Search

Who is responsible for the wellbeing of subsistence cobalt miners in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)? A lawsuit put forward on behalf of child miners and their families by International Rights Advocates (IRA), a legal advocacy firm, insists that the tech companies profiting by the billions, in large part due to cobalt supplies, should bear the responsibility.

Apple, Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and Tesla are among the companies being sued. Each of these Silicon Valley companies relies on cobalt for their rechargeable batteries.

The DRC supplies the world with more than 60 percent of its cobalt. A good portion is mined by subsistence miners — independent contractors who take it upon themselves to find and unearth the metal. The miners climb down shafts just wide enough for their bodies with no more than a flimsy headlamp, a hammer and a sack. If a worker gets hurt or dies, buyers take no responsibility and do not offer assistance or support. Reports by Amnesty International and The Washington Post in 2016 revealed these inhumane conditions, but little has changed for the better since then.

Young children are entering this work, often to help their families pay for the essentials needed to survive. The lawsuit’s plaintiff, labeled Jane Doe 1, reports that her nephew began working in mines to pay his $6 a month school fee. Last year, the tunnel where he was digging collapsed. The family never found his body.

The narratives documented by the lawsuit show that this boy's story is not an isolated incident.

Are small gains enough? Tech companies owe miners more.

Back in 2016, with attention coming to cobalt, Apple acknowledged its culpability — child labor is part of its supply chain. Even so, according to research by Amnesty International in 2017 measuring the due diligence of 26 companies that use cobalt in their products, Apple has done the most amongst consumer-facing computer and electronics companies to change the way it sources cobalt. In that category, Huawei, Lenovo, Microsoft and ZTE, on the other hand, performed the worst, according to that survey's data.

Apple has shown that it can identify all of its cobalt smelters and refiners, and it has taken steps to verify its suppliers’ documentation on procurement methods. The tech giant is also a member of the Responsible Cobalt Initiative, along with companies like HP and Sony. This Initiative is based on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance on Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas — a global standard.

Despite some transparency and commitments, Amnesty International emphasizes that companies, even Apple, have not taken enough action. The report goes as far as to say, “None of the 29 companies named in this report are carrying out human rights due diligence on their cobalt supply chains in line with international standards.”

What are the options for tech firms reliant on the global cobalt supply chain?

The IRA’s lawsuit is the first tangible consequence tech companies have felt from relying on the DRC’s cobalt supplies. The damages, though, may seem like petty cash to multinational corporations like Apple and Tesla. Each of the 16 plaintiffs is claiming damages exceeding $75,000.

This suit, however, may be an omen for future costs to come. The initiative Principles for Responsible Investment, a partner with the United Nations, recommends that investors pay close attention to how cobalt comes into play in their portfolios.

“Human rights violations in the cobalt supply chain could lead to severe brand damage, negative impact on operations, and strikes and disruptions,” the group claims in its report on how investors can promote responsible sourcing of cobalt.

With pushback from lawsuits and investors, though, tech companies aren’t thrown to the wolves. They have options. One example is the Better Mining program from RCS Global Group, where mines are monitored and progress is tracked. The organization’s mines have shown demonstrable improvements in human rights, environmental ethics, community wellbeing and more. RCS provides companies a clear way to track and support the mines that feed them. Current clients include IBM, Sony and Best Buy.

Only one way forward to ensure responsible cobalt

In the case of cobalt, stepping away from DRC mines may not be possible. Cobalt is, first of all, an irreplaceable component of current reusable batteries. Furthermore, the DRC has the largest reserves of cobalt in the world at 3.4 million tons, according to NS Energy.

In addition to saving face and saving money, American companies can lead the way for the largest global cobalt consumers like China. According to many sources, China produces most of the lithium-ion batteries in the world.

The one way forward for companies that are continuing to use more cobalt each year is to take the step past data to action and actually invest in mines and methods that are supporting workers in the DRC and refusing child labor. With a lawsuit drawing closer public scrutiny to this issue, leaning on children for cobalt-procurement by accident or not may not be profitable for much longer.

Image credit: Tyler Lastovich/Unsplash

As the Chinese “Year of the Pig” comes to a close, alternative meat producers look forward to enjoying a robust year of alternative pork. The latest soy-based meat alternative will soon be served up as a plant-based sausage patty breakfast sandwich at 139 Burger King locations across the United States. After the success of the Impossible Whopper, which boosted sales and brought new customers into Burger King locations, Impossible Foods is now releasing Impossible Pork as an alternative that cooks, looks and tastes like real pork.

The rise of alternative meat stems from both supply chain issues and increasing consumer demand. Opportunistic alternative meat producers are jumping into the void caused by African Swine Fever (AFS). At the same time consumers across the globe are clamoring for food that is better for their bodies, and the environment.

