggested that some students involved in athletics show greater academic achievement and higher college attendance and retention.

The Women's Sports Foundation surveyed over 2,300 women working in sports and released a national research report, "Chasing Equity: The Triumphs, Challenges and Opportunities in Sports for Girls and Women.” The report found that the gender gap in sports is getting smaller, yet it persists. If the benefits are so great, the lack of opportunity could hinder women from reaching their full potential.

“I just think participation in sport does so much for the well-being of girls – it builds their confidence, helps manage stress/mental health, and prepares them to handle failure, knowing that the next day may be when they win. It is great preparation for a career,” said a survey participant.

Michelob Ultra has a roster of female athletes known for bringing equality to women's sports. Nneka Ogwumike is the WNBPA President and a voice for female athlete representation.

As the first openly transgender female athlete to win an NCAA title, CeCe Telfer is an LGBTQ+ champion. Andraya Carter is a basketball analyst, reporter, former NCAA athlete and inclusivity advocate. As a leader in sports marketing, the company is well-positioned to make a difference.

"It's not just about making a statement today," says Nneka Ogwumike, President of the WNBA Players Association. "It's also about setting goals and taking actionable steps toward gender equality on and off the court, which is why I'm proud to be a partner of Michelob Ultra and will continue to support their commitment to women's sports equality."

This follows a recent trend for athletics to serve as drivers of social change. For example, LeBron James is helping to increase assess to voting for felons and Black Lives Matter was stenciled on the NFL fields and NBA courts.

"Michelob Ultra is proud to be a longtime partner of female athletes and organizations, and as a leader in both the beer and sports marketing industries, there's so much more we can do to help support equal pay when it comes to women's sports," said Marques in a press release.

"We need to set the example, and the time for equality has always been now. Our commitment demonstrates Michelob Ultra’s core belief that female athletes deserve an equal experience, whether they're on the court, in the newsroom, or on our TV screens."

Image credit: Jeffrey F. Lin/Unsplash

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally granted full approval to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine last week, it seemed that the door was closed on vaccine refusers once and for all. However, employers who seek to mandate the vaccine for their employees still face many pitfalls and obstacles.

Some experts have argued that employers have always been well within their rights to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine, even under the emergency use authorization provided by the FDA.

In a recent piece for The Atlantic, Juliette Kayyem of the Kennedy School of Government echoed the sentiments of many when she argued that the time has come to stop pacifying vaccine refusers.

“Getting a shot to protect yourself and others from COVID-19 is both a social responsibility and the best way to hasten the end of the pandemic, and if you don’t believe that, we’re not waiting around for you to step up,” she wrote. 

However, reality in the world of corporate healthcare is more complicated than that.

The case made against stringent vaccine mandates

Depending on the types of employees within the workforce, some large corporations may feel that vaccine refusers will simply quit rather than keep their jobs, potentially leading to labor shortages that force shutdowns and cutbacks.

Others may be concerned about blowback from labor unions, or lawsuits brought by individuals.

Somewhat ironically, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the 2009 Affordable Care Act strengthened protections against discrimination based on various factors including body mass index as well as gender, race, disability and pre-existing conditions. That has further complicated the legal environment for employers seeking to impose penalties on employees based on their vaccination status.

As described by reporter Clare Bugos of VeryWell Health, smoking is one of the few exceptions to federal health insurance protections, and that issue is typically handled through corporate wellness programs.

The wellness program strategy appears to be the path taken by Delta Airlines. The company became a sort of canary in the vaccine coal mine last week, when it announced a steep hike in insurance rates for unvaccinated workers.

Other companies, though, appear to be waiting to assess the legal repercussions for Delta before taking the plunge. So far, corporate and government vaccine “mandates” typically provide an escape hatch by offering the alternative of weekly testing.

The case for mandates and the case against vaccine refusers

Despite the complications, in recent weeks vaccine refusers have been getting a cold, hard dose of reality. The new Delta variant is attacking millions of unvaccinated Americans, many of whom bought into unserious ideas about the COVID-19 virus all during the pandemic. Now their bodies are beginning to pile up in morgues all over the country.

Media attention has also begun to focus on the deaths of high-profile pundits and influencers known for spreading false information about the COVID-19 virus, the effectiveness of masks, and the safety of vaccines.

