Search

Long before the COVID-19 crisis hit, the biofuels industry had to answer questions of competitiveness, scale, and impact on land resources. Those questions have been thrown into stark relief now that oil and gas prices have crashed. However, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of biofuels, as the field continues to evolve remarkably from where it was a decade ago.

Tearing down the plant cell walls for better biofuels

One key development in the biofuels sector involves reshaping basic perceptions about biofuel crops.

Biofuel researchers initially focused on using enzymes to convert the softer, starchy parts of food crops — corn kernels, for example — into glucose, and then into ethanol.

The next step seems logical enough. Rather than letting the rest of the plant go to waste, the focus has turned to developing enzymes that can break down cellulose, the main component of cell walls. That approach also provides for greater use of non-food crops.

The problem is that cell walls also contain lignin, which interferes with enzymes. That opens the door to a third stage, as researchers engineer plants with more cellulose and less lignin.

However, that gives rise to yet another problem. Lignin is important for plant development. Cutting down on lignin could lead to stunted growth, resulting in lower crop yields.

All of this has stymied efforts to relieve the biofuel field from its dependence on corn, soy, and other edible crops.

A more holistic approach to biofuels

Purdue scientist and director of the school’s “C3Bio” biofuel research center Maureen McCann has taken a different approach.

Having studied zinnias, poplar trees and hundreds of other plants, McCann and her team have viewed biofuels through a broad lens that includes fuel, food and other products, such as specialized chemicals.

Within that worldview, they have articulated three holistic goals: increasing the yield per acre, increasing the quality and value of each plant, and increasing the land available for growing crops profitably.

As part of a nine-year Energy Department grant, McCann has been collaborating with chemists and chemical engineers to develop a biofuel system that breaks down both cellulose and lignin with maximum efficiency.

Instead of trying to reduce lignin content, McCann’s approach involves understanding that plants are “marvelous chemists.” Understanding the chemistry is the key to developing new approaches.

For example, one avenue is to engineer plants with looser connections between their cells. Another pathway involves developing plants with catalysts built into their cell walls.

“In both cases, this work is a reflection of synthetic biology thinking. We don't simply take what nature gives us; we think of ways to improve the performance of the biomass using the entirety of the genetics toolkit,” McCann explains.

Unexpected help from “slivers of land”

McCann also participated in a newly released Purdue study that describes how farmers can deploy biofuel crops to help increase the yield of their food crops, while also protecting water resources.

The research team, headed by Purdue professor Nick Carpita, focuses on one solution for two problems.

On the one hand, large scale farmers who can afford nitrogen-based fertilizers get better biofuel crop yields, but they risk damaging nearby water resources. On the other hand, many small hold farmers can’t get better yields because they can’t afford fertilizer.

The solution involves planting perennial biofuel crops, like sweet sorghum or switchgrass, as borders around food crops. These “slivers of land” would serve as buffers to prevent fertilizer from impacting water resources.

Meanwhile, biomass harvested from the perennial border crops would be gasified in order to extract hydrogen, which is the main ingredient in ammonia.

The researchers acknowledge that fertilizer produced by such a system probably could not compete at scale in developed countries, where conventional fertilizer is less expensive. Instead, they foresee application in remote areas or emerging economies where soil quality is poor and fertilizer is unaffordable. They envision a decentralized system of small or mobile facilities that bring fertilizer production technology to the farmer.

“Farmers producing more high-value horticultural crops would see a boost in income and a multiplying effect increasing economic development in rural communities,” explains researcher Gary Burniske, who is the managing director of the Purdue Center for Global Food Security.

Who needs land for biofuel crops?

Using land for biofuel crops is just one option. Researchers are also exploring the use of ponds and constructed waterways to grow algae for biofuel. In one especially interesting development, the US Department of Energy is funding a study that deploys captured carbon to grow algae biofuel crops.

Similarly, another Energy Department initiative involves harvesting seaweed for biofuel.

All in all, the drop in oil and gas prices has created a competitive nightmare for biofuel producers today, but that is only temporary. As the urgency of climate action accelerates, next-generation research is already creating space for biofuel crops in the sustainable economy of the future.

Image credit: Diane Helentjaris/Unsplash

The streets are quiet. With offices closed and communities dark under the lingering threat of the coronavirus, daily commutes across the country have ground to a halt. The roads are empty; our cities quiet but for socially-distanced foot traffic and the lone, occasional vehicle. It’s eerie, but the openness also feels almost like a breath of fresh air in the springtime. Despite these frightening circumstances, the quiet compels us to wonder -- would the environment be better off if across the world, working remotely became the norm?

Over the last few weeks, cities have changed in ways that most people wouldn’t have thought possible before COVID-19 began. In LA, the infamous traffic gridlock has all but disappeared as more citizens began working remotely. According to reports from NPR, the city has seen 59 percent fewer accidents since the municipal government ordered people to self-isolate and limit travel to essential trips. The benefit to the local environment has been equally profound. Reporters for Curbed noted that LA is currently experiencing the longest continuous period of clear air since recording began in 1980, with “the region’s notorious smog [...] nowhere to be found.” 

This pattern of environmental gain repeats across the globe. In Venice, canals appear to be running clearer than they have in decades; in China, social distancing restrictions led to a 25 percent, year-over-year drop in China’s carbon dioxide emissions over a four-week period in January. Analysis completed by Finland’s Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that Chinese industrial operations fell by 15 percent over those four weeks, while coal consumption at power plants plummeted by 36 percent. 