AFS cut the global pork supply by 50 percent

By some estimates, AFS has killed half of all pigs in the world in recent years. The disease is far from being contained, with only experimental vaccines currently under development. But out of this crisis has emerged an opportunity for companies like Impossible Foods and other players in the plant-based protein sector including Beyond Meat.

The Good Food Institute is one nonprofit which supports plant-based companies. Caroline Bushnell, the associate director of The Good Food Institute’s corporate engagement, stated that “this current pork shortage has created a gap that the next generation of plant-based pork is perfectly poised to fill."

The pork shortage, Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown agrees, is enticing many companies to put “a lot of effort into expanding into international markets, particularly in Asia, where pork is the dominant meat product.” In addition to the sausage patty breakfast sandwich debuting at Burger Kings in the United States, Impossible is rolling out Asian dishes from dumplings and noodles to dim sum and bao sandwiches.

Impossible Foods’ main competitor, Beyond Meat, sees the same opportunity “to produce and sell pork dumplings, for example, in Asia,” said Beyond Meat CEO Ethan Brown. He called the current opportunity “significant and not one that's lost on us.”

Rising consumer interest leads to plant-based sausage and pork

At the same time as the global pork supply is at a low, consumers are eager for more ethically-sourced food and a healthier diet.

Impossible CEO Pat Brown maintains that AFS’ impact on the pork supply chain was not the catalyst for Impossible developing plant-based pork. However, he told CNN that AFS has “exacerbated the demand for a product like ours.”

The Good Food Institute found that pork alternatives sales grew almost 15 percent in the U.S. from May 2018 to April 2019. One major vegan pork alternative is jackfruit, sales of which were up nearly 20 percent.

Consumers looking out for their own health have good reason to switch to meatless pork alternatives. Real pork sausage contains more fat and calories than Impossible Sausage, and the two have a similar quantity of protein.

While some consumers are primarily interested in their own body and health, others go meatless for the planet’s sake. Beyond Meat knows this well, as the company’s mission statement lists climate change right after human health as one of the world’s top four issues. With animal agriculture responsible for up to 15 percent of global emissions, many consumers feel meatless alternatives will allow them to align their eating habits with their personal emissions goals.

The growing plant-based meats sector

Whether consumers are motivated by a healthier diet or a livable planet, alternative meats are becoming an increasingly appetizing option to diners.

The Good Food Institute’s Bushnell predicts “an explosion in the number of plant-based pork options available over the next couple of years.” She isn’t alone, as Barclays recently predicted the sector’s sales could approach $140 billion over the next decade, or 10 percent of the global meat industry.

Image credit: Impossible Foods

Electricity generation in the U.S. has shifted dramatically over the years, as coal power continues its rapid decline. That shift supports the view that a combination of public policy and bottom-line benefits can have a significant, lasting impact on carbon emissions without impinging on economic growth. Unfortunately, coal power represents the low hanging fruit of carbon management. Businesses seeking to lead on climate action would do well to focus attention on transportation and other sectors where carbon emissions remain stubbornly high.

All the good news about carbon emissions in the U.S.

A new carbon emissions report by the independent research firm Rhodium Group illustrates how public policy and private sector motivation have combined to drive coal out of the power generation sector.

The new report is a preliminary analysis of carbon emissions in the U.S. for 2019. For all sectors combined, Rhodium anticipates a 2.1 percent year-over-year drop in emissions compared to 2018.

That’s the good news. However, if all sectors of the economy performed as well as the power sector, the drop would be more on the order of 10 percent.

Rhodium reports that the carbon emissions from power sector decreased by 10 percent in 2019, primarily due to the collapse of coal.

Although carbon emissions from natural gas power plants rose, coal-fired power generation sank 18 percent compared to 2018.  That brought coal power down to a level not seen since 1975, and it was more than enough to offset the increase in natural gas emissions.

Last year’s steep falloff in power sector emissions was also impressive over the short term. Rhodium reports that the drop of nearly 10 percent in 2019 was the “the biggest year-on-year drop in decades,” and it was well below the previous year-over-year drop of only 1.2 percent in 2018.

All the bad news about carbon emissions

So much for the good news. According to Rhodium, the bad news is that overall carbon emissions in the U.S. were slightly higher across — yes, higher — than they were in 2016. There was a sharp uptick from 2017 to 2018, and the drop of 2.1 percent in 2019 was not quite enough to offset that upward movement.

Rhodium explains:

“Emissions from buildings, industry and other parts of the economy rose, though less than in 2018. All told, net U.S. GHG emissions ended 2019 slightly higher than at the end of 2016.”

If that sounds ominous, it is. According to Rhodium, at this rate the U.S. is far from meeting the weak climate action goals of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, let alone the more ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

So, where is the culprit?

In 2019, transportation and industrial emissions edged up slightly, while buildings increased significantly, by 2.2 percent.

