Search

Proving that the emerging wave of ramped-up corporate climate action has legs, last week Delta Air Lines announced an ambitious, $1 billion plan to achieve carbon neutral status within 10 years. The move follows similar announcements by other global firms, which are calling for sharply reducing their carbon emissions instead of merely offsetting them.

From carbon offsets to sustainable energy

Not too long ago, business leaders leaned on carbon offsets to push their companies in a more sustainable direction.

Now they are beginning to recognize that offsetting is ineffective without an overall decrease in their global carbon load as well.

That means using less energy and transitioning to more sustainable fuels, while also increasing the use of offsets to remove atmospheric carbon beyond the carbon emissions related directly to a company’s operations.

Ten years ago, such a strategy would have been technologically challenging, if not impossible.

With today’s advanced sustainable energy technology, business leaders can bank on the financial viability of carbon reduction.

Carbon removal is still a technological challenge, but as the Delta plan illustrates, nature could come to the rescue.

Delta targets carbon neutrality, hits fossil fuels

Like other airlines, Delta faces an especially daunting task on the road to carbon neutrality.

Ground-based transportation companies can use electric vehicles, biofuels and renewable hydrogen to decarbonize. They can also deploy mass transit, car sharing, bicycles and other alternatives. None of these options is widely available to aircraft.

However, since 98 percent of its emissions are related to its aircraft, Delta does have the advantage of achieving significant results by focusing its carbon-reducing efforts on the aircraft themselves.

To that end, the new plans call for increasing fuel efficiency as well ramping up the company’s support for sustainable fuel research and development efforts.

Delta will officially launch its new plan on March 1, and it already has a head start.

Last year Delta made progress on an existing pledge to replace older aircraft with ones that are 25 percent more fuel efficient, with the addition of 80 new planes.

The company has also broadened its search for alternative fuels to include an experimental facility that recycles waste plastic into jet fuel.

Last December, Delta committed to purchasing 10 million gallons of biofuel annually from the firm Gevo. That company has been working to shrink the carbon footprint of biofuel production through crop selection, energy efficiency and renewable energy. 

Delta also engaged with the biofuel company Northwest Advanced Bio-Fuels on a $2 million R&D program aimed at using wood debris from managed forests as a biofuel feedstock.

The Northwest R&D project could soon be joined by others, as Delta’s new 10-year plan includes a new investment fund dedicated to supporting its carbon neutral goals.

No good news for oil and gas stakeholders

The agreement with Northwest should raise another red flag for the fossil fuel industry.

There has been quite a bit of buzz lately about the prospects for removing a significant amount of atmospheric carbon by planting trees on a massive scale.

In essence, that strategy will raise a new generation of managed forests all over the globe.

This super-sized approach to tree-planting could have the unintended side effect of providing cover for oil and gas stakeholders, which have begun to articulate plans for achieving carbon neutral status while continuing to dig fossil fuels out of the ground.

However, over the long term the new swaths of managed forest could emerge as a competitive threat to fossil fuels.

These new forests could provide vast quantities of bio-based material to replace fossil fuels and other petrochemicals, presumably without running into the environmental issues that restrict harvesting wood from old growth forests.

Wood is more difficult to break down into chemical building blocks than other plant-based materials, so technological obstacles still remain.

Nevertheless, new biorefinery research underscores how the Delta-Northwest partnership could support new, cost-effective systems for using wood as a sustainable feedstock.

Trees versus technology

To that point, Delta’s new 10-year plan supports the emerging consensus that tree-planting is a more cost-effective carbon removal and sequestration pathway than human-built systems. For that matter, evidence is emerging that conventional carbon capture systems may do more harm than good.

Tree planting initiatives are not a free ride, as seedlings and saplings require regular care. However, Mastercard and other companies have already begun partnering with forestry and wildlife experts to set the bar for effective action.

Similarly, Delta’s 10-year plan includes a commitment to share its best practices with other organizations.

If all goes according to plan, those projects will include wetland restoration, grassland conservation, and marine and soil capture in addition to forestry and other “negative emission” pathways.

Image credit: Miguel Ángel Sanz/Unsplash and Delta Air Lines

Is anybody really surprised that Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison is planning a fundraiser for U.S. President Donald Trump?

After all, back in 2014 Ellison established his affinity for the Republican party and Libertarian-backed politicians by raising money for Rand Paul, who was then rumored to be a front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Paul ultimately lost that contest to Trump, who was backed by another well-known Libertarian. Now it seems that some Oracle employees are shocked, repeat, shocked to learn that Ellison has not changed his political stripes.