“This is the first time I have seen such a dramatic dropoff over such a wide area for a specific event,” Fei Liu, an air quality researcher at NASA, told reporters for CNN of the recent environmental changes in China. "I am not surprised because many cities nationwide have taken measures to minimize the spread of the virus."

Not surprising maybe -- but the implications of what these changes teach us about a world gone remote are incredibly significant. 

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges faced by the global community today. If left unchecked, it will reverse years of hard-won developmental progress and, according to research presented by the UN, exacerbate threats to food and water availability and, in the long term, incite conflict over those resources. As one Harvard expert in biodiversity loss and climate change shared in an article for the University’s School of Public Health, “even a small global temperature increase could lead to troubling consequences, like rising sea levels, population displacement, disruption to the food supply, flooding, and an increase in infectious diseases.”

Near-imperceptible as global warming might seem to be in everyday life, its impacts can be both drastic and pervasive. The drastic positive changes that we have seen in recent weeks offer hope that reversing the environmental harm and staving off the consequences of global warming may not be as impossible as we might have thought only a few months ago. 

Of course, the task won’t be easy, either. Any measures that we take to preserve the environmental gains achieved during the pandemic will need to be balanced alongside our economic priorities. The global financial situation is dire; according to early estimates published by Statista, most major economies will lose 2.4 percent or more of their gross domestic product by the end of 2020. As the research firm’s writers explain for context, “Global GDP was estimated at around 86.6 trillion U.S. dollars in 2019 – meaning that just a 0.4 percent drop in economic growth amounts to almost 3.5 trillion U.S. dollars in lost economic output.” Already, more than 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment. 

Economic activity inevitably comes at an environmental cost. A thriving city consumes resources by default; millions of people need to drive to work, power their business operations, and go about the energy-consuming, emission-creating activities of everyday life. The environmental cost is particularly substantial in countries that rely heavily on their industrial operations. While China, for instance, has seen remarkable ecological gains over the last several weeks, the backlash -- or “revenge pollution,” as some experts term it -- from its restarting economy is projected to be extreme. 

“In 2009, the Chinese government launched a giant $586 billion stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis -- the majority of which went to large-scale infrastructure projects,” CNN reporter Rebecca Wright wrote in a recent article. “But the resulting explosion in pollution in the following years -- particularly in the "airpocalypse" winter of 2012-2013 -- led to a public outcry which ushered in the Chinese government's first national air pollution action plan in September 2013.” Wright goes on to suggest that China might choose a similar course after the coronavirus crisis comes to an end, and the Chinese government turns its focus to restarting its industrial-dominated economy.

She has a point. Countries need to revitalize their business and industrial sectors; they need to pay the environmental costs required to prompt job growth and regain economic security. Given this, it seems unlikely that the environmental gains we see now will persist in the long term. However, we may still be able to apply a few lessons from this time of crisis to our environmental goals. 

While many business pursuits cannot thrive -- or even exist -- as citizens continue working remotely, many are. Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor indicate that a third of Americans have the capability to work from home. For context, that’s roughly 124 million people who don’t need to contribute to rush-hour emissions. Moreover, studies indicate that even more people and businesses are attempting to make remote work effective in an attempt to thrive despite coronavirus restrictions. 

One survey from the law firm Seyfarth collected responses from 550 employers between March 12 and March 16th and found that 67% were taking steps to allow employees to work from home who don’t usually do so. Thirty-six percent were actively encouraging all employees to work from home in some or all parts of the country, and 42 percent were encouraging employees to work from home on a case-by-case basis. What if, at the very least, we can use this as a learning period to figure out how to make remote work effective and accessible?

“Coronavirus is going to expose more people to working remotely than ever,” Greg Caplan, CEO of the teleworking startup Remote Year told Fast Company. “Most people will see that it is very possible and start to grow accustomed to the benefits of [working remotely], including autonomy, no commute, and fewer distractions than open offices. Companies that don’t allow remote work already are going to have to continue supporting it going forward, now that they have proven to themselves that it works.”

We have an opportunity here. Approximately 24 percent of energy-related CO2 emissions stem from transportation. What if we could cut down on car traffic, and drastically lower the emissions we create by doing so? According to a recent article published in the Harvard Business Review, American employees spend roughly 200 hours a year commuting to work, and three-quarters do so alone. If even a small percentage of companies and workers were to embrace working remotely, the change could make a measurable and impactful difference for the environment. 

The pro-environment benefits of working remotely could be the silver lining we desperately need in these dark times -- but it’s up to us to bring it to light. 

Image credit: Susanna Marsiglia/Unsplash

The U.S. economy has been put through the grinder by the COVID-19 crisis and clean tech jobs are no exception. The sector has enjoyed outstanding job growth over the past ten years, which makes the crash all the more painful. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the outlook is gloomy for job growth in sectors including wind power, solar power, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles and smart grids. That’s because the clean tech field of today is leaps and bounds beyond its position of ten years ago.

First, the bad news about clean tech jobs

Last week, Grist ran the numbers and painted a dreary picture. In just two months, March and April, the clean tech field lost almost 600,000 jobs. That erases all the growth of the past five years, and another 250,000 jobs could fall by the end of June.

Grist cited lockdowns, financing bottlenecks, and supply chain issues as major factors in the downturn.

The situation certainly is dire. However, the clean tech field also has a lot more going for it now than it did 10 years ago.

The deck is already stacked for rapid re-growth. That’s partly because the U.S. Department of Energy has continued to aggressively support clean technology all throughout the Trump administration, including green job training initiatives.