It appears that the biggest damage was done within the remaining sectors, including oil and gas operations as well as agriculture and land use. Emissions in those sectors rose by 4.4 percent.

Businesses can still lead on climate action

The Rhodium report may sound discouraging, but in effect it is a call to action.

Climate policy has stalled out in the White House, but given the advent of low cost energy storage and the burst of new activity in the nation’s vast offshore wind sector, businesses seeking renewable energy will not have to look far in the years to come.

Businesses looking to lead on climate action can also adopt new alternatives in other sectors as new technology comes into the market.

In transportation, auto makers are gearing up to push millions of electric cars onto the roads. Renewable hydrogen is also providing new opportunities to electrify vans, trucks and other heavy duty vehicles. A similar trend is taking place in maritime shipping, and alternative fuels for aircraft are also emerging.

In buildings, a handful of local jurisdictions have already banned new natural gas hookups. Business can get a jump on the building electrification trend by retrofitting their existing property, too. As more buildings eliminate natural gas in favor of electric appliances, economies of scale will help improve bottom line incentives for making the switch.

Carbon emissions from industry still present a challenge, but manufacturers seeking to clean up their supply chains can look forward to more options for “green” steel and low-carbon aluminum, among other raw materials. The advent of green chemistry also promises to reduce the carbon footprint of manufactured products.

The common denominator in all of these actions is a shift away from natural gas, petroleum fuels, and petrochemicals, and that will help turn carbon emissions around in other sectors. When businesses sort their supply chains with an eye on carbon emissions, they will have a direct impact on emissions related to oil and gas at the source.

The alternatives are at hand, and businesses can do more to push the carbon emissions envelope regardless of White House policy.

Image credit: Pixabay

As the climate crisis grows, tech workers have been pressing their employers to take more aggressive action on the environment and climate change. Now, some leading companies are pushing back. In one recent development, Amazon received some unwelcome media attention last week when word surfaced that it has explicitly threatened at least two outspoken employees with termination.

So, how should companies respond to employee concerns on the environment?

When clean power is not enough to save the planet

Amazon and other tech companies have earned high marks for investing in renewable energy, and rightfully so.

As early — and aggressive — clean power adopters, these large, global businesses have pushed the market for wind and solar power, promoting economies of scale and supply chain efficiencies that help push costs down for everyone.

However, as the Amazon case illustrates, tech companies cannot rely on their clean power investments to shield them from criticism over their environmental policies.

In particular, Amazon and other tech companies have come under fire for offering services that help fossil fuel companies increase production.

Last February, the media organization Think Progress published a report on the issue under the somewhat incendiary headline, “Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are quietly helping Big Oil destroy the climate.”

As described by Think Progress, Amazon Web Services is the largest provider of cloud computing in the world, and it has created an entire oil and gas division to provide those services to the fossil fuel industry.

Amazon “already does work with GE’s oil business and oil giants like Royal Dutch Shell and BP," Think Progress reported, and it appears that the company is determined to bring others on board.

“With Amazon Web Services (AWS), Oil and Gas companies can accelerate digital transformation, unleash innovation to optimize production and profitability, and improve cost and operational efficiencies necessary to compete under the pressures of today’s global energy market,” Amazon states on its website.

Amazon further emphasizes its ability to ramp up production despite negative forces at work in today’s market:

“…Explorers can extract deep insights faster to improve field planning, geoscientists can run more demanding HPC workflows and identify potential reservoirs faster and cheaper, and refineries can optimize production with predictive maintenance and predictive inventory planning.”

Calling “green” tech companies to account

Considering Amazon’s courtship of oil and gas stakeholders, it’s little wonder that climate activists within the company’s own workforce have taken notice.

Workers have organized themselves under the title, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. Describing themselves as “a group of Amazon employees who believe it’s our responsibility to ensure our business models don’t contribute to the climate crisis,” they have been posting personal stories about climate impacts on outlets such as Medium.com and on social media.

Last spring, they upped the ante by sending an “unprecedented” letter about their concerns over climate policy to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Things came to a head last September during the global Climate Strike, in which Amazon workers publicly participated.

As media attention over the Climate Strike heated up, two workers provided The Washington Post with a joint statement about their concerns.

Last week the Post followed up with a report that Amazon has issued explicit, written termination warnings to two workers, apparently over that statement.

What about free speech?

Amazon is already in hot water with corporate responsibility watchers over workers’ rights related to pay and benefits among other issues, and this new controversy only adds fuel to the fire.

Leading companies generally tread carefully around issues involving freedom of speech, because the risk of bad publicity is simply not worth the gain.

Although businesses are not subject to the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the public often sees no distinction.

If fallout from last week’s Washington Post article continues to build, it will be interesting to see how Amazon reacts.

Though the damage has already been done, there is still plenty of room for damage control.