Ellison supported other presidential candidates before Trump

In the run-up to the 2016 primary elections, Ellison also donated a total of $4 million to a super-PAC supporting Marco Rubio, thereby cementing his reputation as a key Silicon Valley fundraiser for Republican presidential hopefuls.

After Trump won the Electoral College vote, Ellison — and Oracle — continued to maintain ties with the new administration.

Soon after Election Day 2016, Ellison’s co-chair at Oracle, Safra Catz, was invited onto the Trump transition team.

Upon accepting the position, Catz reportedly stated that she would “tell the president-elect that we are with him and will help in any way we can.”

That statement apparently prompted at least one senior executive at Oracle, George Polisner, to resign in protest.

Polisner publicized his objections on his personal Linkedin page, writing in answer to Catz that that (emphasis his) “I am not with President-elect Trump and I am not here to help him in any way.”

“In fact,” Polisner continued, “When his policies border on the unconstitutional, the criminal and the morally unjust, I am here to oppose him in every possible and legal way.

Oracle employees react (or not) to Trump fundraiser

Vox reported the news about Ellison’s fundraiser last week, under the headline, “Furious Oracle employees are demanding that Larry Ellison cancel his Trump fundraiser.”

“Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison’s decision to host a fundraiser for Donald Trump next week has awoken the usually passive workforce at his company, angering some employees who are going public with their disgust over Ellison’s actions,” recounted Vox reporter Theodore Schleifer.

Schleifer did interview several Oracle employees who voiced strong opinions about the fundraiser.

As of this writing, though, no reaction of consequence has materialized aside from an internal employee petition and other internal communications.

Public online petitions and open letters have emerged as mainstays of employee activism, but so far none has appeared at Oracle, making it even more unlikely that a Wayfair-style walkout is in the works.

For Oracle, money talks if you’re the alternative to Amazon

In another sign that the fundraiser will probably not prove to be a tipping point for employee activism at Oracle, on February 14 Bloomberg reporter Eric Newcomer noted that there is a direct bottom line connection between Oracle’s business and Ellison’s eagerness to establish financial credibility with the President.

As Newcomer reported, Oracle is “competing with the cloud computing wing of Amazon.com Inc.,” and launched the “anti-Amazon group” Free and Fair Markets Initiative.

“Oracle also worked desperately to derail Amazon’s bid for JEDI, a lucrative Defense Department cloud contract, going for far as to sue the federal government for illegally favoring Amazon,” Newcomer wrote.

In addition, the President has often been reported to be in a feud with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos over coverage in the Bezos-owned Washington Post.

“Now, Ellison is making friends with his enemy’s enemy, who happens to be the President of the United States,” Newcomer wrote.

To underscore the point, the website banner for Ellison’s Free and Fair Markets Initiative depicts what can best be described as an Amazon worker street protest.

If Oracle employees engage in any similar action it will truly mark a tipping point.

As of now the expectations are slim to none.

Image credit: Oracle PR/Wiki Commons

Earlier this week, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos announced that he is donating $10 billion of his personal fortune to establish the new Bezos Earth Fund, aimed at supporting efforts to address the impacts of climate change. That’s all well and good, but activist employees at Amazon have pointed out that it simply papers over the company’s contribution to climate change through its Amazon Web Services branch.

$10 billion to fight climate change and this is the thanks I get?

Amazon's founder sparked a torrent of media attention when he announced the new Bezos Earth Fund in a post on his personal Instagram account.

Though the $10 billion figure is impressive, several commenters on the post pointed out that the pledge is small in size relative to Bezos’s overall estimated wealth of more than $124 billion. Others took the opportunity to draw attention to Amazon’s notorious tax issues.

Social media comments could easily be the work of trolls and competitors, but there was no mistaking the reaction from Amazon employees.

A vocal group of employees has been pressuring Bezos to commit Amazon to serious action on climate change under the name, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice.”

Soon after Bezos posted his pledge on Instagram, they shared a public message that gave Bezos props for philanthropy but otherwise excoriated him.

“When is Amazon going to stop helping oil and gas companies ravage Earth with still more oil and gas wells?” they wrote, and continued:

“When is Amazon going to stop funding climate-denying think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and climate-delaying policy? When will Amazon take responsibility for the lungs of children near its warehouses by moving from diesel to all-electric trucking?”