In addition, there are at least three main factors now in play.

1. Big business is bullish on clean power

Ten years ago, a mere trickle of major U.S. businesses was installing rooftop solar panels. Today the business sector is a major driver of the renewable energy market, and solarized rooftops are just the beginning.

Today there are new financial tools and new partnership arrangements that routinely enable businesses to claim credit for massive, utility-scale solar arrays and wind farms.

Businesses seeking renewable energy no longer have to reinvent the wheel, partly thanks to new buying programs developed by utilities. To cite just one example, even as the COVID-19 crisis gripped the U.S., General Motors launched major solar agreements with Michigan utility DTE and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Both deals will support additional solar investment, too.

New third-party resources like the Rocky Mountain Institute Business Renewables Center and the EnergySage online marketplace are also now available to help smaller firms transition to renewable energy, too.

Most importantly, businesses are far more organized in support of clean power than they were ten years ago. They organized to support President Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the runup to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, and they kept up the pressure in 2017 with the “We are Still In” campaign.

More recently, a newly formed force of 330 businesses has begun lobbying for a green COVID-19 recovery plan including Adobe, Capital One, Dow, General Mills, Mars, Inc., Microsoft, NIKE, Salesforce and VISA, among others.

2. The technology has vastly improved

Ten years ago, auto manufacturers were still recovering from the EV-1 electric vehicle debacle of the 1990’s. Tesla introduced its first car in 2008, but the Roadster’s six-figure price tag and long charging time were obstacles to mass adoption.

Today, virtually every major auto maker is pivoting to electric vehicles, investing billions in R&D and manufacturing. Costs have dropped, charging times have dropped, battery range has increased, and EV drivers can recharge at home, at work or at a growing network of public stations.

Wind power costs have also fallen off a cliff in ten years. Two leading future growth areas are re-powering existing wind farms with new turbines, and exploiting the nation’s vast offshore wind sector.

On the solar side, the Energy Department is targeting new low-cost perovskite solar technology and floating solar panels among other future growth areas.

Energy storage costs have also dropped as new technology comes into the marketplace. Along with new forecasting and grid management tools, that paves the way for more wind and solar in the grid.

3. Here come the Millennials — and Generation Z

Perhaps the most powerful factor of all is the new generation of younger voters, who recognize climate change as an existential threat.

According to Pew Research Center, the largest voting block by age in 2020 is comprised of Millennials plus the first wave of Generation Z.

In contrast to the situation of ten years ago, these younger voters are coming into political consciousness at a time when the technology for decarbonizing is mature, mainstream, efficient and inexpensive.

The solutions are now at hand, and there are no ready excuses for inaction.

In fact, state level officials were already responding to climate-aware voters and businesses before the COVID-19 outbreak. Bipartisan progress has been occurring even in “red” states that previously set up roadblocks to change. Clean technology has clearly begun to leap the political divide of days past.

In fact, some state and local jurisdictions have already begun planning for their own version of a Green New Deal.

Regardless of federal policy, hundreds of state and local jurisdictions have been leading the way on climate action. They have already established pipelines, networks, and systems for promoting new clean technology — and new clean tech jobs — that did not exist ten years ago.

In sum, the stage has already been set for a green recovery. Building new clean tech jobs on the ashes of the COVID-19 crisis will be yet another step forward in a process that is well under way.

Image credit: Pexels

When the topic turns to brand reputation and electric vehicles, the case seems easy enough. Zero emission cars make an important contribution to decarbonization, and that reflects nicely on the auto companies who produce them. However, even the simplest of brand calculations can take an unexpected turn when politics are involved.

The politics of electric vehicles

A case in point is Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk.

Ever a lightning rod for publicity, Musk is largely credited with resurrecting interest in electric vehicles at the close of the Bush administration. He launched the all-electric Roadster sports car in 2008, just a few years after GM pulled the plug on its ill-fated EV-1.

Tesla didn’t hold the field for long, though. Competition began to heat up during the Obama administration, mainly in the hybrid electric field. Along with the popular Toyota Prius, GM re-entered the race with the Volt hybrid, and Ford introduced the C-Max Energi.

Auto industry boosters were also early EV supporters, including NASCAR and the iconic Indianapolis Motor Speedway venue.

Nevertheless, during the Obama administration the political divide dictated that electric vehicles were the enemy. Conservative pundits engaged in a steady drumbeat against the new technology, despite strong support within the auto industry.

The political lines could not have been clearer. Electric vehicles were the choice of blue-state Democrats, while red-state Republicans continued to champion traditional vehicles.

Tesla targeted in electric vehicle war

By 2014, the us-versus-them attitude was so influential that some drivers acted out bullying behaviors on the road. Specifically, some diesel drivers began deploying a “rolling coal” modification to blanket Teslas and other electric cars in smog. Others blocked access to Tesla’s public charging stations.

The bullying behavior continued after Trump took office, with Tesla drivers continuing to be a favorite target.

Musk breaks the electric vehicle bubble

The anti-Tesla fervor was more than a little ironic, considering that during the 2016 campaign cycle then-candidate Donald Trump was reported to have a Tesla in his personal collection of high-end cars.

Adding to the irony, Elon Musk very publicly stepped out of the blue state EV bubble to support the new U.S. president when he took office in 2017. Partly thanks to his aggressive use of Twitter, Musk caught more than his share of media attention when he agreed to join the President’s newly formed manufacturing council. He also took heat for endorsing former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State.

