Search

Public health professionals are leery of shaming people into following their guidance, preferring to appeal to a sense of personal responsibility and self-preservation. However, businesses are under no such self-imposed restraint. They are beginning to lose patience with those who continue to ignore all the evidence about COVID-19 and refuse to get vaccinated, and signs are emerging that corporate leaders are poised to deploy the shame card.

Elected officials drop the COVID-19 ball

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the consequences of science denial into stark relief. Even as the new Delta strain of the virus attacks those who failed to get vaccinated, some elected officials have continued to downplay the threat, and large swaths of the public are still following online rumors instead of following the advice of doctors.

The state of Florida has emerged as the poster child for efforts to keep state and local economies open against the advice of public health experts. Republican Governor Ron DeSantis became notorious for reportedly suppressing data on COVID-19 infections as the outbreak took hold on 2020, and he has continued to advocate against mask mandates even as Florida emerges as a hotspot for the spread of the deadly new Delta strain.

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

Texas and several other states are also reeling under the impact of the Delta strain, but Florida continues to hold the media spotlight on account of Governor DeSantis’s efforts to prevent local school districts from requiring masks indoors, potentially endangering hundreds of thousands of children who are too young to get vaccinated.

Purveyor of Happy Meals steps up for masks

The governor’s position on local school districts stands in stark contrast to the corporate response. If his executive order stands up to legal challenges, it will lead to a situation in which children in Florida are protected in private settings but not in public classrooms.

McDonald’s, for one, is among those choosing not to put children at risk. The company attracted the media spotlight earlier this week when it announced that it is imposing a mask mandate for workers and customers in areas where the risk of infection is substantial or high, regardless of their vaccination status.

That includes all of Florida, where the risk in one county is currently listed as substantial, and every one of the others is listed as high.

In effect, the McDonald’s mandate means parents in Florida are required to protect their children against infection if they want to get a Happy Meal, but not when sending them to school.

Corporate leaders advocate for science

Publix, another company with a large footprint in Florida, has also once again imposed its mask mandate. So far, the Publix order only applies to employees, regardless of their vaccination status. However, the company’s website hints that it is beginning to lose patience with anti-science members of the public.

“We are aware of the large amount of information being circulated about the coronavirus (COVID-19),” Publix states. “We recommend keeping up with the latest information available on https://www.cdc.gov/ncov."

“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends people in areas of substantial- or high-transmission risk wear face coverings over their noses and mouths when in public, indoor spaces, regardless of vaccination status,” Publix adds.

Walmart plays the shame card on vaccines

Walmart has also stepped up its advocacy for CDC guidance. The company dropped its mask requirement for vaccinated employees and customers in May in accordance with earlier guidance, but last week the company issued a long, detailed update that imposed the mask requirement again and imposed a vaccine mandate as well.

A growing number of companies are beginning to impose vaccination requirements on their employees, but Walmart’s is especially noteworthy because the company singled out the unvaccinated as being a threat to the well-being of the company.

While recognizing the appropriateness of religious and medical exemptions, Walmart dismissed any and all other excuses for not getting vaccinated.

“We know vaccinations are our solution to drive change. We are urging you to get vaccinated and want to see many more of you vaccinated [emphasis the company’s],” Walmart wrote to associates.

In a polite but pointed attempt to express its anger and frustration, Walmart also painstakingly detailed its many contributions to corporate testing and vaccination initiatives during the outbreak.

“As a country, vaccination options have been available for months, but, unfortunately, because so many people have chosen not to receive it, we’ve left ourselves more vulnerable to variants,” Walmart continued, adding that “we want to get to a place where we can use our offices and be together safely. It’s important for our business, our culture, our speed and our innovation.”

All this was by way of introducing a new directive that associates who wish to remain on the payroll need to start making some hard choices of their own. Absent a legitimate religious or medical excuse, Walmart is now requiring all associates to be vaccinated by October 4.

The righteousness of vaccine shame

Governor DeSantis has gone on record pushing back on the notion that unvaccinated people should be shamed.

However, public opinion on COVID-19 appears to be growing on the side of companies like Walmart.

The latest iteration of the Axios-Ipsos Vaccine Index suggests that conventional public health messaging has barely moved the needle on vaccine refusal, leaving vaccine mandates as the only effective recourse for businesses seeking to protect their vaccinated employees.

Moreover, the poll indicates that companies are on safe ground when they assign blame to the unvaccinated.

“Four out of five (79 percent) of the vaccinated point to the unvaccinated as who they blame for rising cases,” the poll found.

In its updated advocacy for universal vaccination, Walmart may have touched a nerve by pointing out that unvaccinated employees pose a threat to the ability of vaccinated employees to make a living.

The Axios/Ipsos tracker already indicates that the economy is slowing down as a result of the latest wave. Vaccinated people will bear the consequences through no fault of their own.

In effect, Walmart argues that corporate citizens have a duty to protect both the health and the livelihood of all employees, and not continue to coddle those who choose to do the wrong thing.

Against that argument, the excuses of the unvaccinated, and those who support them, are worthy of public shame.

Image credit: Kobby Mendez/Unsplash

More than a year after millions of Americans joined widespread protests calling for true racial justice, more companies keep insisting they will do what they can over the next few years to improve their diversity hiring.