Perhaps the company could lift some pointers from companies that supported the 2019 Climate Strike and took steps to encourage their employees to participate.

Some closed for the day, enabling employees to participate in person. Hundreds of others supported the Climate Strike with online messages and other activities, or through their membership in organizations like the American Sustainable Business Council.

Those actions are more than symbolic. Companies that encouraged their employees to participate in the Climate Strike have, in effect, publicly joined their name with voters and environmental organizations advocating for more aggressive federal environmental policies.

In the end, though, Amazon and other tech companies will only tamp down the criticism when they change their business models.

As 2020 unfolds with much of Australia on fire and other climate-related crises building around the world, a stern letter from the boss will probably not stem the rising tide of employee activism.

Image credit: 350.org/Flickr

Building on last week’s discussion of clean technology trends that will surely unfold during the coming year, we’re continuing the discussion on what we think TriplePundit readers should watch out for as governments and the private sector scramble to decarbonize the economy. Read on for the top trends in renewable energy. 

Wind and solar, perfect together

One strategy for overcoming the site selection bottleneck challenge as renewables scale up is to make the most of one site: for example, by combining both wind turbines and solar panels within a hybrid renewable energy system.

The basic idea is to manage peaks and valleys in the output of wind turbines and solar panels to provide for greater overall reliability. That’s a much more complicated engineering feat than it may sound, but at least one hybrid wind-solar plant is already in the works in Minnesota.

With the addition of energy storage, wind-solar hybrid plants have the potential to replace gas power plants. Look for more activity in this area as states and local jurisdictions — and business stakeholders — ramp up the demand for 24/7 renewable energy.

The U.S. offshore wind industry: It floats!

After years of kicking around in the doldrums, the U.S. offshore wind sector saw a veritable tsunami of new projects come into the pipeline for several key Atlantic coast states last year, including New York and New Jersey.

From here on out, it’s almost a matter of routine. Globally, offshore wind is a mature industry well suited to the relatively shallow waters that characterize much of the Atlantic coast.

The problem now is to introduce offshore wind into deeper and more challenging areas, including parts of the Atlantic coast as well as along the Pacific shores. The answer is floating offshore wind farms.

California and Maine are in a race to see who can get there first. So far, it looks like the Granite State is inching ahead with an anchor buyer already lined up for a project based on research and development driven by the University of Maine, but look for activity in California as well.

Wind-friendly Texas is another state to watch. Earlier this fall, the University of Texas won a $3 million grant from the Department of Energy to develop a low-cost “vertical axis” system for floating wind turbines, most likely with an eye on providing renewable energy for offshore industries.

Making new space for solar arrays

In terms of accelerating the renewable energy revolution, local opposition to new wind farms and solar arrays is a key obstacle. Two approaches could help open up that bottleneck by expanding the range of potential sites for solar panels.

One is floating solar panels, a trend that has emerged globally. Here in the U.S., the focus is on using human-built ponds and reservoirs rather than interfering with natural water bodies.

For farmers, the side benefit is that the panels reduce evaporation, making more water available for agricultural use. Several wineries in California have already latched on to the idea, and look for it to catch on elsewhere.

The other approach is the burgeoning field of agrivoltaics, in which solar panels are raised high off the ground in areas primarily devoted to the production of food.

The added height provides room for grazing livestock and establishing pollinator fields. Growing crops under the panels is another option, though it looks like a few more years of research and development are needed in that area.

As with floating solar panels, another side benefit of agrivoltaics involves water resources, because the raised panels help reduce evaporation from the soil below.

Image credit: Pixabay

The Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas stepped into a hornet’s nest as 2019 drew to a close, when the organizers announced that White House advisor Ivanka Trump would be one of the keynote speakers. In normal times, a high-level speaker like that would have been a plum catch. However, as the event unspools this week, CES is in the awkward position of providing a high-profile platform to the daughter of a president in the midst of impeachment hearings, who critics point out has been credibly accused of serial sexual assault, among other many other issues that have an impact on women and families.

Nevertheless, the situation has turned into a teachable moment for businesses seeking to recruit women without falling into the tokenism trap.

Why Ivanka as CES keynoter?

Ivanka Trump comes to the CES stage with her own baggage as well as the myriad of issues encircling the presidency and business practices of her father.

The list includes an apparent attempt to capitalize on her father’s election by promoting her eponymous lifestyle brand. That effort ultimately failed, though Ivanka Trump continues to leverage her position to obtain additional trademarks overseas.

Accusations of labor abuses in Chinese factories associated with the Ivanka brand also trailed Ms. Trump after her father was elected. That sets up a tragically ironic contrast with the reported subject of her keynote address: the impact of technology on the future workforce.

Ivanka Trump has also been barred from serving on charities in New York state, as one consequence of a $2 million legal settlement agreed to by President Trump over misuse of funds by the family charity, the Trump Foundation.