The relationship appeared to cool when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, but that was only temporary. In 2018 Musk  again drew attention for joining top Republican donor Sheldon Adelson in support of a PAC aimed at protecting the Republican majority in Congress.

Musk’s SpaceX venture has also provided ample motivation to maintain cordial relations with the White House. That is a two-way street. The success of the SpaceX program happens to intersect with the president’s pet space projects, including travel to Mars and creation of the new “Space Force.”

Asked about Musk during the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, Trump enthused about the SpaceX program and asserted that Musk is “one of our great geniuses.”

Turning Trump voters into Tesla fans

Trump’s support for Tesla took on a more definitive shape on April 14, when he announced the newly formed “Great American Economic Revival Industry Groups” aimed at developing plans for re-starting the economy. He named Musk among the 12 CEOs tapped for the manufacturing group.

Interestingly, the big three auto makers were also represented in the group. In fact, nine of the 12 the manufacturers were involved with electric vehicles to one degree or another, including Caterpillar, Deere & Company, Cummins, Emerson Electric and General Electric as well as Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and of course, Tesla.

By all appearances, Musk and other electric vehicles stakeholders were working collaboratively toward a carefully coordinated restart date, reportedly set for Monday, May 18.

However, the appearances were wrong. Less than two weeks after the Great American groups were announced, Musk began pressing for a quick restart. In an April 29 earnings call reported by The Drive, he spoke against the extension of lockdown rules, calling it “forcibly imprisoning people in their homes against all their constitutional rights”

On May 1 he turned up the heat on Twitter, writing “Now give people back their FREEDOM” among other thoughts.

Officials in Alameda County, California, had been working with Tesla on a May 18 reopening plan for its Fremont facility, but Musk launched a ferocious attack on Twitter demanding an earlier opening.

The result was a blinding blitz of free publicity, during which Musk restarted his factory in Fremont, California days before Ford and GM were set to open.

If the idea was to re-assert Tesla’s image as a maverick bucking the entrenched industry tide and bureaucrats alike, Musk certainly succeeded on that score.

He may have also sought to deflate widespread criticism of his attempt at delivering ventilators. Musk’s effort came up short of GM’s ventilator production in Indiana, which was publicly recognized by Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials during an April 30 factory tour.

One-upping GM with a factory tour by the president himself may have also been on Musk’s agenda — and he might just succeed.

Last week the president tweeted his approval of Musk’s tactics over the Fremont opening, writing that “California should let Tesla & @elonmusk open the plant, NOW. It can be done Fast & Safely!”

If things continue in this vein, it seems that Musk may accomplish the seemingly impossible task of turning Trump voters into Tesla buyers.

Musk has already drawn attention for downplaying the dangers of COVID-19, fighting over public health policy, and pressuring employees to return to work early, all of which could help to endear the Tesla brand to supporters of the President.

For the rest of the car buying public, though, that kind of brand reputation may not the one they’d like to see parked in their own driveway.

Image credit: Taun Stewart/Unsplash

One of the tragedies of this pandemic is that many workers who lost their jobs have few options. Sure, they could work for a retailer or delivery service, but those jobs come with their own risks and, in the long term, offer little room for growth. Job training programs are almost non-existent now — and historically here in the U.S. they're often overhyped and underfunded.

The disparities in the job market are particularly acute now. Take, for example, what’s happened with Airbnb, which has been hit hard by this crisis. To its credit, the online accommodation booking service harnessed its tech resources to create an online “talent directory” to help its laid-off employees retrench and find their next jobs. Such an option helps at a time when many human resources and outplacement firms can’t offer their services due to social distancing guidelines. For retail and many gig economy workers, however, such options have rarely existed upon receiving a pink slip.

Various industries could certainly hone their social responsibility chops by pooling what resources they have to help citizens retool, retrain and reenter the workforce. So far, many of these private-sector collaborations, such as the much ballyhooed COVID-19 testing centers that were supposed to spring up at retail stores’ parking lots, have fallen flat. Now America’s top companies, whether they are in the apparel, retail, hospitality, pharmaceutical or healthcare industries have an opportunity to shine.

With the U.S. death toll alone expected to hit 90,000 at any moment as of press time, it’s pretty clear this crisis will not subside anytime soon, no matter how much sunlight or disinfectant will be out there in the coming summer months. And even if the novel coronavirus indeed “goes away,” we’ll still have lingering effects for a long time.

We’re clearly going to need more healthcare industry workers, whether they work on the front lines, help with pesky administrative tasks, or drop off needed goods, food or medicine. We can point to one example in Sweden, where furloughed airline workers are being retrained in basic hospital duties to help fill the gaps in that country’s strained healthcare system.

The U.S. could benefit from such an effort. Manufacturers could manufacture that much-needed protective equipment. The wider healthcare sector could mobilize to fund and execute needed training. Airlines could transport these newly trained citizens to places where they are needed. The hospitality sector could house these people in far-flung rural areas or other “hotspots” that will surely fester over the next several months. The retail and commercial real estate industries could find space where services such as counseling or testing could be done.

There’s no shortage of blue-collar, white-collar and new grads – from high school, college or otherwise – who would be willing to help if they could retrain and be fairly compensated. It’s just that right now, they don’t know where to go or how to help. America’s top companies could pitch in and help getting these monumental tasks done. After all, while we usually rely on nonprofits to perform these functions, many are shuttered or barely in operation, as shelter-in-place orders have largely stalled these organizations’ fundraising activities.