Much of the conversation is about ensuring that more people of color are hired within the managerial and executive ranks. But there’s a problem: A recent study suggests that many companies are still intentionally ignoring Black applicants for entry-level jobs.

It’s not a great look, as evidence suggests that management is still overwhelmingly white and male at several of the most widely recognized retail brands in the U.S. That's true in other sectors, too.

If managers are unwilling to give an equal shot to anyone young and lacking experience, what does that say about the commitment to diversity hiring within the more senior ranks of a company?

Researchers at the University of California and the University of Chicago took it upon themselves to submit more than 83,000 fictitious applications, each of them having random characteristics, to 108 of the largest employers across the U.S.

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

Here’s what they found: Based on a variety of factors, such as the length of time it took a company to call an applicant, the type of job for which applicants applied and the type of company, a significant gap in company responses to those job applications existed between names perceived to be white or Black.

Overall, the researchers concluded that at least 7 percent of the employers in this experiment discriminated against applicants with presumedly Black names. But within a core group of 23 companies, they found at least 20 percent of those employers ruled out anyone assumed to be Black based on their names. Such activity occurred in 25 out of the 125 U.S. counties the study included within this experiment, implying the pattern is widespread.

As for jobs requiring any type of social or customer interaction (i.e., jobs at call centers or requiring “customer-facing” skills), the racial gap between Black and white applicants who were contacted was wider. One sliver of positive news: Companies that are also federal contractors tended to have less of a discrepancy, suggesting that federal regulations work somewhat as a stick to ensure everyone gets a fair shot.

The researchers, who relied on complicated quantitative analysis to come to these conclusions, made it clear their findings are not outright proof that companies are actively discriminating. Nevertheless, the optics around diversity hiring, or the lack thereof, are hard to ignore. The researchers, who do not name any of the companies involved with these phantom job applications, instead provided this ominous note: “Rather, our impression is that the identities of the 23 firms conclusively determined to be discriminating against Black names would come as a surprise both to the companies involved and to the public at large.”

Image credit: Hello Lightbulb/Unsplash

During these Olympic games in Tokyo, there’s been ongoing controversy over whether or not women athletes should be wearing them. Some say it’s a matter of safety. Others say it’s a matter of decency. Others say it should be a personal choice.

No, I’m not talking about face masks. The “them” I’m talking about are shorts and pants as part of women athletes’ uniforms.

It’s 2021. Women have been competing in the Olympic games for more than 120 years now, yet they still face the same infuriating reality they did in 1900: Their athletic attire is either considered “too sexy” or “not feminine enough,” whether by sporting officials or the media.

But in a year when health is (or should be) a top concern, more women athletes are now fighting against the double standards and unrealistic expectations, and taking back control of their bodies.

A history of sexist policies

When women were first allowed to compete in the Olympics, officials voiced their concern “that the women would be a distraction to the men, who would see their bodies in action.” As a result, female competitors wore bulky dresses covering ankle to neck. These dress codes continued in place until after World War II, despite men’s uniforms changing with the times to improve athletic performance.

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

Erin Redihan is a history lecturer at Worcester State University, and the author of The Olympics and the Cold War, 1948-1968. She recently spoke with TriplePundit about why sexism is still prevalent in today’s Olympics.

“Women have always been treated differently by the IOC [International Olympics Committee] and have been subject to much stricter standards than men in terms of what is considered acceptable,” Redihan said, noting it took almost 90 years for the Committee to welcome its first female member. 

And while 49 percent of Olympians in this year’s games are female (the highest percentage to date), women still only comprise 33 percent of the IOC. “This means that men (and if we're really specific, affluent white men) are the ones making many of the decisions that impact female Olympians,” Redihan said.

2021 headlines show much work lies ahead

This year, female athletes’ uniforms started making headlines weeks – or even months - before the opening ceremony.

While not an Olympic sport, women’s beach handball was in the news in July after the Norwegian national team was fined 175 euros (about $207) per player for wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms during a competition in Bulgaria. 

In mid-July, U.K. Paralympian Olivia Breen shared that an official called her running shorts “too short and inappropriate” during a long-jump competition in England.

And this past April, Germany’s women’s gymnastics team drew international attention for wearing unitards (which cover arms and legs), instead of the traditional leotards (which cut high on the thighs) during a competition. The team made an official statement that the uniform choice was a deliberate statement against “sexualization” in gymnastics. They opted to wear the unitards during their recent Olympic qualifying rounds in Tokyo, as well.

“It shouldn’t be newsworthy that some members of the German women gymnastics team chose to wear full-body unitards,” Redihan said. “After all, male gymnasts wear pants for four out of six events. The fact that this made headlines around the world proves that we have a long way to go in terms of sexism and uniforms.”

Women athletes are “Redefining what winning is”

Members of the U.S. women’s gymnastics team past and present – including Simone Biles (shown above competing at the 2019 All-Star Legends and Celebrity Softball Game), Sunisa Lee and Aly Reisman - have voiced their support of the German teams’ uniform decision, adding that the most important thing is that women are able to wear what they feel most comfortable and powerful competing in.

It is that sense of power that is especially important for gymnasts – and really all the athletes – in these Olympic games, the first since former U.S. Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was found guilty of widespread sexual abuse.

