Search

The news was buried under headlines mentioning Mike Flynn's resignation and the highly public national security discussions at Mar-a-Lago, but the U.S. wind power sector achieved a huge milestone over the weekend.

A regional electricity provider set a record for the amount of power generated by wind. Early in the morning on Sunday, Feb. 12, the Southwest Power Pool announced that it briefly met 52.1 percent of its energy demand with wind power alone.

That makes it the first regional transmission organization in North America to provide over half of its load capacity at any given time using wind power, according to Southwest Power Pool (SPP). The same transmission organization set the previous record, 49.2 percent, in April 2016.

SPP is a coalition of utilities and transmission companies that spans 14 states, from Montana to Texas. The bulk electricity grid manager was founded over 75 years ago to help a factory in Arkansas stay electrified during the wartime effort.

SPP now manages 60,000 high-voltage transmission lines across a 575,000-square-mile area that provide electricity to 18 million people. And the region for which SPP manages electricity is rich in wind.

As Fortune reported this week, the five states that procure the most electricity from wind power are either entirely or partially within SPP’s service area: Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma and North Dakota. Overall, wind power is the third largest source of electricity for SPP, with an approximate 15 percent total capacity day-to-day, trailing natural gas and coal.

SPP’s achievement further builds the case that many of America’s politically reddest states can benefit from energy policies that encourage the development of renewables. To that end, a coalition of GOP and Democratic governors sent Donald Trump a letter on Monday asking him to consider both funds and legislation that could bolster the country’s clean-energy capacity. They further insisted the clean-energy sector is a job-creator and a catalyst for economic development in rural areas.

But not all GOP governors of the states within SPP’s range are buying into renewables. In her most recent state budget proposal, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin proposed what would be the nation’s highest taxes on wind power while eliminating any tax incentives benefiting the wind energy sector.

Her suggested budget comes despite the fact that Oklahoma added almost 1.2 gigawatts of wind power in the final few months of last year, surpassing California as the state with the third highest amount of wind energy capacity. Arguments claiming that electricity bills are high in Oklahoma are countered by data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency that suggests the state's electricity bills are among the lowest in the U.S., with an average cost of about $20 less a month than its neighbor, wind power- and oil-rich Texas.

But despite local politics, SPP is moving forward with its plans to integrate more wind power into its grid systems. The wholesale power broker says it will invest $10 billion over the next decade to connect more isolated wind farms to urban areas that are several hundred miles away.

Image credit: Travel Aficionado/Flickr

A team of researchers found a link between how climate change impacts untreated drinking water and the rate of gastrointestinal illness in children. The study, published in the Hydrology Journal, is the first one to research how future rainfall may impact human health.

Chris Uejio, assistant professor of geography at Florida State University and lead author of the study, looked at the gastrointestinal risk rate for children 5 years old and younger -- comparing the 19 years between 1991 and 2010 and projections for 2046 to 2065. Two Wisconsin researchers specializing in children's health also participated in the study. 

The researchers chose to study kids from Wisconsin, in part because of the state's geography. As Uejio said, Wisconsin has “some underlying hydrogeology characteristics that make it a little more susceptible to groundwater contamination.” Wisconsin also has some cities that treat their water and some that do not, which allowed the team to make comparisons.

Uejio and his research team considered three scenarios in five northern Wisconsin municipalities with minimally-treated drinking water. In the first scenario, the research team tested the risk of childhood gastrointestinal illness (GI) if climate change continues on its current path.

They found that without installing additional drinking water treatment, increased rainfall from climate change could cause an approximate 1.5 percent increase in childhood GI, but it could be as high as 3.6 percent.

The second scenario looked at climate change and background levels of treatment, concluding that continued treatment would help alleviate the impacts of climate change in the future. But communities with untreated drinking water will still have increased rates of GI in kids.

The third scenario looked at larger cities that have better drinking water treatment. In those areas, the risk of illness dramatically decreased.

Around 20 million Americans have untreated water flowing through their taps, including people in rural areas who access drinking water from a well. “These households are particularly vulnerable to rainfall events and contamination events where disease-causing pathogens can get in their drinking water sources,” Uejio said in a statement.

Climate change and drinking water

Climate change will have an impact on drinking water. It will likely increase water demand while decreasing water supplies. Water is needed not just for daily uses, but also for agriculture, energy production, manufacturing, recreation and navigation. “Many of these uses put pressure on water resources, stresses that are likely to be exacerbated by climate change,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says on its website.

 

Water supply is not the only thing to suffer from climate change impacts. Water quality is also likely to suffer in areas that experience rainfall increases. In the northeast and midwest, increases in heavy rain storms could cause sewer systems and water treatment plants to be overwhelmed by the increased water. Heavy downpours could increase the runoff into rivers and lakes, which would wash sediment, pollutants, nutrients, garbage and other materials into water supplies.