Actions that buttress the U.S. healthcare system would be much more effective than what the editorial board of TriplePundit currently sees out there. Sure, those seven-figure donations sound generous, but the public relations firms pitching this “generosity” never mention that these sums of money are at most one one-thousandth of a typical company’s revenues – and in any event, we here at 3p reply that such announcements are in reality table stakes.

Bottom line, the private sector needs to do better. We don’t need warm thoughts or well wishes or knowing that companies are thinking of us. And healthcare workers don’t need free pizza or prepackaged fruit cups. They need real, authentic and logistical support. Now.

Image credit: JC Gellidon/Unsplash

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on a $3 trillion coronavirus relief package today, following up on the last stimulus passed in late March. Released by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, the $3 trillion proposal includes some elements of the so-called Essential Workers Bill of Rights introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) four weeks ago. 

The proposed "bill of rights" is a 10-point policy plan to ensure essential workers have "the protections they need, the rights they are entitled to, and the compensation they deserve," Warren said in an April statement. This includes hazard pay, access to protective equipment like masks and gloves, universal paid sick, family and medical leave, and protections for collective bargaining, among other provisions.

Over the past four weeks, the bill of rights has gained backing from more than 75 progressive organizations and several prominent activists. Some elements have also garnered bipartisan support among lawmakers, although insiders predict that conservatives in the House are unlikely to support the proposed relief package due to its size and scope. Meanwhile, some activists and progressive lawmakers argue it does not go far enough. 

Activists, lawmakers rally behind the Essential Workers Bill of Rights 

Last week, actress and activist Jane Fonda's Fire Drill Fridays gathering — which has moved online in the wake of the pandemic — featured Sen. Warren, Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard, and Fonda's "Grace and Frankie" co-star Lily Tomlin, who voiced their support for the Essential Workers Bill of Rights. 

"The people who are being hit the hardest by COVID-19 are essential workers," Fonda said during the webcast. "They pick our food. They package our food. They look after our children and our elderly parents. Without them, our lives would become impossible. For life to move smoothly for us, those workers need to feel safe and respected."

Discussions around coronavirus relief have brought a wide scope of issues to the fore, providing an opportunity for activists and progressive lawmakers to make their case for the economic and social policies they've long supported, added Leonard of Greenpeace.

"It is true that COVID-19 has created hardship and horrors for many, many people, but it's also true that it's created openings that we can enter and seize to build a better future," Leonard said. 

"For years — for decades, even — activists have been asking elected leaders for these basic things to make our economy more fair, more resilient, more healthy. We've asked for accessible healthcare, for workers' rights, for investments in a just transition to a clean, renewable energy economy. These things are so obviously needed, but it's often hard to even get these issues on the table for discussion. And when we do get them on the table for discussion, too often we hear the same refrain which is, ‘There's no money for that.’

"In these COVID stimulus relief packages, all these things are being discussed. It's an opportunity for all of us to push for the programs and policies that will make our country better."

The advocates encouraged webcast attendees to call their members of Congress in support of the bill of rights. Tomlin called hers, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), live on the webcast, asking him "not to be a jerk" and to support the bill. A growing number of Americans agree with her, as petitions in favor of the bill of rights have collectively garnered hundreds of thousands of signatures. 

"Essential workers are fighting for us, and it's time that we fight for them," Warren added as part of a recorded statement (she was in session during the event).

What's in the new House bill? 

The proposed House bill up for vote today includes some key provisions from the bill of rights, including hazard pay for healthcare workers, healthcare and economic protections for essential workers regardless of immigration status, protections against eviction and foreclosure for renters and homeowners, funding for COVID-19 testing and treatment, and resources for hospitals.

It would also extend unemployment benefits and provide another round of direct payments to Americans, totaling $1,200 per adult ($2,400 per married couple) and $1,200 each for up to three dependents. A national moratorium on water shutoffs and $1.5 billion for low-income water aid, as well as $25 billion in support for the U.S. Postal Service, are also included in the bill. 

Some House conservatives slammed a number of provisions in the 1,800-page bill, including forgiveness of student debt, as an unnecessary overreach. "I'm just mystified why my friends felt the need to inject a clearly partisan bill and think this is going to move us down the road in the right direction. It's not," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said on the House floor today, as quoted by CBS News. Some progressive advocates, however, say the bill could do more. 

The House bill is not enough to kickstart a green recovery, some advocates say 

John Noël, senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA, praised the social elements of the proposed bill. But he noted it fails to include key provisions of the ReWIND Act, legislation introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) to prevent oil and gas companies from accessing stimulus funds. "Even this bill fails to put restrictions in place that would close the fossil fuel industry loopholes in the last relief package. Nor does it provide the certainty that all relief will be steered to the frontlines of the crisis and not to failing oil companies," Noël said in a statement. 

Likewise, Natalie Mebane, associate policy director for 350 Action, the climate advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, said "the bill does not go far enough to protect against bailouts of the oil and gas industry." Both 350 and Greenpeace have released their own sets of policy priorities they say will kickstart a "green recovery" from the pandemic while supporting fossil fuel workers who may be displaced. 

Dan Lashof, U.S. director of the World Resources Institute (WRI), similarly observed that the bill does not contain relief or protections for clean energy workers, nearly 600,000 of whom have already lost their jobs. 

“The House’s recently released $3 trillion bill includes essential support for impacted Americans across the country, but despite targeted support to certain industries, it offers no reprieve to the clean energy industry and the millions of people who support it," Lashof said. “The bill includes cash assistance to biofuel producers, despite their debatable environmental benefits, while failing to provide support to jobs in the wind and solar industries, which have clear and compelling benefits for cleaner air and a safer climate.”