“A real challenge within the sport context is the power differential between athletes and coaches or trainers – anyone who has authority over athletes such that athletes often feel that they just have to do what they’re told,” said Elizabeth Daniels, a psychology professor at the University of Colorado, in an interview with NPR. “So now where we’re seeing athletes speaking out about uniforms, you know, it really could be symbolic of the need for athletes to have more voice in general in the sport context.”

And while not directly related to uniforms, Simone Biles’ very public decision to stand up for her own mental and physical wellbeing is one more step in female athletes – particularly gymnasts – asserting control over their own bodies and images.

“We start so young, and we have no autonomy over our bodies. It’s not just about the physical and sexual abuse that many suffered. You’re told to put your body on the line every single second,” said Katelyn Ohashi, a former UCLA gymnast, in a recent op-ed for Time. “The system is set up to make you feel as if your body isn’t your own, your selfhood isn’t your own. And what we’re seeing now is a manifestation of athletes taking back their autonomy and redefining what winning is.”

Image credit: Erik Drost, Wiki Commons and Flickr

Photo: Pinnacles National Park near Hollister, California. Critics of the infrastructure bill currently floating through Congress says it doesn't prove enough investment for outdoor spaces.

The on-again, off-again, kind-of-sort-of bipartisan bipartisan infrastructure bill that may or may not pass is now on the table. It’s less than half of what the Biden administration originally wanted, but by just about any measure it is still an ambitious proposal. Along with a promise to fund traditional notions of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, rail, ports, airports and much-needed water systems, the trillion-dollar package also pledges a boost for broadband access, clean energy and technology for road safety.

Like most legislation that wades through the dangerous and unpredictable undertows known as the U.S. Congress, the infrastructure bill is imperfect legislation that will not satisfy everyone. Nevertheless, much of the bill’s proposed expenditures were unthinkable a decade ago – as in the provisions that can help take on climate change. Some are obvious: more investments in renewables and upgrades to the country’s electric grid. Others are incremental, such as fixing more roads and bridges, which means more efficient traffic and less emissions spewed into the atmosphere. For communities long overlooked by both U.S. leaders and their wealthier, better-connected neighbors, about $1 billion will reconstruct neighborhoods demolished by highways, to be replaced by local street grids and parks.

To that end, at least one industry group is waxing enthusiasm over the infrastructure bill.

The Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), which represents some of the most recognized apparel, equipment and retail brands that are dependent on the great outdoors, is supportive of this legislation. And why wouldn’t it be, as climate change threatens the long-term viability of this sector; in fact, plenty of businesses that rely on citizens enjoying outdoor activities are under threat now as much of the western U.S. is under siege by drought, wildfires or that recent heat wave.

With that support of the infrastructure bill in its current form, however, comes a note of caution.

“In addition to climate provisions, federal investments in parks and trails are also needed. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of easily accessible green spaces, yet more than 100 million Americans still do not live within a 10-minute walk to a park,” said the OIA's executive director, Lise Aangeenbrug, in an emailed statement. “Outdoor spaces provide countless economic, mental, and physical health benefits for every community, regardless of zip code. We are encouraged to see the inclusion of parks and trails as a key part of America’s infrastructure in this bill.”

While the infrastructure bill in its latest form would still allocate some public monies to refurbishing open spaces and trails, therein lies one criticism we can expect to hear in the coming days and weeks as this legislation becomes debated in Congress. The OIA and other advocacy groups have pointed to research from a study from The Trust for Public Land that has concluded that at least 100 million Americans – including 28 million children – live more than a 10-minute walk away from a park.

The OIA’s push for more open space follows the advocacy that it and its members have championed in recent years. Such activism has included a push for the entire outdoor and recreation sector to become climate positive, adapt how we enjoy our open spaces despite the realities of the pandemic and strive to clean up the industry’s supply chain.

It’s not only the OIA that is urging more public spending on parks and open spaces. Recalling the work of the 19th-century landscape architect and visionary for Central Park Frederick Law Olmstead, Anne Neal Petri for Roll Call echoed the need for more parks and the need to view them essential as any other form of infrastructure. “These spaces aren’t just vital for our quality of life; they are essential ecological, social, and cultural infrastructure,” she wrote.

Photo of Pinnacles National Park courtesy Leon Kaye

There’s no shortage of data and surveys suggesting that consumers are increasingly aware of climate change risks and expect both governments and the private sector to do something about it.

Both the raising of awareness and convincing citizens to take action, however, are proving to be difficult. Fears over the Delta variant, along with concerns that the economy that could tank (demolishing jobs) or soar (pricing more people out of everything from housing to food) are among the distractions that make any focus on climate change veer sideways. Then there are the daily distractions many families face now, such as getting the children ready for back-to-school – or, of course, whether that household item you need will ever be available thanks to what appears to be a shortage of just about everything. And, the days fly by fast as we deal with the daily work, home and school routines.

But what if one could send a message about climate change by going out for a run, taking a bike ride or having that evening walk?

The fitness app Strava, along with the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), believe they have an answer.

From August 16 to 31, Strava and UNOCHA want those who are able and willing to get out there, burn some calories, and focus on how climate change risks will wreak the most havoc on those who day-to-day manage to get by with the fewest resources at hand.