In addition, her position as a White House advisor on “the education and economic empowerment of women and their families” rings hollow, considering policies of the Trump administration that undercut her women-and-families mission.

In short, her position at the White House reads as window dressing.

No, really, why Ivanka?

Given this context, reporters are now questioning if the CES keynote assignment came after organizers intentionally reached out to Ivanka Trump, or if they slotted her in to fulfill a request from the White House.

That’s a good question, considering that the speakership also puts a high-level CES representative on the spot.

Part of the speaking package includes an interview with Gary Shapiro, who is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, which owns and produces CES.

Questioned by reporters over the weekend, Shapiro declined to say whether the invitation came from CES or was requested by the White House.

He did say that the presence of Ivanka Trump on the keynote list is appropriate because “there is a lot of focus on jobs of the future, and certainly the keynote that I'll be doing with Ivanka Trump will be focusing on ... how industry is working with government on this very important issue,” he said in remarks reported by BBC News and other media outlets.

How trade organizations can help push gender diversity forward

Among the many CES observers to weigh in on the topic is Carolina Milanesi, founder of the gender and diversity consulting firm Heart of Tech.

In an opinion piece published in Forbes on Dec. 21, Milanesi nailed tokenism as the main issue:

“The reason for my upset is rooted in the fact that there are many more women who are in tech and are entrepreneurs who could run circles around [Ivanka] Trump on how technology will impact the future of work.”

While making it clear that change will not “balloon” up overnight, Milanesi outlined steps that organizations like CTA can take to help accelerate diversity.

“The number of women in high roles in tech companies will not balloon up overnight … This does not give us permission to do nothing, though, and patiently wait,” she writes.

In essence, Milanesi argues that events like CES have a duty and an opportunity to help push the envelope. The opportunities are far-ranging, from enforcing non-sexist dress codes at exhibitor booths to setting diversity targets.

She also advises that participants can help by refusing to join non-diverse panels and speaker lineups, a trend that is beginning to gather force. Women can also refuse to facilitate tokenism by declining to moderate non-diverse panels.

Stretching the definition of “qualified”

In a Jan. 5, 2018, letter to gender activist Gina Glanz, Shapiro indicated that CTA has gotten the message about the role of event organizers in promoting gender diversity and avoiding tokenism.

Or, did they? By way of defending their exclusion of women in keynote roles at the 2018 event, CES posted a message on its blog that described the qualifications for keynote speakers (cited by CBS News among others).

The post explained that keynote speakers at CES must be the president or CEO-level head of a “large entity who has name recognition in the industry.”

The blog post went on to lament (emphasis added): “As upsetting as it is, there is a limited pool when it comes to women in these positions. We feel your pain. It bothers us, too. The tech industry and every industry must do better.”

In that light, the Ivanka Trump keynote reads as tokenism at its worst. The goal posts have shifted between 2018 and 2020. A talented and hardworking woman in the tech field, regardless of her track record, will be skipped over in favor of another woman from another field who can top her with family connections and access to power.

For CTA and CES, throwing a keynote assignment to a uniquely privileged and controversial woman with no hands-on record in the technology field was a risk that someone felt was worth taking.

The question is, who?

Image credit: U.S. Department of State/Flickr

JetBlue rang in the new year by pledging to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from jet fuel for all of its domestic flights beginning in July, the first such announcement from a major U.S. airline. The company also said it will start using sustainable aviation fuel in mid-2020 on its flights from San Francisco.

JetBlue produces about 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year. In a statement, the company said yesterday’s announcements underscore its "long-term strategy to ensure a more sustainable business for crew members, customers, shareholders and communities served by JetBlue.”

The efforts also build on the airline’s existing programs like investments in fuel-saving technologies and aircraft, as well as advocating for a more fuel-efficient air traffic control system that would reduce emissions from flying.

Airlines react to “flight shaming” movement

Yesterday’s announcement comes as the aviation sector works to stay true to its commitment to cap emissions at 2020 levels so that any growth after this year is achieved in a “carbon neutral” way. It won’t be an easy feat given that the International Air Transport Association predicts air travel will grow to 7.2 billion passengers by 2035—a near doubling of current levels. 

Alarm is also spreading among activists, represented most visibly by Greta Thunberg, who herself has not flown since 2015. The anti-air travel movement has even given rise to a new term: “flight shaming,” the concept of shunning air travel or encouraging others to avoid it, in favor of less environmentally impactful travel methods, such as trains or boats. In addition, some politicians in Europe have even suggested that some long-haul international routes and domestic flights be banned due to their large carbon footprints.

Increasingly, airlines are recognizing that business as usual is not sustainable.

“Air travel connects people and cultures, and supports a global economy, yet we must act to limit this critical industry’s contributions to climate change,” Robin Hayes, CEO of JetBlue, said in a statement. “By offsetting all of our domestic flying, we’re preparing our business for the lower-carbon economy that aviation—and all sectors—must plan for.”