The bottom line 

Key elements in the Essential Workers Bill of Rights, including hazard pay for workers on the front lines, are supported on both sides of the political aisle.

On Thursday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Republican Rep. Peter King, both of New York, proposed another piece of legislation to establish a "compensation fund" for essential workers. The bill would “authorize appropriated funds as needed for five years,” Forbes reported. 

Whether the House bill passes or not, conversations around essential workers' rights are unlikely to fade. “On September 11th, it was the firefighters and officers who ran into the burning buildings to save lives,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said in a press statement, as quoted by Forbes. “Today, it is hospital workers — nurses, doctors, EMS, janitorial staff, pharmacists, technicians — and all essential workers. We owe them more than applause at 7 p.m.”

Image credit: Bernard Hermant/Unsplash

For small-scale farmers across the U.S., silver linings in the novel coronavirus pandemic are hard to come by. But in adjusting to a new reality, some of the country’s food growers are finding new customers, new business models, and a newfound flexibility to ease the pain of a food supply chain in disarray. Shifting toward direct-to-consumer models, rather than selling to restaurants, processors or retailers, these farmers are finding they have to innovate and find a new role within the wider food sector by necessity. But a more diversified food supply chain is expected to make them more resilient post-pandemic.

“Small is beautiful”

“This is one time where small is beautiful. When you’re small you can make these shifts much more easily,” David Mas Masumoto, a third-generation California peach farmer, told the New York Times recently. His 80-acre farm, Masumoto Family Farm, south of Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley, is in a good position, he says, because “we’ve always diversified,” selling their fruit not only to restaurants but to wholesale and direct sales as well. Like other farmers across the U.S., he sees community-supported agriculture (CSA) booming in light of the pandemic, with people staying at home eager to get fresh produce delivered weekly to their doorstep.

“Farmers don’t go on furlough,” is how farmer Lee Jones of The Chef’s Garden in Huron, Ohio—a 350-acre farm that grew produce exclusively for chefs—put it to the trade magazine Inside F&B recently. With the shutdown of the economy, “overnight our entire customer base was gone,” he told Inside F&B. Within 24 hours, he switched his business from chefs to home cooks, offering produce boxes on his website that ship directly from the farm to consumers.

In addition to the CSA programs, farmers are taking advantage of arrangements where customers pay up front and receive weekly or monthly “shares” throughout the season, or other options such as offering contactless pickup and home delivery. Some farmers are partnering with restaurants to sell their goods, like the 10 Los Angeles restaurants that are selling produce boxes to support local farmers.

An upended food supply chain forces farmers to pivot

As farmers pivot amid the pandemic to sell directly to consumers to cushion potentially devastating losses, many small-scale producers are hoping it is a trend that will outlast the pandemic. That includes the small family-owned cattle ranch Pilaroc Farms in Fayettville, Tennessee. The local meat producer has seen demand skyrocket, largely from hundreds of new customers who have discovered them online; business has never been better, according to farmer Jennie Patrick.

“Farmers have always adapted to difficult situations and now is no different,” says Erin Fitzgerald, CEO of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, which represents farmer and rancher-led organizations, and food and agricultural partners. “Whether it’s adopting more climate-smart agriculture practices or finding ways to grow more food for a growing population, they have always been very resilient. We are hearing countless stories of farmers stepping up to bridge the gap to consumers whether that’s changing their business model to sell direct to consumers, like Pilaroc Farms, or Dairy West launching their Curds and Kindness program that allows surplus milk to be made into cheese, butter and other dairy products instead of being thrown away. Some farmers are also selling directly to supermarket chains, such as Publix, which in turn donates the food to food bank programs such as Feeding America.

According to Fitzgerald, “Farmers are under more scrutiny than ever as consumers start to pay more attention to where their food is coming from during this time of uncertainty.” This trend also dovetails with a spike in consumer interest in more sustainable purchases. A recent survey from the consulting firm Kearney in April showed that 83 percent of consumers considered the environmental impact when making purchases, a significant increase over a year ago. 

There’s plenty of food, but the supply chain needs to recalibrate

The fact that many farmers have had to destroy crops and even animals because of the lack of demand in the market has been widely reported, a painful irony at a time when food banks are overwhelmed. But Fitzgerald says that headlines miss the deeper story of what is happening on the farm and across the U.S. food supply chain.

“While there has been a lot of media coverage of the perceived food shortages, farmers need support in helping the American consumer understand that farmers are still farming and providing our nation’s food supply. The perceived lack of food supply is actually pinch points in the distribution system that are already beginning to work themselves out, so that the crops and livestock that farmers continue to grow and raise can continue to supply nutritious food across our country,” she says.

Still, Fitzgerald acknowledges there will be a rough road ahead, and that the food sector needs to create a blueprint for recovery that looks beyond the current crisis to launch action for the next decade of food and agriculture.

Image credit: LuAnn Hunt/Unsplash

When the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the first known travel-related case of the novel coronavirus on January 21, 2020, that event was an early indicator that the pandemic's impacts would span far beyond its origins. As people worry about health risks, plus the consequences of a potential loss of work, many are restricting their spending. That trend may hurt philanthropic giving, which is so important to nonprofit organizations that rely on donations and grants to function.