The employee group also drew attention to a new Amazon policy that has an impact on the ability of employees to criticize the company in public.

“Will Jeff Bezos show us true leadership, or will he continue to be complicit in the acceleration of the climate crisis, while supposedly trying to help?” they concluded.

When your best philanthropy is not good enough

In bringing up the issue of philanthropy, the Amazon group touched on an ongoing trend within the corporate social responsibility movement.

The bar has been raised significantly since the 20th century, when the philanthropic model was the mainstay of corporate giving.

In the 21st century, a new model of corporate community involvement has begun to emerge.

Some of this activity has emerged in the media sphere, where leading companies have taken a stand against hate speech and other unacceptable behavior.

Others have spoken out on moral grounds against family separation and other controversial federal policies.

Still others have begun to partner with grassroots organizations on issues that were once considered taboo for corporate involvement, from common sense gun safety regulation to advocacy for LGBTQ civil rights.

The Bezos Earth Fund and climate action

That stepped-up behavior is reflected in the sphere of climate action and other environmental issues. Corporate leaders are beginning to move past the immediate goal of addressing their internal operations. They are  adopting science-based targets for climate action and tackling the crisis from a wholistic, global perspective.

This is the point where the Bezos commitment falls short.

Although Amazon has already moved to decarbonize its delivery operations, the Bezos pledge mirrors the recent “carbon neutral” pledges of several leading oil and gas producers.

Those plans lean heavily on continuing to produce oil and gas. Such efforts amount to tidying up around the edges without addressing the root of the problem.

In his post, Bezos wrote that the Bezos Earth Fund will support “any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world.”

The details are yet to be seen, as Bezos plans to start funding projects later this year.

However, considering that Amazon’s oil and gas web service helps producers “identify potential reservoirs faster and cheaper,” chances are that the Bezos Earth Fund could help facilitate business as usual rather than working to help ensure that fossil carbon stays in the ground.

If Bezos thought to mollify Amazon employees with the new fund, he is most likely in for a surprise.

Image credit: Grant Miller for the George W. Bush Presidential Center/Flickr and Steve Jurvetson/Flickr

“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” Greta Thunberg told world leaders at the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City in September 2019. 

But, is it wrong to assume we can have the best of both worlds?

Was 2019 a turning point?

Economists and environmentalists have long agreed on one thing: As long as global GDP grows, our emissions will, too. But in 2019, energy-related emissions remained the same as in 2018, at about 33 gigatons, while global GDP increased by nearly 3 percent, according to recent research from the International Energy Association (IEA). 

What remains to be seen is whether or not this is “a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth,” Dr. Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, observed in a Twitter thread last week.

A history of steady, coupled growth

The data has long supported the assumption that economic growth and emissions are strongly correlated. IEA data demonstrate that total global emissions were approximately 20.5 gigatons in 1990. Global emissions climbed steadily until, in both 2018 and 2019, they reached as much as 33.3 gigatons.

World Bank data further corroborates a link between energy emissions and GDP growth. In 1990, global GDP was around $22.6 trillion. By 2018, that number had reached almost $86 trillion.

Developing vs. developed country emissions

One nuance to the debate on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and economic growth is where the burden lies to decrease or slow the growth of global emissions.

Developed countries, including those in North America, Europe and East Asia, are known to have achieved prosperity through the use of heavily emitting energy sources and technologies. Developing countries, such as India and China today, are following a similar path — and many people argue these countries are entitled to achieve the same level of prosperity as the developed world, using whatever means available.

To that end, data from the IEA, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) together offer a compelling summary of global development and emissions since 1990. While the developed world’s energy-related emissions peaked at 13 gigatons in 2007, emissions from the developing world continued climbing nearly every year.

Does that mean developing countries are to blame for our current crisis? Absolutely not.

Varying perspectives on the responsibilities of developing and developed nations to address climate change will persist. Despite, and perhaps to help settle that debate, the question of whether economic growth and prosperity are directly connected to emissions is one we must continue to explore.

If for no other reason, global society needs to find our way forward in what has been termed by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres as a “Decade of Action.” This dynamic is a factor worth considering for experts building drawdown strategies.

Where do we grow from here?

As vindication for Thunberg, the data shows that total global energy-related emissions and GDP growth are related.

However, those who value economic growth needn’t be depressed. The data also shows that economic growth is still possible during years when energy-related emissions decrease. It may be slower growth, but it is still growth, nonetheless.