In recent days the death toll has included three high profile talk radio hosts who were killed in recent weeks by the very virus they dismissed: Florida-based Marc Bernier and Dick Farrel, as well as Tennessee-based Phil Valentine.

The three deaths have garnered widespread attention in the media, as has the death this week of Caleb Wallace, a well-known COVID-19 denier with a wide reach on social media.

Follow the money

In effect, COVID-19 deniers and vaccine refusers are beginning to make their own case for a vaccine mandate.

Further undermining faith in COVID-19 deniers is the increased media attention to the money mill behind some of the high-profile personalities who promote quack cures and discourage vaccination.

The money factor is important as the vaccines are free and proven safe, and masks are inexpensive. People who refuse vaccines and masks in favor of “cures” and treatments costing hundreds of dollars are not questioning their own decision, but others certainly can, and will, judge them.

One example recently cited by Agence France Presse is Sherri Tenpenny, an Ohio osteopath.

“From a $240 premium podcast annual membership to $165 webinars on why people ‘should not take the shot,’ health supplements and ticketed public speaking, Tenpenny runs a sprawling enterprise based on anti-vaccine activism, disdain for masks and testing, and denials that COVID-19 is real,” AFP reported.

Another example comes through Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has become notorious for his efforts to stop local jurisdictions from requiring the simple, effective precaution of face masks. Last week the Miami Herald reported that the governor has been taking advice from the Los Angeles-based psychiatrist Dr. Mark McDonald, who “is among a fringe group of outspoken medical professionals who have pushed ivermectin as an alternative to widespread vaccination against coronavirus.”

According to the Miami Herald, McDonald has ties to America’s Frontline Doctors, a group known for selling quack cures including the common livestock deworming medication ivermectin.

On the heels of a three-month investigation into America’s Frontline Doctors, last week Time magazine reported that “hundreds of AFLD customers and donors have accused the group of touting a service promising prescriptions for ivermectin…Some customers described being charged for consultations that did not happen. Others said they were connected to digital pharmacies that quoted excessive prices of up to $700 for the cheap medication.”

The long, slow death of anti-science

In some ways, the persistence of vaccine refusers mirrors the money machine that has fueled climate change denial. One key difference is that top climate change deniers generally have the financial resources to protect themselves from climate change impacts, leaving others to scramble to recover after drought, fire and floods destroy their homes and livelihoods.

In contrast, some of those who spread COVID-19 falsehoods and publicly rail against vaccines are just as vulnerable to serious illness and death as any member of their audience.

Perhaps the bloody trail of COVID-19 will finally convince more of the voting public to stop getting information from their “friends” on the Internet and start listening to fact-based scientific research.

In reality, though, millions already seem beyond reason. Difficult and complicated they may be, corporate vaccine mandates, with no opt-out for regular testing, are the only recourse.

Image credits: Roger Starnes Sr./Unsplash; Joshua Hoehne/Unsplash

Among the many reasons why we’ve heard so much about the “Great Resignation” this year is that employees who became fed up with their workplaces have cited the need to take care of their mental health first and foremost. Add the fact that this summer we saw athletes including Simone Biles decide that athletic mega-events be damned, they were going to take care of themselves.

So, 18-plus months into this pandemic, here’s the stubborn truth: If your company has not invested in additional mental health resources, or at a minimum outlined the options available as part of existing benefits packages, then your human resources department is at a minimum disturbingly negligent.

But no matter what your company’s available resources or your personal finances may be, there is a compelling option to consider even if you are not capitalizing on any mental health resources at hand: meditation.

How you go about exploring the benefits of meditation are up to you. Find a trusted resource such as a friend or valued colleague, or check out the various apps, YouTube videos or books on the subject.

But if the HR department is scratching its collective head and asking around about any new potential employee benefits, an all-inclusive meditation app should be in the cards.

Recently, my healthcare plan gave me full access to the Calm app. Long story short, all the chill pills I had consumed in my adult life were not doing the trick. Plus, recent events led to what the doctors said was far too much anxiety for the human body and brain to handle. Among the suggestions for treatment was a full subscription to the Calm app.