There already had been evidence suggesting that philanthropic giving is on the decline. Statistics cited by Giving USA found that individual giving declined 1.1 percent in 2018 — accounting for a 3.4 percent drop when adjusted for inflation.

That downturn is particularly worrisome now that many households simply don't have the extra money to contribute, with as many as 36.5 million Americans unemployed due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Of course, some of the world's wealthiest citizens — like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates — have made sizable philanthropic contributions. But their largess has gone to massive projects like developing a vaccine for COVID-19 or fighting climate change, so many nonprofits will have find new sources of funding or drastically scale back their work.

Subsequently, the federal government has stepped in to propose a new bill that would create a change in the tax code to incentivize citizens to boost their philanthropic giving. This decision may give some charities some assistance in these uncertain times, but will it be enough?

How are nonprofits coping?

Among organizations and nonprofits, food banks are bearing the brunt of the slump. Individuals have stopped volunteering or donating food and other items to practice safe social distancing. This lack of supplies and delivery workers has in turn inflated operating costs.

Carlos Rodriguez, president of the Community Food Bank of New Jersey, reported that his organization saw an 800,000-pound drop in the amount of donated food given during both March and April. Also, Food Bank For New York City announced it would temporarily suspend volunteer help and has shifted to hiring paid temporary workers.  

Food banks that have managed to remain open rely on alternate ways to increase the incoming stream of supplies. Often, strategies involve connecting with funders before competing charities reach out. The struggles food banks now face are exacerbated by the reality that organizations that traditionally have donated huge quantities of food and other products have shut down.

Doing so, however, uses more of their hard-earned dollars. This funding method isn't sustainable in the long term, especially for organizations that had difficulties before the coronavirus posed additional challenges. The Nonprofit Finance Fund’s 2018 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey found that 57 percent of respondents could not meet the existing demand from service users. The figure rose to 65 percent among organizations addressing needs in low-income communities. The COVID-19 pandemic imposes new threats to already burdened groups.

The CARES Act has a provision designed to increase philanthropic giving

To boost funding and help boost philanthropic giving, Congress created the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, commonly known as the coronavirus relief package. This act revised the federal tax code to incentivize charitable giving, with an emphasis on food and monetary contributions. Moreover, this legislation established new deductions for cash donations, thereby benefiting taxpayers. 

For example, one of the main charity-related portions of this bill states taxpayers may take a one-time deduction of up to $300 for gifts of cash made to charitable organizations in 2020. They can use this without having to itemize their deductions. For taxpayers who do itemize, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) raised the deduction limit for charitable donations made in cash.

People can now deduct up to 60 percent of their adjusted gross income — a 10 percent increase compared to what the IRS formerly permitted. This factor means that many people who give substantial donations may anticipate larger tax breaks in 2020.

Rewriting to tax code to help nonprofits

While incentives from the coronavirus relief package may boost the number of small donations to nonprofits, these contributions won't be enough to keep food banks and other organizations open. Rather, nonprofits need an immediate cash infusion to sustain their relief efforts.

Many citizens can't fulfill this need right now, even with incentives. Subsequently, nonprofits will have to look to community development financial institutions (CDFIs) for aid. Still, these CDFIs may not be able to support these nonprofits or community organizations in the long term.

Thus, the federal government will have to find a more comprehensive solution for the issues surrounding reductions in philanthropic giving. The coronavirus relief package did bring about a $600 increase in weekly unemployment insurance benefits for which nonprofits don't have to make payments. However, it did not minimize the amount organizations will otherwise be paying for the spike in unemployment.

More than 200 national nonprofits signed a community letter that their allies delivered to Congress on April 8, 2020. It urges congressional legislators to consider a Nonprofit Track comprised of several modifications to the CARES Act. These adjustments included:

• Designating exclusive funding for nonprofits within the two principal loan programs in the CARES Act.
• Increasing the amount of the new $300 deduction for people who choose not to itemize, plus extending the timeframe beyond 2020.
• Raising the federal unemployment insurance reimbursement percentage to 100 percent of costs for self-funded nonprofits.
• Enabling taxpayers who contribute between March 13 — the date when the U.S. declared a national emergency — and July 16 to claim itemized or above-the-line deductions for those gifts on their 2019 tax returns.

The bottom line: nonprofits must remain proactive

The proposals discussed above could indeed stimulate individuals’ desire to give, thereby helping nonprofits continue operating during these difficult times. However, it is not yet clear whether Congress will take those actions or others covered in the group correspondence. Thus, charities should continue other options as they look for financial assistance via support programs, grants, loan funds and 501(c)(3) bonds to increase their resiliency.

Image credit: Sharon McCutcheon/Unsplash

Even if you haven't been financially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, by now you know several people who are. Shutdowns and quarantine regulations have had an impact on almost every aspect of the economy. Government agencies say they are taking steps to help people in the crisis, but some critics argue they're not caring for those who need it most. And that same argument has applied to how the federal government is approaching the latest farm bailout program.

The U.S. agriculture sector has felt the force of the spread of COVID-19. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced a $19 billion relief fund for farmers, including $470 million to purchase food surplus. At face value, that’s a hefty amount of money, but critics say this farm bailout isn’t necessarily going to farmers who are in dire straits.

Challenges confronting agriculture amid COVID-19

Several problems are facing the farmers right now. Supply chain disruptions and the closings of restaurants and places reliant on food service companies such as school cafeterias have left many farms and ranchers with a surplus of produce, meat and dairy. The recession the novel coronavirus has triggered has also led to many farmers facing bankruptcy.