Removing 1.5 million cars from the road

JetBlue first began offsetting carbon dioxide emissions with programs to balance customer flying during specific times of year, but yesterday’s announcement expands those efforts.

JetBlue will continue to partner with Carbonfund.org—a U.S.-based nonprofit carbon reduction and climate solutions organization—as well as with two new carbon offsetting partners, EcoAct and South Pole. These partners will help the airline offset an additional 15 billion to 17 billion pounds (up to 8 million metric tons) of emissions per year, the annual equivalent of removing more than 1.5 million passenger vehicles from the road, according to the announcement.

The airline will earn carbon credits by investing in projects that protect forests from destruction; develop solar and wind farms instead of coal, diesel or furnace oil to generate power; and capture landfill production of methane, which can be converted into a renewable energy source.

“JetBlue's announcement is both an ambitious and necessary course of action needed to address the climate change impacts of aviation,” Michael Malara, who leads the North American office for South Pole, told TriplePundit. “While we have a long way to go as a global community, this commitment sets a high bar for other airlines and a strong signal to the carbon markets, which should catalyze further investment into emission reduction projects around the world. “

Offsetting is not enough, some say

While corporate efforts have been welcomed, some environmental advocates criticize moves to offset emissions, saying reducing emissions is more effective and, ultimately, critical to reaching global climate goals. JetBlue’s Hayes does not disagree.

“Carbon offsetting is a bridge to, not a silver bullet for, a lower carbon future,” Hayes said. “Reducing and mitigating our greenhouse gas emissions is a fundamental aspect of our business plan.”

To that end, JetBlue has agreed to purchase sustainable aviation fuel from Neste, the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel fuel, starting this year. According to the company, the fuel will be produced entirely from waste and residual raw materials and, over its lifecycle, will have up to an 80 percent smaller carbon footprint compared to fossil jet fuel.

JetBlue says it will also continue to invest in its new fuel efficient fleet that produces fewer carbon emissions than its older fleet through smarter design and the use of lightweight composite materials.

Beyond JetBlue: Other airlines are also taking action

Last November, EasyJet Plc, Europe’s second largest discount carrier, was the first airline to announce it would offset carbon emissions from its flights. Germany’s Lufthansa has signed an agreement with a Hamburg-based refinery for the production and acceptance of synthetic kerosene from regionally generated wind energy to use as an alternative biofuel. And Finnair and SAS have joined together, along with nine other partners, to develop all-electric, carbon-neutral designs that can replace aircraft for short distances.

In Asia last year, Japan’s ANA Group was the first global airline to issue Green Bonds, which will raise funds for green projects both in Japan and overseas. ANA is also introducing biofuel on its flights by supporting Euglena Co Ltd, a biofuel maker working to commercialize jet fuel made from green algae output.

Last July in the U.S., Delta flew a completely carbon-neutral flight and plans to introduce 20 carbon-neutral aircrafts to its fleet moving forward.

“Reducing and offsetting carbon emissions for airlines should increasingly become a cost of doing business,” said Malara of South Pole. “With its recent announcement, Jet Blue is going above and beyond hopefully inspiring other airlines to do the same.”

Images courtesy of JetBlue

The movement to electrify vehicles may improve local air quality and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but does it help workers? As the New York Times recently reported, there is another story unfolding within this shift across the automotive sector. Around the world, the rise of electric vehicles (EVs) is spelling trouble for manufacturers of parts for combustion engine-powered vehicles.

With each factory’s shuttering goes hundreds to thousands of jobs. In Germany, where the automotive industry is the country’s largest, workers are already feeling this impact. In the U.S., these losses are right around the corner.

EVs spark job losses in Germany

The German automotive manufacturer Mahle, for example, has commenced the shutdown of its factory in Öhringen which, when complete by the end of 2020, will see the loss of 240 local jobs. If that seems small, it’s only a drop in the bucket: Automotive brands such as Daimler and Audi, and suppliers Bosch and Continental, have all announced thousands of job cuts.

The president of the German Association of the Automotive Industry, Bernhard Mattes, explained that the “transition toward more electric vehicles that have far fewer components and are easier to manufacture” will result in a loss of 70,000 jobs in Germany by 2030. That number may be larger, as the loss of temporary contract workers often goes unreported.

IG Metall, the German autoworkers’ union, concurs. The union’s leadership estimates a loss of 75,000 engine and transmission manufacturing jobs by 2030.

Pulling the plug on American jobs

Even retraining workers who build combustion-powered automobiles may not be of use. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently issued a report detailing effects of the switch to EVs. “Of the nearly 590,000 U.S. employees engaged in motor vehicle parts manufacturing, about one-quarter—nearly 150,000—make components for internal combustion powertrains,” the report reads. 