For the IEA’s Dr. Birol, the 2019 plateauing of energy-related emissions is “evidence that clean energy transitions are underway,” he said in a public statement last week. And, he said, that alone should fuel a growth in more investments and government policies that can in the long term, help the clean energy sector grow and thrive.

Image credit: Ralf Vetterle/Pixabay

Climate change risks are no longer the elephant in the boardroom. More than 1,000 organizations have signed on to support the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which works to enhance the transparency of corporations’ climate change-related financial risks.

These supporters’ collective market cap now reaches nearly $12 trillion, according to the TCFD. Mary Schapiro, head of the TCFD Secretariat, called this an “important milestone" for the group and the business world, demonstrating that global organizations now accept climate risks as financial risks.

The group's chair — billionaire businessman and U.S. presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg — says he, too, embraces that sentiment. “Increasing transparency makes markets more efficient, and economies more stable and resilient,” he wrote on the group's website.

Improving disclosures so investors are aware of climate change risks

TCFD’s stated aim is to “encourage firms to align their disclosures with investors’ needs” with regards to measuring climate change risks. As such, the organization says it is working to “develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders.” These environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures include physical, legal and economic risks linked to climate change.

In July, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who launched the TCFD with Bloomberg in 2015, predicted that firms which did not take climate change into consideration would “go bankrupt without question.” In September, he addressed the United Nations, urging for greater transparency on climate risk. And he lamented slow movement within the global business community in an October BBC interview, insisting: “Now $12 trillion worth of balance sheets of banks and asset managers are wanting this disclosure [of investments in fossil fuels]. But it’s not moving fast enough.”

At the same time, Carney believes capitalism “is part of the solution," as he stated during an interview with British television last summer. He sees TCFD’s role as “helping to bring climate risks and resilience into the heart of financial decision-making.” TCFD, in Carney’s estimate, will help the world “improve the quality and quantity of disclosure and build a market in the transition to net zero.”

The benefits of transparent climate risk disclosure

According to the TCFD, climate-related disclosures benefit companies in multiple ways:

• With investors and lenders more confident in a company’s climate risk management, capital will flow more easily.
• Meeting disclosure requirements will be easier, as materials will already have been reported in financial filings.
• Greater organizational awareness of climate-related risks and opportunities translates into better strategic planning.
• Companies will stay ahead of growing demand from investors to disclose climate-related information.

Information provided to stakeholders such as investors, lenders, and insurance underwriters would help them “understand companies’ risks and opportunities from climate change.” Another benefit is helping global markets adapt to the new realities of a world with a changed climate.

Disclosures in action: Japan

In Japan, one advocate of more transparency on the climate change front is Hiro Mizuno, the executive managing director and chief investment officer of the $1.6 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF). Mizuno says the mainstreaming of ESG-oriented investment will make it crucial for companies to disclose any climate change-related risks, as well as business opportunities. That’s why he sees TCFD’s disclosure framework as a win-win for both investors and corporates who need long-term capital injection.

GPIF published its first TCFD-aligned report in September 2019. Mizuno is urging GPIF’s asset managers to follow its lead “by sharing their analysis of climate-related risk and opportunities of the portfolios they manage for us,” he said. 

Global support for climate risk disclosure surging

The TCFD now includes a network of over 1,000 supporters spread across 55 countries. While the market cap of its supporters now reaches nearly $12 trillion, their influence is far greater.

The organizations represent both the public and private sectors, and are as diverse as stock exchanges, national governments, corporations, central banks and regulators.

The 473 and counting financial firms that support TCFD manage $138.8 trillion in assets. In addition, companies that say they support this effort come from multiple industries, such as energy, metals, oil and gas and insurance.

Those supporters and interested parties are leveraging TCFD’s Knowledge Hub, case studies, and more to understand how they can adapt to the world’s growing demand for climate change-related risk reporting.

Image credit: Holger Link/Unsplash

Employees are a company’s most valuable asset – they are the individuals on the front lines delivering services or selling products. As such, it is important for organizations to have a strong value proposition so that employees feel fulfilled by their careers. Increasingly, employees are looking for companies to provide opportunities to enrich their work environment with volunteerism—and when those companies deliver, the result is increased employee engagement and higher levels of employee satisfaction, which leads to stronger outcomes. To that end, your organization should consider launching a volunteer time off (VTO) policy if it has not yet done so.