#TheHumanRace campaign is urging Strava users to ensure they exercise at least 100 minutes during the second half of August. The tasks are fairly simple – though unlike that phone app or wearable device that counts your steps or monitors your heart rate, you do need to open the Strava app, choose an exercise, click the timer to “on,” and make sure those minutes are logged.

According to Strava and UNOCHA, whether or not Strava users complete 100 minutes of activity, each sign-up for this campaign will help push forward one key message to global leaders at the upcoming UN climate summit, COP26, in November: Citizens and leaders of wealthier nations need to deliver on their 2009 pledge to follow up with an annual $100 billion for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

Strava and UNOCHA are teaming up with athletes worldwide to get this message out. “I am excited to run for the most important goal in our lifetime: to save our planet and the people living on it” said Fernanda Maciel, a Brazilian ultramarathon athlete and environmental lawyer in emailed statement. “We run every day, for ourselves. Why not run for something bigger? Everybody should join this campaign because we need compassion. It is time to run together."

Or, depending on where you may live, that could involve canoeing, rowing, surfing, rock climbing, swimming or again, walking – with or without your dog (as shown above). 

Image credit: Leon Kaye

Sunny skies, geothermal hotspots, mineral resources and plenty of federal land for lease have all made Nevada a focus of activity in the electrification movement. The state has also emerged as a key testing ground for President Joe Biden’s ambitious decarbonization plans for the nation. The question is where to locate massive new energy and mining operations. Some Nevadans are saying: not here.

Solar power for electrification

Nevada is no stranger to utility-scale solar power. Ten years ago, the Obama-era Department of Energy (DOE) promoted the state as a proving ground for massive concentrating solar power plants, which use sprawling fields of special mirrors to collect and focus solar energy.

Large arrays of solar panels have sprouted across the state, in addition to smaller rooftop installations.

Altogether, the Solar Energy Industries Association counts 3,903.8 megawatts of installed solar in Nevada, giving the state the high-ranking position of sixth place in the nation. That’s quite a feat for a state that only ranks 35th in population.

Nevada does rank seventh in land mass, which indicates that there is plenty of room for the solar industry to grow. A full 63 percent of that land is owned by the federal government, raising the potential for energy production leases. However, solar industry players involved with federal land within the state must work with and around tribal rights, nature conservation and recreational interests.

Recently, the California-based solar developer Arevia Power formally withdrew plans to build a new 850-megawatt solar array on federal land. The so-named Battle Born Solar Project would have taken up 9,000 acres on Mormon Mesa in Clark County, and it would have been the largest such array in the state, if built.

Opponents made their case partly on an economic basis, arguing that the new solar power plant would block a longstanding, tourist-attracting motorcycle rally from using the area. It would also curtail the use of ATVs.

From a conservation perspective, opposition from those quarters is somewhat ironic, considering the damage incurred by raceways and off-road vehicles, in addition to impacts related to spectators and vendors, as well as the contribution of vehicles to air pollution.

Nevertheless, that is the end of the Battle Born Solar Power Plant. However, it is not the end of Arevia Power, which is still assisting in the development of the 690 megawatt Gemini solar project, located in the same general area north of Las Vegas.

Renewable energy transmission lines now under fire

Renewable energy transmission lines have also emerged as another key area of contention.

The utility NV Energy has laid ambitious plans for the two-part Greenlink transmission project in southern Nevada. Greenlink West will travel 350 miles from Las Vegas to Yerington, NV. Greenlink North will go from Yerington to Ely (shown above).

The twin projects create “a renewable energy highway that allows access to Nevada’s resource-rich renewable energy zones, containing about 5,000 megawatts of undeveloped renewable resources, that could not previously be developed due to the lack of necessary transmission infrastructure,” NV Energy explains.

Among the beneficiaries will be Reno, which is attracting attention as a tech and industry center, thanks in part to its role as host to a Tesla Motors Gigafactory. Apple, Google and Switch also have footprints there, and the tech giants have made renewable energy access a centerpiece of their investments.

A key selling point is that the new line will enable Nevada to exploit more of its solar and geothermal resources, in order to counterbalance its relatively low potential for hydro and wind power.

Opponents argue that reclaiming abandoned mines, rooftops and other pre-developed sites are more sustainable pathways for electrification, in contrast to plowing through virgin territory that includes wildlife habitat, cultural sites and public recreation areas.

As of press time, the opposition has been characterized as coming from small but vocal groups, and the transmission project appears to be on track. However, considering the ten-year battle over transmission lines intended for renewable energy in other states, a successful conclusion to the permitting process is not yet assured.

Electric vehicles and the lithium question

Another critical area in the electrification field is the availability of lithium for rechargeable batteries. Nevada has become a battleground in that area, too.

“Before breaking ground on an open-pit lithium mine that would process ore in Humboldt County for 46 years, Lithium Nevada plans to dig up and cart away Native American artifacts — and possibly burials — at the site frequented by Nevada tribes for millennia,” reads the opening lines of a long form news article on one such battle, as reported by Frank X. Mullen of the Reno News Review.

Members of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone tribes have organized to stop the project, which would damage hundreds of cultural resource sites and dozens of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

The Trump administration rushed approval for the project through during the former president’s last days in office. In March the Biden administration filed suit to stop it, citing a failure to conform to environmental review processes.

While that battle rages on in court, the Biden administration has also taken steps against another lithium mine proposed for Nevada, on account of habitat populated by a rare wildflower.