While I had understood there are benefits to practices such as yoga and meditation, I was skeptical at first — probably because I’ve binged on far too many episodes of Ab Fab and recent Netflix series to take them seriously. But a few weeks into harnessing Calm, I can see that it has made a difference. There’s something to be said about decompressing at any point during the day and focusing on one’s inner self.

Part of the infatuation I have with Calm is the slight boy crush I’ve developed on Tamara Levitt, who narrates many of the sessions available on Calm — all of which are designed to help reduce stress, fall asleep, reflect on the day ahead or, of course, hone the ability to embrace meditation and completely unplug. It's also well-designed, easy to use and offers many options for listening at any point during the day.

Like any app, Calm has its own strengths and weaknesses that depend on the user. Listening to bedtime stories read by the likes of Regé-Jean Page and Idris Elba turned out to be more of a thirst trap and less of an effective means to fall asleep. Nevertheless, at a bare minimum, there’s something to be said about taking the time out to concentrate on your breathing, and while it’s not easy for many of us to turn off those negative thoughts, it’s worthwhile learning to relegate them as passing thoughts instead of letting them linger.

As we’re starting, here’s a fair question: What can be the toughest part of engaging in meditation? It’s the scheduling. Begin by tucking a daily entry into your calendar. It’s up to you whether you want to allow it to be set as “public,” or set it as private if you’d rather avoid any nosy inquiries. And make sure it’s clear that it’s not something a colleague can schedule over — this bit of time, even if only 10 to 15 minutes daily, is necessary because you’re worth it.

At a time when the news surrounding us is adding even more uncertainty and worry, a line item for a service such as a meditation app on the company ledger is a valuable investment. Try out several of them and decide on one that can offer employees that quick yet much-needed break from the daily virtual or in-office routine.

Image credit: Bob Osias/Unsplash

Between supply chain disruptions and labor shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc with various sectors in the construction industry. However, the increasing demand for wind power in the U.S. has outweighed other factors. Last year the domestic wind industry set another record for turbine installation, and the numbers indicate that further growth is in store.

Wind power in the U.S. is a bipartisan issue, sometimes

The U.S. has a vast amount of untapped wind potential located in waters offshore, due to its long coastlines. Unfortunately, technological and political obstacles have often blocked the construction of large offshore wind farms in U.S. waters to date.

The political obstacles to the offshore wind industry have been coming mainly from the Republican side of the aisle, but the situation is different on land. The technology for land-based wind turbine projects is well in hand, and state lawmakers have the ability to make or break wind power development on their turf. While some Republican officials have thrown up wind farm roadblocks in some states, others have run with the wind power ball.

For example, the red state of Texas has been a pacesetter for the U.S. wind industry, a status that arose during the long tenure of former Governor Rick Perry. Oklahoma is another state that has built a strong wind energy profile under Republican governorship. Similarly, Iowa has been a wind energy frontrunner, thanks partly to longstanding support from Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley.

U.S. wind power by the numbers

Despite the state-by-state, patchwork pace of wind power development in the U.S., the industry as a whole has enjoyed vigorous growth, as outlined in the new Land-Based Wind Market Report issued by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

“More wind energy was installed in 2020 than any other energy source, accounting for 42 percent of new U.S. capacity,” the Energy Department observed.

According to the new report, the U.S. added a record-setting 16,836 megawatts in new utility-scale wind power capacity in 2020, even as the nation was — and still is — in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Berkeley Lab also singled out a group of Republican-governed states for special attention.

“Most notably, wind power provided 57 percent of Iowa’s in-state electricity generation, while wind provided more than 30 percent of electricity in Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota and North Dakota,” the lab reported, adding that “Texas installed the most capacity with 4,137 MW.”

Other epicenters of wind power development in 2020 cited by Berkeley Lab included the Republican-governed states of Iowa, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Missouri along with Illinois, one of the few currently Democratic-governed states to top the list.

Wind power: smaller is okay, too

The Energy Department has also taken a look at small-scale wind power development through the 2021 edition of the Distributed Wind Market Report, produced by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The distributed wind sector can refer to wind turbines of practically any size, not just small ones. The deciding factor is the use of wind turbines to provide electricity to the site where they are located, or to nearby distribution grids.