A volunteer time off policy can engage employees

A recent survey by Deloitte on volunteerism found that 89 percent of employees believe that companies who sponsor volunteer activities offer a better work environment than those who do not. The survey also revealed that only 38 percent of respondents said that their employers provide opportunities for volunteering, while 69 percent shared that they would like to volunteer more. It’s not a coincidence that most companies cited as “best places to work” offer some version of a volunteer time off policy. These results suggest that it is imperative for organizations to act.

Northwestern Mutual is one of many companies who recently recognized the importance and impact volunteer time off provides employees, as well as communities, and created a formal program for employees in 2018. We were thrilled to see that employee volunteerism increased by 20 percent—over 36,000 hours—in its first two years. Beyond the numbers, we knew the program was effective when we heard the feedback from our employees. “Working for an employer that offers volunteer time off allows me to connect and bond with children and their siblings who are affected by childhood cancer during daytime hours, which is an experience I wouldn’t be able to have otherwise,” said one employee when asked for feedback.

Volunteering together can have positive impacts on team building and networking internally as well as recruiting and retaining talent. For existing teams, volunteering offers an opportunity to get to know colleagues in a different setting to help develop interpersonal connections and deepen company culture. Volunteering as a team also offers an opportunity for managers to observe employees natural strengths and talents in a different light, which can open new doors for business opportunity and growth. Additionally, candidates are looking for companies that offer volunteer benefits because it speaks to a companies’ culture and values.

The financial benefits of having a VTO

Take a moment to think about your hiring costs, factoring in onboarding and training time, learning and development. Now, add in the cost of time with an unfulfilled role. Employee turnover rates are expensive for companies and take a toll on morale overall. Retention is key to reducing personnel costs and enacting policies that support what employees are looking for is a simple way to reduce those costs. On top of retention efforts, these policies can help recruit and attract new candidates to your organization as well.

A 2018 survey found that 79 percent of those who volunteer with a nonprofit also donate to that organization. Supporting employee volunteer efforts could mean that your company is making a positive financial impact on organizations most in need of support as well. In the first two years of offering the VTO policy, over 1,850 Northwestern Mutual employees took the time to volunteer.

A VTO is one way companies can pay it forward

While we don’t have exact numbers on how many of those employees were driven to donate after volunteering—you can begin to imagine the impact that large companies can have on nonprofits by offering these policies. For causes related to childhood cancer, those donations could mean funding critical hours of research towards a cure. For causes related to education, those donations could make the difference in helping a child graduate high school and going on to college. The potential benefits are infinite—and they can all start with company volunteer policies. 

It’s one thing for companies to encourage volunteerism, yet it’s another to drive it as part of the company culture. Our commitment to giving back is evident across the company and it starts with our enterprise leadership group. These leaders contribute as board members to more than 30 organizations, supporting a variety of initiatives and causes including education, health and children among others. We believe that when leadership “walks the walk,” it helps set the tone for a culture that values and recognizes the importance of giving back. As leaders, we empower our employees to volunteer and we implore teams to follow suit because we know that together, we can make a lasting impact in the communities where we live and work. 

Image credit: Pexels

Coming soon to city streets in Houston: all-electric, self-driving cars that will deliver fast food, groceries and small packages.

Nuro designed and built the the battery-powered R2 vehicle in partnership with Roush Enterprises. Smaller than any passenger car on the market, the R2 is expected to hit the roads soon for test drives in Houston, Texas. In the not-so-distant future, Nuro is hopeful that the R2 will be operating in Houston as part of its delivery agreement with Walmart, Domino’s and Kroger. 

“Our second-generation vehicle will advance our goal of transforming local commerce,” said David Ferguson, Nuro’s cofounder and president. The R2 is designed for use mostly in suburban and residential neighborhoods.

The R2 recently received the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) first federal exemption to test a self-driving vehicle on public streets. “It’s a signal that the agency, which has stated publicly that it doesn’t want to stand in the way of the new technology, is likely to approve more vehicles,”  University of South Carolina law professor Bryant Walker Smith, who studies vehicle automation, told PBS NewsHour.

Rethinking the design of self-driving cars

Without a driver, windshield or mirrors, the R2 relies on AI software, digital sensors, cameras and LIDAR technology. If necessary, the vehicle can be controlled remotely. A 360-degree vision system allows R2 to monitor its environment, including traffic, pedestrians, bicycle riders and road conditions. The front end of the R2 has been crafted to give way should it strike a pedestrian or another vehicle.