What about green hydrogen for low-impact electrification?

There is no easy way out of the complex thicket of electrification impacts. However, new technologies could help decentralize access to renewable energy, increase the use of buildings and other pre-developed sites for energy generation, and alleviate the need for large centralized power plants and new transmission lines.

The DOE has been promoting distributed energy resources as the cornerstone of a more sustainable, reliable, and resilient electricity grid. Part of the emphasis is on perovskite solar cells and other new solar technologies that reduce costs, and which could be used in a wider range of applications compared to conventional solar panels.

In addition, the DOE is also promoting new technologies for lithium extraction from brine at geothermal sites. Though not impact-free, these facilities would disturb far less surface area than the open pit lithium mines in use today.

Called “direct lithium extraction” (DLE), the technology has been cited as a significant development by the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

In a report issued earlier this month, the lab noted that “DLE could be a game-changing extraction method, potentially delivering 10 times the current U.S. lithium demand from California’s Salton Sea known geothermal area alone.”

Improvements in energy storage technology can also come into play, by enabling factories and other facilities to maximize the output from on site or nearby renewable energy resources, instead of pushing the demand for new transmission lines.

That’s where the newly emerging green hydrogen field comes in. As both an energy storage medium and a means of generating zero emission electricity, green hydrogen can be produced, stored and used on site. It can also be transported on the nation’s existing network of roads and waterways for use elsewhere. The vast network of existing fossil energy pipelines could also potentially provide fuel for transportation.

Leading manufacturers are already introducing new gas turbines that can transition from natural gas to green hydrogen, which further raises the potential for re-using existing power plants and other industrial sites for zero emission electricity production.

Finally, the transportation sector is already bending to embrace green hydrogen as a pathway for electrification. Manufacturers of cars and virtually every other type of motorized device — from SUVs and trucks to locomotives, airplanes and watercraft — are beginning to introduce hydrogen fuel cells to their roster.

Considering the rapid improvements in lithium-ion battery technology, it is unlikely that fuel cells will replace batteries for vehicle electrification. However, fuel cells could become a significant part of the transportation electrification movement.

Together with an increased emphasis on mass transportation, bicycle-friendly streets and walkable communities, fuel cell vehicles could help relieve pressure on the lithium supply chain.

In the meantime, business leaders who promote electrification need to make a greater effort to emphasize grid decentralization and alternative technologies that can help promote a more holistic perspective on sustainability.

Image credit: Britta Preusse/Unsplash

UPDATE: Since the publishing of this article, the CDC has issued an eviction moratorium through October 3 for areas of the country experiencing high rates of COVID-19 transmission. The ban on evictions will cover around 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Despite last-minute efforts to extend the expiring eviction moratorium, Congress failed to reach an agreement before the July 31 deadline, punctuating unknown housing fates for the millions of American households struggling with rental payments. While it’s unclear exactly how many renters face eviction, a survey from the Census Bureau revealed as many as 11 million adult renters are “seriously delinquent” on rent.

A brief timeline of the eviction moratorium saga

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) first issued an eviction moratorium from September 2020, responding to calls from former President Donald Trump to use its authority after the congressional moratorium expired last summer. The CDC’s eviction moratorium was intended to only last through the end of 2020, but it has since been extended several times as the pandemic’s hardships continue to weigh heavy on renters.

The CDC announced in June its intentions to extend the moratorium one last time, with the final extension set to expire July 31. A Supreme Court case brought on in late June by a group of southern landlords and real estate companies challenged the CDC’s authority to issue, and then continuously extend, the moratorium. A 5-4 vote, swayed largely by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, validated the CDC’s power and upheld the moratorium’s end date of July 31.

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

The vote all but guaranteed a congressional showdown for another extension, with Kavanaugh writing any further moratorium would need “clear and specific congressional authorization,” thus tying the Joe Biden administration’s hands.

And that brings us to August: While many landlords are rejoicing in the lapse of the moratorium, renters are fretting over an uncertain future, and U.S. representatives are enjoying a month recess away from the humid, sticky D.C. summers.

What does this mean for renters and homeowners?

The congressional and CDC moratoriums were a saving grace for millions of Americans struggling with the economic ramifications of the pandemic. At the dog days of the pandemic, when housing became a form of healthcare with stay-at-home orders, evictions would have forced former renters and homeowners into particularly vulnerable situations, like homelessness or crowding in with family members and friends.

Check out past TriplePundit coverage that highlights vulnerability among the homeless and struggling tenants amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Princeton University’s Eviction Lab credits the CDC moratorium with keeping as many as 2 million people housed since September. But even with the moratorium in place, landlords were busy filing eviction notices. In the six states and 31 cities where the Eviction Lab tracks data, landlords have filed for 451,772 evictions, including 7,238 in the week prior to the July 31 moratorium deadline.

Again, those numbers reflect only six, mostly low-population states (Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri and New Mexico) and excludes major U.S. cities like Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco, among many, many others. The limited set reveals the challenges of collecting such data. The U.S. government, as well as many state governments, do not collect eviction records, instead leaving it to counties and local jurisdictions who often lack the sophisticated infrastructure to appropriately track such data.

Princeton University’s Eviction Lab has a host of truly remarkable tools. Play around with them and see the data for yourself here.