In 2020, the distributed wind sector added 14.7 megawatts in capacity. That pales beside the number racked up by the utility-scale wind power sector. However, the impact on local economic development is significant, especially in rural areas. The report notes that agriculture accounted for 36 percent of distributed wind projects in 2020, and industrial customers accounted for 37 percent. Utilities and residential customers filled in the remainder.

In one especially interesting trend, early adopters of small wind turbines in raw distributed wind sector have been taking advantage of new, more efficient turbine technology.

“Small wind retrofits — new turbines installed on existing towers and foundations — have become more common, accounting for 80 percent of small wind capacity installed in 2020,” the report noted.

The interest in retrofits is also occurring in the utility-scale end of the wind power industry, where the first generation of wind farms is approaching 20 years of age or more. Having made the investment in turbine towers, land and transmission lines, developers can realize more capacity from the same wind farm by “repowering” old wind turbine towers with new technology.

What about offshore wind power?

The sorry state of the U.S. offshore wind industry stands in sharp contrast to the situation on land. A grand total of just 42 megawatts in capacity is currently located off the Atlantic coast, consisting of Rhode Island’s five-turbine, 30-megawatt Block Island wind farm and the first two turbines of the planned Skipjack wind farm off the coast of Virginia.

Nevertheless, the 2021 Offshore Wind Market Report, produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), provides a glimpse into the potential for enormous growth in job creation if political roadblocks can be overcome.

NREL counts a total of 35,324 megawatts worth of new offshore wind power in the pipeline for 2020, representing a 24 percent increase over 2019.

Unfortunately, the political roadblocks working against offshore wind power have taken a legal turn, in which the conservative “bill mill” organization ALEC reportedly has a hand.

Business leaders who see a future in wind power could help the offshore wind industry catch up to land-based development, by cutting off the money spigot that keeps ALEC and its allies alive.

Image credit: Cameron Venti/Unsplash

The on-again, off-again U.S. offshore wind industry seemed to have leaped a significant hurdle last spring. That’s when the Biden administration green-lighted the proposed Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts, as the nation’s first ever large-scale offshore wind farm. However, a new lawsuit with links to the lobbying group ALEC threatens to halt the project, and the uncertainty could have a ripple effect on 16 other offshore projects in the pipeline along the Atlantic coast.

What is the matter with the U.S. offshore wind industry?

The troubles of the U.S. offshore wind industry present a stark contrast to the rapid pace of wind energy development on land. Despite Republican-led efforts to quash the industry in some states, wind farm development in other states pushed forward at a rapid pace all during former President Obama's tenure and throughout the Trump administration. As of last year, the nation’s onshore wind farms had a total capacity of well over 122,000 megawatts.

By comparison, the offshore wind industry has been at a virtual standstill. Only one offshore wind farm, Rhode Island’s Block Island project, is currently in commercial operation within U.S. waters. Block Island’s five wind turbines have a total of only 30 megawatts. Two other turbines totaling 12 megawatts will eventually become part of the larger Skipjack wind farm off the coast of Virginia, unless halted in court.

The U.S. offshore industry was supposed to pick up speed after 2009, when the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) streamlined its approval process for leasing federal offshore areas. However, during the Obama administration, large swaths of the Pacific Coast and Gulf of Mexico were out of reach, along with the coasts of Maine and New Hampshire, mainly due to technology gaps and other feasibility considerations.

That left the early pace of offshore wind development up to policy makers in just 12 Atlantic Coast states, where conditions are ideal for offshore turbine construction.

Unfortunately for offshore wind power stakeholders, at least five of those states — New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida — were foot-dragging during the Obama administration, reportedly due to the political influence of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a lobbying organization widely regarded as a conservative “bill mill.”

Even so, BOEM continued to lease out areas under its new streamlined process during the Trump administration. After Biden took office, the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project became the first one to achieve final approval under the new process earlier this year, making it a sort of bellwether for 16 other projects in the pipeline.

ALEC vs. Vineyard Wind

Within the next few years, Vineyard Wind and the 16 other offshore wind projects will add 1,500 turbines to the U.S. offshore wind portfolio — unless something stops them.

And, once again, it looks like ALEC could have a hand in stopping, or at least delaying, all 16 projects.