“We were convinced that such a class of vehicle had the potential to be safer than passenger vehicles: more nimble, narrower, and better able to prioritize the well-being of other road users,” Ferguson wrote in a blog. “And by building such a vehicle we could also lower vehicle cost, improve the customer experience, and accelerate autonomous technology deployment by solving problems jointly through both hardware and software development.”

Photo: Nuro self-driving cars will soon be making deliveries for restaurant and supermarket chains in Houston. (Photo courtesy Nuro)

This latest vehicle includes several improvements from its predecessor, R1, which was launched in Scottsdale, Arizona, in December 2018. R1 was the first unmanned delivery service for the general population. “We added two-thirds more compartment space without increasing vehicle width, and we introduced temperature control to help keep food fresh,” Ferguson noted in his blog. “R2 uses a custom battery solution that nearly doubled the R2 battery size, enabling all day operation.” Doors open curbside, so customers do not have to step into traffic to retrieve their deliveries.

With origins at Google, Nuro is scoring investors

Ferguson started Nuro, based in Mountain View, California, with Jiajun “JZ” Zhu, with whom he worked on Google’s Self-Driving Car Project. That became Waymo, which manufactures self-driving passenger cars, four years ago. Working with SoftBank and other investors, Nuro has raised about $1 billion.

It took three years for Nuro to win R2’s federal DOT exemption; Nuro is still required to schedule periodic meetings with the DOT, provide safety reports, and gather and submit feedback from community members where the vehicles are operating. Those in the industry are anticipating faster action on broader guidelines. The next step in the evolution of driverless, automated vehicles is for the federal agency to begin drafting new regulations that govern the manufacture and operation of driverless cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began the process last summer, seeking public comment on removing regulations for vehicles with automated driving systems.   

“The DOT has taken a critical first step in enabling safety innovations, but exemptions are a temporary fix for an industry that’s reimagining what it means to drive,” Ferguson wrote. “Moving forward, we must modernize the existing regulations that never envisioned a vehicle without a driver or occupants, and everyone in the industry must work to ensure self-driving technology is tested and deployed in the safest possible vehicles.”

Image credits: Nuro

It’s no secret that buildings produce a massive amount of carbon emissions. In 2018, commercial and residential buildings accounted for approximately 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. While this issue persists, it’s important to take action and identify ways we can achieve carbon neutrality to mitigate building-related carbon emissions. In fact, over 70 cities across the world have accepted the challenge to become completely carbon neutral by 2050.

For sustainable buildings, compliance and data go hand-in-hand

To comply with local laws in states and municipalities across the United States, real estate developers, owners, and property managers are adopting practices that keep in line with this trend. It’s imperative to keep building operations efficient while implementing cost-effective, yet impactful upgrades that reduce building emissions. With real-time energy management, managing a property and achieving sustainability goals doesn’t have to be so overwhelming.

Through the use of an ongoing energy management service, operations and maintenance staff can leverage data to identify opportunities that can reduce energy waste and maximize the performance of each piece of equipment. Many successful building operators of newly constructed and older buildings depend on the use of state-of-the-art data analysis and expert technical support to turn that data into action. Without this, building operators may simply waste time and money on equipment that doesn’t run properly. An ongoing, real-time energy management service can help buildings meet their sustainability goals by:

Three keys for optimizing the performance of sustainable buildings

Optimizing All Equipment. To ensure optimal equipment efficiency, it’s important to know a building’s equipment schedule. Fans, valves, and compressors could be operating 24/7, even when a building is closed, or the space is not in use. It’s important for building managers to re-program and evaluate equipment based on the goals of the spaces they serve. Not only does unnecessarily running equipment waste energy, but it also decreases the life of the equipment – leading to more money spent in the long-run.

The good news is that equipment optimization is easy to do when the systems are connected to a building management system (BMS) and an expert is analyzing the data in real time. For example, if an office space is closed from 10 pm to 7 am, it would be wise to create a schedule on the BMS that would shut off air handler units during those hours. An expert would then monitor the data after the change to ensure the new schedule had the desired effect.

Strengthening Building Performance. To increase the overall performance of a building and achieve peak efficiency, we must understand each building’s specific needs. Instead of overriding equipment into manual operations at the first sight of a miniscule problem or a complaint, a plan should be implemented by the operations team. Having a plan in place, especially if there is site team turnover or new equipment that requires training to operate, is crucial to ensuring effective systems-level operation.