In a household pulse survey issued by the U.S. Census Bureau in early July, around 3.6 million people in the U.S. said they face eviction in the next two months. That fear may soon become a reality as the moratorium is lifted.

The ending of the moratorium comes as a number of factors may exacerbate the situation for renters and homeowners on the fritz: the delta coronavirus variant, rising rental prices and a slow release of federal aid.

Despite the vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 rates are on the rise once again as the delta variant spreads across the states. The CDC recently walked back its guidance that vaccinated persons cannot spread the virus, stoking revised policies around mask wearing in indoor settings. The AP reports that evictions will likely be worse in the south, where tenant protections are weaker and vaccination rates are lower, especially among communities of color: not the ideal recipe for an eviction amid rising COVID rates.

The moratorium expiration also coincides with rising prices in housing, for both rentals and homeownership. High housing prices have driven prospective homebuyers to delay their purchases, leading to a more crowded rental market. An apartment list report published in late June shows that the median apartment rent rose 9.2 percent in the first half of 2021, tripling the pre-pandemic rate. And there’s no reason to believe that trend won’t continue to worsen as experts predict millennials (who aren’t graduating from renters to homebuyers) are expected to continue powering this demand.

The last factor, the slow release of federal aid, is bottlenecking stimulus money set aside for rental assistance. Of the nearly $47 billion dedicated to rental assistance in the stimulus bill, only $3 billion has been distributed. With the moratorium expired, time is running out for the federal government to proactively distribute these funds directly to vulnerable tenants and to states who will oversee $21.5 billion of the pool.

What landlords are saying

There is a group that stands to gain from the expiration of the eviction moratorium: landlords. The ban on evictions has been particularly difficult for small, individual landlords, whose investments have been shattered by an inconsistency of monthly payments from renters. Their struggles are similar to the ones of small business owners since the pandemic started in early 2020. As they are still required to pay their property taxes to local governments, landlords whose tenants are late on rent payments have been given little to no options.

The money owed to landlords is significant. Research from the Aspen Institute puts the money owed to landlords at $20 billion, while a joint report from Jim Parrot of the Urban Institute and Mark Zandi of the Moody Institute suggest the total owed is much higher, $57 billion. The report from Zandi and Parrot indicate that the average renter is $5,600 behind on rent, translating to four months of delinquent payments. With the eviction ban lifted, landlords can start executing evictions and recouping funds erased from the pandemic.

It remains to be seen what the exact impact of the end of the eviction moratorium will be. Perhaps it will be the fire that ignites a swifter reaction from the government to disburse the $44 billion dedicated to rental assistance still in their coffers. After all, renters and landlords alike would stand to benefit from the government disbursal. For landlords, it represents the chance to finally secure back payments and renew a coveted revenue stream. For tenants, it’s a roof over their head while they reset from a year of financial and personal losses.

Image credit: Andra C Taylor Jr/Unsplash

Over the last year, as U.S. financial regulators have sent signal after signal that greater environmental, social and governance (ESG) and climate risk oversight is on the near horizon, the European Union has been busy actually codifying its sustainability goals.  By mandating that financial advisors and managers in the EU approach climate and sustainability as a fundamental investment risk, the new ESG regulations will transform the global standard for risk management.

What is the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation?

The EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), which came into effect in March, is designed to drive capital toward sustainably-oriented investments. It is widely considered the broadest regulatory action in sustainable finance to date. And for U.S. firms trying to keep up with the blistering pace of ESG-related transformations within the financial sector, the SFDR could offer some clarity.

The SFDR was initiated by the European Commission as part of a broad EU action plan, announced in 2018, to encourage sustainable investing throughout the EU financial system and to put ESG issues on-par with traditional financial risk indicators. It is broad in its scope covering nearly all asset managers, investment product providers, and financial advisors that operate within the EU. The first phase of reporting standards is already in effect and increasingly detailed reporting obligations will phase in over the coming months and years.

What do the regulations require of EU asset managers and financial advisors?

Under the SFDR, all EU asset managers (whether or not they are focused on sustainability) are now asked to publicly disclose: their approach to incorporating sustainability considerations their investment decisions; any “adverse impacts'' investments may have on environmental or social factors; and, any sustainability risks that may impact investment performance.

Starting in January, financial products marketed as having ESG characteristics or a “sustainable investment” objective will face additional reporting requirements intended to discourage greenwashing.

Financial advisors will now be required to counsel clients on the sustainability implications of their investments -- including the potential impact (whether negative or positive) on the financial performance of their investments.

The SFDR will act as a mandate for participants in financial markets to “do no harm” to society and the environment while also safeguarding investors from exposure to undue risk stemming from poor ESG positioning of their investments. The regulations are written to make sustainability considerations a routine addition to existing financial disclosure and risk-management requirements.

The regulations follow a “comply or explain” approach, wherein managers and advisors who choose not to comply with the disclosure rules must instead provide a clear explanation of why sustainability considerations are not relevant. This effectively shifts the default assumption to one of material relevance, placing consideration of ESG issues squarely within standard risk-management frameworks. Under this paradigm, a lack of consideration of ESG risks (for example, the risk to a company’s profitability from the imposition of a carbon-tax or a supply chain disruption resulting from a flood event) could be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibilities.