Farmers aren't the only ones in need, however. Many people across the U.S. have lost their jobs, landing them in poverty. These people need food but getting it when families short on cash, combined with the fact that food supply chains have been slow to adapt, has created countless challenges.

The difficulty in transporting supplies has been especially disruptive when it comes to food products with short shelf lives like milk or raw meat. Dairy farmers have had to dump tons of milk, despite the increased demand for it. People are going hungry, and farmers can't get food to them.

What are the benefits from this latest USDA farm bailout?

The USDA's latest relief fund is supposed to help struggling farmers and deliver food to hungry people. A multibillion-dollar farm bailout sure sounds like a lot of help, but you have to consider how it's distributed. Most of this money has gone to the largest farms.

Massive corporate farms employ a lot of people, but they're not the only ones out there. There are 65,000 dairy farmers in America, so if the USDA directs most of the farm bailout funds primarily to larger operations, tens of thousands of these food producers could be left out. That figure doesn't even include the meat and produce farmers who are also struggling.

The USDA's recent $470 million purchase of surplus foodstuffs does offer some assistance to those at risk of hunger. The agency has said it's doing the things it can to buy food and then transport it to those in need. But again, small farmers they are being left out of the equation – and they are often the ones that could provide food quickly to those who need it. In an interview with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue, Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes challenged him on how the federal government has distributed payments to farmers. Here’s how Purdue responded:

“The fact is, Lesley, most of our production in America is done by large farmers. That's just the way it happens. These are-- these are awards based on the production. And-- but we did try. We've got payment limits that cut people off.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has only made it worse for small farmers, according to Rachel M. Cohen of The Intercept. According to the reporting she and other journalists have conducted, the coronavirus stimulus package (also known as the CARES Act) has offered small farmers very little:

“… in the weeks following the CARES Act, farmers struggled to access any relief, as the agriculture aid stalled and many farmers found themselves ineligible for the Small Business Administration emergency loans. On April 10, 33 senators sent a bipartisan letter to Purdue, urging the USDA to follow the CARES Act and distribute federal aid to small farmers specifically. A week later, when the USDA finally announced how it planned to allocate the $9.5 billion from the CARES Act, it appeared that no money would be reserved specifically for small farmers.”​​​​​

The crisis has hit farmers and USDA employees alike

The result is a lack of support for smaller independent farms, which need more help anyway. Monetary aid isn't the only thing farms need, either. Agricultural workers require medical personal protective equipment (PPE) to stay safe, but the USDA doesn't cover that.

The USDA hasn't even provided PPE to its own employees, around 200 meat inspectors who have contracted COVID-19 as of press time, according to one trade publication. As harvest season approaches, many farmworkers say they do not have the personal protective equipment (PPE) like face masks to help prevent COVID-19 from spreading. That puts thousands of workers' health at risk.

As COVID-19 continues to spread, the evidence suggests more small farms will go out of business. The pandemic is taking a toll on the sector, especially on independent workers. Agriculture itself will eventually outlive the coronavirus, and some farmers are adapting quickly to the new reality they face; the data, however, suggests we’ll see more farmers go into bankruptcy; many farms will disappear altogether.

Image credit: Tom Fisk/Pexels

As this pandemic enters its third month, we’ve seen essential workers first overlooked, then celebrated and, now, as they still show up to their jobs while worrying about their health, much of corporate America has put their concerns on the back burner.

It’s curious how Starbucks, America’s largest coffee chain, has by and large stood out for how it is cautiously reopening stores and prioritizing the concerns of workers. Many may question whether grab-and-go coffee and a scone is “essential,” but to its credit, Starbucks' reopening plan suggests the company is taking the health threats of COVID-19 seriously. 

Meanwhile, the country’s largest grocer recently told employees that its “hero pay” is ending this coming Sunday. In contrast, some retailers, including Walmart, have taken action by making face masks mandatory; Walmart says it will offer them to workers if they don’t have any. Nevertheless, across the U.S., the data suggest many workers don’t feel safe while they are on the clock. 

In one survey from The Shift Project, only a quarter of retail workers and about 40 percent of warehouse employees reported new or updated cleaning procedures. Depending on the workplace, whether that be a convenience store, fast-food outlet or big-box store, strong policies are often lacking: Mandatory mask policies were only found at anywhere from 2 to 7 percent of U.S. retail locations, according to the survey.

The most gaslighting, however, has come from the U.S. meat industry. While meatpacking plants across the country have ranked among the worst COVID-19 hot spots, workers within this sector are still struggling to obtain safer workplaces as a result of these outbreaks. In fact, some politicians have blamed workers for spreading the virus, citing their “crowded” conditions as they often live in the same apartment buildings or within the same space. Rather conveniently, many of these workers are immigrants — and few have raised the question of whether their shared living spaces are a result of their low wages. The worst part of this situation is that these meat companies have not come to their employees’ defense.

While the curve in some parts of the U.S. is flattening, the numbers at a macro level suggest otherwise. Some hustle across America’s C-suites would have been advisable many yesterday’s ago, but it’s not too late. The recovery from this pandemic will be slow and painstaking as many people will be far too skittish to return to their normal habits, even after local governments start lifting restrictions. 

Memories of the country’s worst hotspots, whether they are towns, stores or restaurants, will be burned onto our collective memory. And brands that insist they are taking this pandemic seriously will want to boost efforts to protect employees now if they hope to secure their reputations into the future.

From the Brands Taking Stands newsletter. Be sure to subscribe!

Image credit: Gustavo Fring/Pexels