And when an urgent issue does arise, the plan will provide clear instructions on how to respond, allowing the building operator to quickly solve the problem with confidence, or know whom to contact from their energy management team for guidance. This type of plan can be created with guidance from an energy management professional who understands the goals of the building, the needs of its occupants, and the sustainability goals of the building owner.

Streamlining Operations. When it comes to implementing a BMS to enable more effective real-time energy management, it’s important for all staff members to be trained quickly and effectively for optimal efficiency. After all, a piece of equipment is only effective if you know how to properly use it! Training could include shedding light on how to holistically navigate the system, how to change set points and manage schedules, the importance of moving away from changing set points locally on each piece of equipment to changing set points in the BMS, and explaining how each of the systems interact.

Perhaps the most essential piece of training is to explain why. By articulating the impact on cost, equipment function, and ease of management for the team, the message will mean more than instructions in a manual. The team will understand the influence of their actions and how they affect the entire building and its occupants.

With the increase of emerging laws and regulations, we’re seeing more of a global commitment to achieve carbon neutrality. In order to do so, we must take the necessary steps to keep our buildings sustainable. Real-time energy management has a myriad of benefits, allowing a building to ensure optimal systems performance, reduce operating costs, and improve occupant comfort – all while making the world a better place!

Written by Samantha Pearce, Director of Energy Management Services at Bright Power and Kevin Connolly, Energy Engineer at Bright Power.

Image credit: Scott Webb/Pexels

I like bicycling. I hate steep hills. That describes why most of us don’t ride bikes. Too often it feels more like work than fun. We definitely don’t ride them to work. Who wants to show up all hot and sweaty? That perspective was radically changed during my first e-bike ride.

The experience on that e-bike was pure fun – just as other TriplePundit writers have experienced over the years. The ride was on east San Diego’s hilly dirt trails. I had ridden these trails before on my mountain bike. That experienced ended with a sense of winning an athletic battle. I finished sweaty, tired and proud.

My e-bike ride left me laughing in wonder over how much clean technology can enhance the human experience. I soared up rock strewn hills like an Olympian. At the end of my 30-minute ride I was neither sweaty nor tired. I felt exhilarated. I could have walked into a business meeting with energy and without sweaty embarrassment.

The basics about e-bikes

There are two basic types of e-bikes. Class 1 and 3 e-bikes have electric motors that assist in pedaling. They typically have a 20 miles per hour top speed- about how fast I go when riding my traditional mountain bike down a city street hill. 

Class 2 e-bikes are more like motorized vehicles. They have throttles. The riding experience is more like being on a scooter than a bicycle.

My test ride was on a class 1 e-bike. It had pedals and mechanical gears like my mountain bike. It also had a battery/electric drive system that assists in pedaling. A rider has the option of pushing a handlebar button to select pedaling assistance levels or the rider can put the electric system into automatic and let the bike manage pedal assistance. I liked the added fun of selecting assistance levels, but the automatic system worked great and allows the rider to just relax and pedal.

An e-bike cultural revolution is underway

E-bikes are driving a bicycling cultural revolution. Bicycling purists (like I was before riding an e-bike) look at e-bikes as cheating.

E-bike enthusiasts view them as a technology innovation that could dramatically increase the number of people exercising with zero emissions.

Our local and national governments are attempting to bridge this cultural divide. Today, most cities are allowing non-throttle e-bikes to use bike lanes. They are all over San Diego’s coastal bike lanes, mostly ridden by tourists grinning from ear to ear over the fun and ocean views.

Riding e-bikes in our national parks and forest lands is still a work in progress. Up until recently they were classified as motorized vehicles and were limited to roads/trails that permitted motorized vehicles. The Trump Administration recently eased these rules to allow e-bikes limited to 20 miles per hour on any U.S. national park trails.

But the process of where e-bikes can be ridden is still an evolving governmental question that requires riders to check the rules for their city or parkland.

Barriers to e-bike commuting

E-bikes could be a huge zero-emissions urban transportation solution if it were not for the lack of protected bike lanes.

I am proud that my hometown of Oceanside has begun the process of converting the four lane Coastal Highway into two lanes with two protected bike lanes. Reaching this decision required often contentious public input. Merchants were fearful of losing sales. Commuters feared traffic gridlock.

The ultimate decision to create protected bike lanes was driven by issues of safety and economic growth. The community galvanized around bike lane safety after a child riding a bike was hit by a car and killed. The community recognized that this tragedy was preventable and would happen again if bicyclists were not protected.