What does this mean for ESG - and U.S. firms?

The SFDR has an impact on U.S. firms through one direct channel: Non-EU managers and advisors that market financial products into the EU or provide advice to EU firms are also covered. These are typically large players in the industry. BlackRock, for example, has made its SFDR statements public through its website. In a memo released in March, the firm reported that nearly $400 billion in assets fall under the scope of SFDR. 

For most U.S. managers and advisors, the SFDR will have a more indirect effect: catalyzing a new standard for ESG risk accountability. The reputational costs of ignoring the sustainability aspects of risk-management and the potential flight of capital toward firms that are working within this new paradigm will now need to be considered.

The idea that sustainability issues could impact investment fiduciaries in the U.S. is not new. In the last decade, policy groups and academics have been proposing that investment fiduciary standards be revised (or reinterpreted) to include sustainability considerations. The argument they make is that the best long-term interests for the majority of household investors cannot be met without consideration of environmental and social well-being – a short-term focus on purely financial goals is no longer adequate.

The EU regulations will drive greater reporting of ESG risk data

One of the most transformative aspects of the SFDR may be its impact on corporate reporting. Large asset managers, already hungry for more quantitative ESG data, are now calling for disclosures that are both mandatory and consistent with international reporting frameworks.

To meet this demand, third party data providers such as MSCI, Refinitiv, Sustainalytics, Moody’s and S&P Global are now tailoring products toward the data-points needed for compliance with the SFDR.

Taken together, the regulatory and cultural trends driving corporate ESG and climate-risk disclosure will ultimately set a new normal for best-in-class risk reporting both at the corporate and portfolio level. U.S. managers and advisors who don’t start integrating these data will likely find themselves out-of-step with evolving risk-management standards. 

Image credit: Porapak Apichodilok/Pexels

A report of how research and development is progressing in nearly 200 countries revealed that research, particularly in low- and lower middle-income countries, are increasingly aligning with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are related to combating climate change.

The 700-page report titled “The Race Against Time for Smarter Development“ was published in July 2021 by UNESCO and measured 56 topics across eight of the sustainability-related SDGs (SDGs 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15). The trends showcased countries and governments commitment to investing in research around digital and green transitions, in areas ranging from wastewater treatment to greenhouse gas emissions to desalination.

Globally, the output of scientific publishing was 21 percent higher in 2019 than in 2015. The increase is even more impressive when zeroing in on low- and lower middle-income countries, which witnessed a 71 percent increase in scientific output. While China is fueling much of this growth for low- and lower middle-income countries, the collective advances in research on climate-related SDGs is encouraging.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, tech hubs and incubators are growing rapidly. Across the continent there are now 744 dedicated tech hubs, with thirteen African countries exceeding 20 hubs. There has also been an impressive increase in the number of people classified as full-time researchers worldwide. In the span of just five years, the world added one million researchers, representing a rate three times faster than that of global population growth. Research publications conducted by lower middle-income countries also skyrocketed on breakthrough renewable energy topics like photovoltaics (from 6.2 percent to 21.2 percent) and biofuels and biomass (from 7.6 percent to 21.6 percent).

That leads to one takeaway that investors can take from this UNESCO report: Many of these emerging economies are ripe for additional investments in clean energy technologies as many of them are “leapfrogging” over the infrastructure required for conventional energy sources such as oil and natural gas.

Still, G20 countries handily set the pace for such research worldwide. Together, they account for 90 percent of the world’s researchers, research spending and scientific publications. Despite the encouraging research trends in countries and governments investing in digital and green transitions, eight out of ten countries spend less than 1 percent of their GDP on research. This underfunding of research is particularly prominent in low- and lower middle-income countries, who continue to depend on foreign outfits for technology.

[Click here to view the government expenditure on research from 1996 to 2018. While the data pulses year over year depending on the country, the general trends show research spending as a portion of government spending is increasing.]

Perhaps more troubling, the UNESCO publication also highlights challenges it faced in accurately reporting the progress of achieving the SDGs. Despite commitments to monitor their progress in research intensity, countries have actually become less apt to share their data. In fact, 30 fewer countries reported their numbers for domestic research in 2019 than in 2015.

Alarmingly, the United Nations’ Environment Program published a report in 2019 revealing that 68 percent of climate-related SDG indicators cannot be measured due to a lack of data. While it shouldn’t negate the renewed strides of governments, policymakers and researchers across the world to increase their investments in technology and green research, the UNESCO report aptly notes: “One cannot monitor what one cannot measure.”

The importance of conducting research is not to be understated. The number of climate-related research publications, researchers focused on photovoltaics, or articles published about battery efficiency may not make for the splashiest, most click-worthy headline. But the research is laying the foundation for future systems change. The trend of governments aligning their research priorities with SDGs should lead to tangible results in accomplishing ambitious goals, whether by the 2030 deadline or beyond.

There’s also a serious business case to be made for governments investing in research. Look no further than China, who was responsible for 44 percent of the growth in worldwide research expenditure. They’re commitment to research, and apparent return on investment as seen in its meteoric rise to the number two world economy by measure of GDP, is something other countries may look to as a model.