One contributor to the CRS report, vehicle-industry analyst Bill Canis, warned of the effects of switching to an electric powertrain: Fewer parts means less labor. While Canis advocates using the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to retrain workers, there may not be enough work to go around.

Conventional powertrains have as many as 2,000 moving parts, whereas electric powertrains can have as few as 20. Canis acknowledged that though the 150,000 “workers who today manufacture parts for gasoline or diesel engines could be retrained… there may be significantly fewer such jobs than exist in automotive supply chains today.”

Job losses to accelerate

The effects may grow larger still. According to one German manufacturer riding the electric wave to prosperity, the largest players in the industry have yet to begin transitioning. Ziehl-Abegg manufactures an innovative propulsion unit for buses that is embedded inside wheels, eliminating the need for a gearbox and saving energy due to reduced friction.

But Ziehl-Abegg’s automotive managing director, Ralf Arnold, said: “What’s still missing is one of the big players. They are very cautious. They live in their own world.”

In America, that rings true. Brett Smith, director of research for the Center for Automotive Research, stated that large manufacturers of combustion-powered engines and powertrains are disincentivized to keep production local. Electric motors and lithium-ion batteries add less value to electric cars than internal-combustion engines due to conventional cars, he explained.

“Does it make sense for GM to build their own electric motors? Not as much sense as it did to make their own internal combustion engines," he told CNN last month. 

If larger automakers have yet to take action on a massive scale, that may protect automotive manufacturing jobs for the near-term. But when they do switch gears and catch up to speed, automotive jobs may stall on a large scale.

Image credit: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

From 3D printing to social media to autonomous driving, a lot has changed in the digital age, including the notion of privacy.

While many of these inventions make life easier and more connected, the downside is that our information is now everywhere. Unfortunately, criminals want it, too: In the first half of 2018 alone, hackers breached more than 4.5 billion personal data records around the world. Those data breaches not only wreak havoc for consumers, but they also pose huge risks for companies, from damaged brand reputation to increased cybersecurity costs.

More and more, people are wondering if businesses are actually able to protect them. Now, more state governments are taking action to help solve this issue.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) took effect on Jan. 1. This is a data protection bill that works to assist consumers and businesses in communicating how data is managed. Before it becomes enforced on July 1, 2020, let's look at what this bill is and how it will have an impact on citizens and companies alike. 

What does the CCPA do?

It's true that improvements in cloud technology and cybersecurity are on the rise, but in this day and age, you can never be too careful. Many of us aren't sure where our data goes, why companies need it and what it's used for. This is a recipe for disaster, as we almost have no control over our own personal information. Thankfully, this is where the CCPA comes into play.

Essentially, this law helps consumers have more control over who has access to their information. Under the CCPA, before a business collects a customer's data, they must tell the customer how they'll use it. At any point in time, a person can put in a request to view their data and see where it was employed.

Consumers can ask that it be deleted and refuse its sale as well. This lets people take back the reins, and, at the same time, it allows companies to yield complete transparency. 

Will the CCPA affect me?

If you live or operate a business in California, yes. Even if your company is in another state but you sell to customers in California, the CCPA may still matter to you.

Does your business's gross revenue exceed $25 million? Do you receive, share or sell information from over 50,000 consumers? Does your organization earn half of its annual revenue from the sales of personal data? If you answered yes to any of these questions, the CCPA will have an impact on you and your business.

Keep in mind that the CCPA is one of the most comprehensive bills of its kind, so many states have looked to it as they draft their own data protection laws. While the CCPA may not affect you now, a similar law eventually will.

By educating yourself on this bill, you can prepare for whatever the future holds. 

How can I prepare?

There are a number of ways you can get started in anticipation of July 1. It's important to begin now, just in case you run into any snags along the way. Be sure to:

• Review your current data collection process.

• Create a way to easily fulfill consumer data requests.

• Organize and classify all personal data.

• To avoid penalties, set up methods to keep all data secure and encrypted.

Most importantly, you'll want to read through the bill to make sure you understand what's expected. Don't hesitate to hire consultants or other experts to help you along the way.

The CCPA benefits everyone

At first, the CCPA can seem like a lot to take on as a business. Remember that just as this assists consumers, it does the same for companies. When you make it a top priority to protect the interests of your customers, they'll keep coming back.

Review the CCPA today so you can determine whether it affects you and what you can do to abide.

Image credit: Robinraj Premchand/Pixabay

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is hoping what happens at the 2020 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas next week won’t stay there when it shows off Jeep's first three plug-in hybrid electric vehicle models (PHEVs).

The Jeep Wrangler 4xe, the Jeep Compass 4xe and the Jeep Renegade 4xe (the latter, in its most current gasoline-powered model version, is shown above) are all scheduled to debut in 2020 as part of FCA’s broader plans to electrify more than 30 models by 2022.