As reported by Molly Taft of Gizmodo, last week a group of citizens filed a lawsuit against the Vineyard Wind project, under the name of Nantucket Residents Against Turbines. Among other charges, the suit alleges that BOEM did not sufficiently account for risks the project could pose to the endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Taft traced the ALEC connection through one of the lawsuit’s supporters, David Stevenson. He is a director at the Delaware-based Caesar Rodney Institute, which Taft describes as a “libertarian think tank.”

CRI is a member of the State Policy Network, an organization linked to ALEC partly through its roots in the former Madison Group. Greenpeace, among others, has noted that the State Policy Network organizes its efforts around ALEC policy positions.

One of CRI’s focus areas is offshore wind, and Stevenson is listed as policy director under a set of leasing recommendations for BOEM. The proposed guidance would force BOEM to terminate existing offshore leases and refund any monies paid to the lease holders.

Taft also notes that CRI is launching the new American Coalition for Ocean Protection, “specifically to fight offshore wind projects.”

The offshore wind ripple effect

As for whether or not the Vineyard Wind lawsuit will have an impact other Atlantic Coast projects, Stevenson himself clarified the issue during a press conference on the issue last week.

Reporter Charles Megginson of Delaware’s Town Square Live covered the press conference and cited Stevenson as stating that "it’s going to affect all of the offshore wind projects.”

“This is the first industrial-sized offshore wind project to be approved and the environmental impact statement is seriously flawed, the record of decision they used to get the permit is seriously flawed, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management used those flawed documents to approve this project,” Stevenson added.

Some legal analysts are skeptical that the lawsuit will succeed, partly because it rests on allegations that the project would pose a threat to the endangered north Atlantic right whale population.

Megginson cites Dr. Jeremy Firestone of the University of Delaware’s Center for Wind Research, who noted that the offshore wind industry has developed mitigation strategies that reduce if not eliminate risks to whales and other marine life.

“The biggest threat to right whales is and remains commercial ship strikes,” Firestone notes. That brings up the question of why the Nantucket lawsuit aims at an offshore wind project and not at the commercial fishing industry. NOAA also cites fishing gear entanglements as a leading threat to right whales in the Atlantic.

Another expert, cited by Gizmodo, noted that climate change is another significant threat to the north Atlantic right whale population. Climate change has been linked to changes in migration patterns as the whales seek food, leading them into new areas where risk mitigation strategies have not been developed, and increasing the chances of deadly encounters with human activity.

But, but, my view!

In a twist of irony, the same coastal communities that are most at risk from climate change have also played a role in slowing the development of the U.S. offshore wind industry, due to objections over the sight of wind turbines on the horizon.

Efforts to preserve a pristine view of the ocean can give rise to some unusual alliances. For example, a member of the Kennedy family and a member of the Koch family were both reportedly instrumental in bringing legal action that slowed, and eventually halted, the propose Cape Wind project in Massachusetts.

Cape Wind was the very first utility-scale wind farm proposed in the U.S., before BOEM finalized its new permit process. The demise of Cape Wind could be considered an outlier, now that the new process is in place. However, the Vineyard Wind lawsuit could upend all that work.

Like the legal action against Cape Wind, the Vineyard Wind controversy has also created unusual alliances.

Reuters reports that the solar company Allcore has also filed a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind. Allcore owner Thomas Melone, who owns property on Nantucket Sound, cites impacts on his view as well as impact on whales.

Offshore wind power has a future in the U.S., eventually

One development that could render the view issue moot is the recent emergence of floating wind turbine technology, which enables wind farms to be situated in deeper waters far offshore, where they are invisible.

Floating turbines also rely on tethers to stay in place instead of sunken piles. That could further mitigate some of the impacts associated with conventional fixed-platform construction.

Meanwhile, the Vineyard wind lawsuit provides leading U.S. corporations with yet another reason to cut ties with ALEC.

By 2012, ALEC’s work in lobbying against climate legislation had already driven Coca-Cola and several other top brands to drop ties to the organization.

Since then, dozens of others have quit over ALEC’s position on gun rights, hate speech and other controversial issues.

More recently, ALEC’s reported ties to the critical race theory canard and the January 6 insurrection have come to light.

ALEC has been regarded as a pro-business organization, but the cumulative impact of its actions is to foster fear, uncertainty and chaos. That’s not exactly a formula for bottom line sustainability, either terms of the global environment or in human society, too.

Image credit: Andrey Sharpilo/Unsplash