The quest for sustainable economic growth was the other decision driver. There is now a solid body of case studies documenting the economic growth gained by communities with biking and walking access. The economic bottom line is that protected bike lanes and high walkability attracts urban citizens and retail visitors. This leads to increased retail sales, tax revenues and property values.

Unfortunately, creating protected bike lanes is still more an urban experiment than urban design. For example, while Oceanside is building protected bike lanes on the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), it has no citywide plan for protected bicycling. Riding my e-bike the four miles west to the PCH requires taking my life into my own hands by riding through highly congested intersections without protected bicycling lanes. This means the only safe way for me to ride my e-bike on the PCH is to load it into my SUV (electric hybrid!) and drive there for a ride.

Sustainable mobility is within our grasp

Like electric vehicles, e-bikes have opened the technology door to a sustainable future delivering economic growth along with enhanced human and environmental health. Economics is no longer a barrier. While clean technology can have a higher acquisition cost, it can win on long-term cost competitiveness.

The issue is us. Sustainability is within our grasp. We just have to buy it and vote for it.

Image credit: Pedego Electric Bikes/Facebook

A company that does not address climate change faces numerous, severe risks, sustainability experts warn in a new joint survey from GlobeScan and SustainAbility. Only 2 percent of the 554 respondents from 66 countries predicted “no negative financial consequences for companies that fail to act on climate.” The solution? A plan to go carbon neutral by 2030 — if not sooner.

Nearly half of the experts warned that companies failing to move toward carbon neutrality in the next decade would see their reputations suffer. A third of respondents moved that deadline up to 2025. Another third of surveyed experts predicted climate impacts would lead to greater vulnerability of financial and physical elements.

The third installment of the bi-annual report, initiated in 2015 alongside the Paris Climate Agreement, wasn’t all doom and gloom, though. The experts shone a spotlight on several early corporate climate leaders: Unilever (22 percent), Patagonia (15 percent), Tesla (11 percent), Ikea (10 percent) and Alphabet (the parent company of Google, with 6 percent) were the top votes.

The 5 most effective climate adaptation strategies

The joint GlobeScan and SustainAbility survey crowdsourced experts’ most valuable suggestions for how to adapt to climate change. When prompted to evaluate several strategies for climate change adaptation, the experts identified several tactics which would provide immense value to corporations’ intent on going carbon neutral:

1. The study found that 69 percent of surveyed experts believe enhancing supply chain resilience is a critical strategy for climate change adaptation.
2. Becoming an advocate for policies which foster climate change adaptation was suggested as an effective tactic by 63 percent of experts.
3. A similar 63 percent of experts also voted for conducting an organization-wide assessment of physical risks, being sure to account for different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Public infrastructure garnered the attention of 61 percent of experts, who advocated for greater resilience.
5. Slightly less than half (44 percent) of the experts touted more funding for at-risk populations as a worthwhile adaptation strategy.

Of note, 2019 was the first time in the report’s history that science-based targets enjoyed greater support from respondents, up to 77 percent from the 66 percent recorded in both 2015 and 2017.

A call to corporate climate action

The overall sentiment expressed by experts was that current progress is not enough to avoid irreversible climate change. In 2019:

• 49 percent of experts stated that it was unlikely we would avoid “major, irreversible damage to human, social, and ecosystem health.”
• A further 16 percent voted that damage had already occurred.
• 15 percent of experts remained neutral on the subject.
• Only 16 percent were optimistic about our odds of innovating quickly enough to avoid major damage.
• And, 4 percent abstained from issuing predictions on the matter.

Business leaders interviewed for the press surrounding the survey’s publication tended to agree with the bleak outlook held by a majority of experts, though they also saw the challenges as opportunities to rise to the occasion.

The business case for going carbon neutral

SustainAbility Executive Director Mark Lee summed up the survey as “a reminder that current action, while certifiably representing progress, is not enough to stave off major damage from climate change.” He encouraged corporations to “take immediate and rapid steps towards a low-carbon future.”

Mike Gerbis, the CEO of GLOBE Series and The Delphi Group, called for greater ambition. He found it “inspiring to be among so many of the companies and individuals who are at the vanguard of sustainability and climate leadership,” adding that he and his colleagues “look forward to accelerating our collective impact over the next decade.”

GlobeScan Director Eric Whan agreed with their sense of urgency, adding that, “The pressure is on for 2020, and experts are pointing fingers at both good and bad.”

For corporations who value their reputations, their bottom line, or–at the most basic level–their ability to live on this planet, this is the decade of climate action.

Image credit: Pexels