The news comes almost a year after the very last plug-in hybrid Chevy Bolt, once hailed as an option for consumers whose “range anxiety” prevented them from buying an all-electric vehicle (EV), rolled off an assembly line.

While the models aren’t out yet, CES attendees can take the Jeep 4x4 Adventure Virtual Reality Experience for a ride in the Jeep Wrangler 4xe on Hell's Revenge trail in Moab, Utah. The actual Jeeps promise 240 horsepower, speeds of up to 62 miles per hour in 7 seconds, and the ability to drive up to 31 miles on electric power alone. But if that’s not your speed, FCA is also planning to introduce an electric Maserati Alfieri two-seater this year.

FCA is playing catch-up, and doing so fast

While FCA is investing an estimated $10.5 billion in new electric and hybrid cars, the company has been slower to enter the market than other manufacturers. However, as countries enact stricter emissions standards and cities such as Paris pledge to ban gas-powered cars, it’s trying to catch up in what is shaping up to be a crowded market.

All major automakers have announced plans to increase the number of EV models offered, from today’s 30 models to more than 70 in the next five years. Consultants at McKinsey predict that more than 350 new EV models will debut by 2025.

In addition to Jeep, BMW is preparing to kick off production of the iX3 (an all-electric version of its X3 SUV) in China this year, while Mazda plans to release its first all-electric car. Mercedes is also getting back into the EV business in the U.S. with a family of specially branded battery-powered models, the first of which is expected to be a compact crossover SUV, Forbes reports. 

More consumers are embracing EVs and PHEVs

A decade ago, it was mainly a niche group of affluent, environmentally conscious consumers driving around town in trendy electric cars. Today, more than 60 percent of Americans — with little difference across income levels — say they are interested in electric vehicles. Experts predict that by 2030, 120 million EVs could be on the road in China, the European Union and the United States.

There are a number of reasons to explain the trend. One key factor is economics: The cost of EVs have significantly come down over time. When you add in the availability of federal and state tax credits for EV purchases, the cost is comparable to a traditional gas-powered car. Adding in fuel and maintenance savings, the economics become even more clear.

In California, for example, David Reichmuth, senior engineer at the Oakland-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that the cost to recharge his Chevy Volt is the equivalent of $1 per gallon, compared with the average $3.82 per gallon cost of regular gasoline. Plus, EVs come with fewer maintenance costs such as oil changes or spark plug replacements.

The cost of battery packs to charge EVs and PHEVs has also fallen dramatically. The price of the battery packs for the first mass-market EVs in 2010 reached $1,000 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), UCS reports. In contrast, Tesla reported that the battery pack for its new Model 3 EV would cost $190 per kWh, while an analysis of General Motors’ Chevrolet Bolt EV calculated a cost of about $205 per kWh.

In addition, the next wave of EVs is expected to operate for increasingly longer periods on a single charge, with some expected to run for up to 400 miles on battery power alone.

Reichmuth of UCS also points to the growing desire among everyday Americans to reduce their own emissions. “People want to take personal action on climate change,” he says — and buying EVs or PHEVs is one way they can.

Plus, there is the convenience factor: More workplaces are adding charging stations for employees, and states such as California are allowing EVs in carpool lanes.

One hiccup in the transition to electric, however, could be the slow development of charging infrastructure, especially within the U.S. Experts call this the “charging-capacity gap” and say the U.S. alone will need a cumulative 13 million chargers and approximately $11 billion of investment by 2030 in order to meet demand. 

Most chargers, over 95 percent, will continue to be in homes and workplaces in the coming years, McKinsey predicted in a recent report. But the bulk of future investment to ensure ongoing uptake of EVs needs to be in public charging stations, such as along highways to allow for long-distance travel and in cities for apartment-dwellers who lack the ability of home charging, and in fast chargers, which come with a much higher price tag. 

The McKinsey study poses an astute question: Who will provide the necessary capital for public charging given the high up-front capital and operating costs and currently low utilization rates?

Not surprisingly, Tesla has taken the bull by the horns and is rapidly building up its charging network, boasting 1,604 Tesla Supercharger Stations with 14,081 Superchargers across the world. However, not all EVs can recharge at these stations, even with an adapter.

According to the company’s website, the automaker is concentrating in urban areas where city dwellers and visitors can easily charge at convenient locations like grocery stores, downtown districts and shopping centers. Tesla also pulling together a network of what it calls Destination Charging Partners, such as hotels, restaurants, shopping centers and resorts.

But no doubt, the EV market has arrived, offering diversity unimaginable even a few years back. (An electric pick-up? Who would have thought!) As 2020 gets underway, it will be exciting to watch manufacturers jostling for visibility and differentiation within the market. Maybe we’ll even see some memorable EV commercials during this year’s Super Bowl if we’re lucky.

Image credit: Jeep