Image credit: Fateme Alaie/Unsplash

Photo: Chincoteague, Virginia, a Chesapeake Bay town home to about 3,000 people that shares the name of the island on which it is located on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. Chincoteague has long been popular with visitors for its nature, historic sites and the ponies that move between there and nearby Assateague. Image credit: Sara Cottle/Unsplash

Many would agree that climate change is the most prominent problem we face today, and that we probably ever faced as a species. To win this battle, more than 120 countries have committed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, avoiding a systemic collapse is not enough, and states alone might not be able to solve the problem.

According to Timothy Male, Executive Director at the Environmental Policy Innovation Center, achieving a true sustainable growth means solving a diverse range of issues including the rampant biodiversity loss, increasing land and water pollution and environmental injustice.

A promising path to direct and accelerate these efforts lies in policy-building initiatives that create financial incentives for private conservation efforts, Male explained in a Private Conservation Finance report.

And there is no better place to find evidence in favor of this path than in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay case

The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., shared by Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington D.C., is a holiday destination chosen by many nature lovers, hikers and campers every year. But what some people do not know is that it’s one of the most productive and biodiverse bodies of water in the world, with more than 250 fish species, 300 migratory bird and 3,600 species of animals and plants.

Given its size and biodiversity, the conservation of the Chesapeake Bay is key for both the ecology and the economy of the states that encompass it. “To successfully protect places such as this one, conservation programs must adjust to our modern understanding of human behavior and incentives,” explained Male in an interview with TriplePundit. “In other words, laws and regulations need to make conservation programs attractive to investors.”

Indeed, private capital investment has shown to have many benefits, including significantly improving the cost-effectiveness of public funding, supporting innovation to a greater degree than public funds and facilitating greater lending capacity so that restoration happens much faster.

The Chesapeake Bay case showcases the potential of boosting private conservation finance. According to a recent Private Conservation Finance report, no other region in the world supports more private finance-dependent cooperation. This is not by chance. At least within the context of water quality and related work, Chesapeake Bay states already have some of the most favorable conditions for direct investment, market-based or finance-backed approaches in the country.

Measures taken could be grouped into three categories: a well-defined regulatory framework explaining what the specific pollution reduction targets to achieve are; standardized quantification tools explaining how to estimate and translate outcomes into those targets; and strong public spending. As a result of this combination of actions, more than $4.2 billion of private investment has been deployed over the past 20 years to benefit Chesapeake conservation goals.

Chesapeake Bay states are eyeing the big prize

A combination of programs to attract private investment are getting more traction in the Chesapeake states.

The first two types of programs, and where investment has focused the most so far, are investments in transferable tax credits that reward forest and farm preservation, and green banks to help borrowers secure better loan terms and credit access.

An example of green banks is the wetland and stream mitigation banking market, considered one of the largest environmental markets in the world. This program consists of an organization protecting and restoring polluted water resources, and later selling those protected resources to companies that need a permit or want to voluntarily offset their impact.  

Other programs to attract investment include state revolving funds (SRFs) that provide low-cost federal resources to help fund water infrastructure projects, and environmental impact bonds that provide investor capital as a loan to public agencies, paid back at a rate that depends on the success of projects.

Finally, there are pay-for-success contracts, where the state or agency pays for environmental outcomes as a finished product instead of paying up front for each step in the process, leaving up to the private sector to carry out the project.

This variety of programs the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay can center their focus on different alternatives. For example, Pennsylvania has strong state revolving fund programs aimed at attracting investments for water quality and forest protection projects.

Meanwhile, Maryland has leveraged public-private collaboration and the power of technology, by partnering with The Nature Conservancy, Walmart, and water technology company OptiRTC29 to take existing stormwater ponds owned by Walmart and install sensors that allow pond water levels to be dropped based on estimated storm events and current storage capacity.

“We hope the model of public-private and interagency cooperation established here can be replicated throughout the rest of the Bay watershed and across the country to meet the growing demand for cost-effective infrastructure upgrades like these,” asserted Craig Holland, CEO of TNC/Opti Development Partners LLC.

When asked which of all the alternative programs being used right now holds more promise, Male pointed to pay-for-success programs: “Pay for success contracts can boost up to 50 percent on cost savings. They incentive parties to do things faster and more cost-efficient, creating a standard for performance and accountability.”

However, as Male recently explained in a public statement, there is still room for improvement. Investment is still held back by outdated state and federal laws, approval processes, and government procurement strategies.

Setting an example: Combining forces for conservation

“If we look at environmental problems carefully, there are actually solvable problem,” Male explained to 3p. “Conservation should be able to explain what success looks like in quantitative terms so that the private sector can understand how much time is going to take and how much is going to cost.”

“The other part is having public agencies be comfortable with the idea of risk and sharing responsibilities with the private sector,” he added. “Right now, we have a public agency responsible for design, another one for construction and another one for maintenance; each contract demanding thousands of public funds and taking months to be written. This creates a mismatch of incentives and miscommunication.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has estimated the economic benefits of a restored Chesapeake Bay are more than $5 billion per year in recreation, property value, health and job creation. But there is still a funding gap of around $3 billion.

If the Chesapeake Bay region and indeed the entire planet is going to cover the gap in green funding that is greatly needed, the amount of private investment in conservation and restoration needs to increase significantly. As Joel Dunn, president and CEO of the Chesapeake Conservancy, concluded: “The future of our Chesapeake Bay, and indeed our planet, depends on it.”