The 2014 National Climate Assessment cites a number of ways that climate change can impact drinking water quality. One of those is excess concentrations of several nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), heavy metals like mercury, and other toxins in lakes. Water quality can also worsen because of “lower and more persistent low flows under drought conditions,” the assessment found. 

Increased floods can also impact water quality in large river basins by increasing the mobilization of sediments. There could be “potentially large increases in some areas” of sediment mobilization, according to the assessment -- which would result reservoir storage and river channels being altered, also affecting the water supply.

Jacques-Yves Cousteau once said, “The cycle of life is intricately joined with the cycle of water.” The possible impacts to America's drinking water supply from climate change mean we must do whatever is necessary to protect our water sources. Studies like Uejio's are a good place to start, and he hopes that his research will spur others to investigate the impacts in other U.S. regions.

Image credit: Flickr/Eric Norris

By Tom Cassauwers

The Belgian development community is seeing the benefit of cooperation with the private sector. One NGO working on that area is Exchange vzw, which allows Belgian entrepreneurs and experts to volunteer with businesses in the Global South that experience a skill shortage. And its approach to sustainable development reserves a central place for the private sector.

When Gie Verbunt, CEO of the Belgian company IZEN Energy Systems, went to Rwanda in the summer of 2016 it was about renewable energy, not vacationing. “The technology for renewable energy exists in Africa, is reliable and certainly not the most expensive anymore. So it makes sense for them to start using it,” Verbunt said. 

On his trip he volunteered with Munyax Eco, a local company that specializes in renewable energy. As an experienced entrepreneur in renewables, Verbunt advised Munyax on technical issues, marketing and sales. “There are little precedents there on how to connect renewables to the grid. So I proposed to build a case, and see how it would work.”

This exchange was not an ad-hoc partnership, but was organised through Exchange vzw. Exchange is a Belgian development NGO that sends entrepreneurs and experts on volunteer exchanges to private companies in the Global South. The companies they work with cannot fund regular consulting for their expertise shortages, so Exchange fills the gap. The goal is to stimulate private sector growth for development.

“Part of our mission statement is to offer renewable energy to everyone. So besides doing this in Belgium, it was quite logical for us to go to Rwanda,” Verbunt said, looking back on his decision to volunteer.

The private sector as an engine

“The private sector serves as an engine for development,” explained Stijn van Bosstraeten, managing director of Exchange. “If you miss the private sector, you miss a large part of the fabric needed for sustainable development.”

In 2015, the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted this reasoning. In contrast to their predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs explicitly argue for private-sector inclusion and engagement in development issues. In the past few years, Belgian development cooperation has equally turned to the private sector and entrepreneurship as a source of sustainable development.

In 2014, Belgian Development Minister Alexander de Croo made private-sector development in the Global South an explicit target for Belgian policy. “What could be called classical NGOs reacted somewhat cautiously to this change in policy. But for Exchange, it fits exactly with our philosophy,” van Bosstraeten said.

Exchange started working on the issue long before that: It was founded in 2001 and sees its work as complementary to that of traditional NGOs. “The private sector might be an engine for development, but for firms to grow there still needs to be education, healthcare and food security, more classical NGO working areas," explains van Bosstraeten explained.

NGOs as watchdogs

Private-sector development is, however, not without its critics. Already in 2012, Flemish North-South umbrella organization 11.11.11 released a critical report on a Belgian state fund for private-sector development. It showed how funds destined for the private sector were channelled based on the possibility for financial return, sometimes even through tax paradises, and went to ecologically damaging businesses.

“We need to maintain a critical attitude toward the private sector," van Bosstraeten cautioned. "The main goal of a company is to make a profit, and sometimes this clashes with development goals. There is a constant challenge to encourage sustainable development through the private sector.” 

But van Bosstraeten says NGOs like Exchange can serve as a check on this behavior: “By acting as a watchdog, we can establish partnerships with the good companies that stimulate sustainable development.”

It's a two-way street

Gie Verbunt’s trip to Rwanda led to a permanent connection between Belgium and the African country. IZEN will send an employee to Munyax Eco for a project later this year. Verbunt is positive about volunteer exchanges resulting in permanent business partnerships, as it allows for more structural cooperation.

“Our focus is on helping companies in the South, and we put their needs first. If, however, permanent business connections are established, in the interest of both parties, then we can only greet that positively,” van Bosstraeten said.

Verbunt also sees exchanges as mutual learning experiences. “Volunteering your skills is never a one-way transfer; you always learn things yourself. The way Rwandans do HR and handle people is better than ours. They often solve problems without running into our trap of burn-out and excessive stress.”

Echoing this thinking, Exchange is realizing that companies in the Global South have much to teach each other as well. In the words of van Bosstraeten: “In the future we hope to facilitate exchanges between companies in a South-South fashion. Exchanges are never a one-way street, and we are convinced companies in the Global South can also learn from each other.”

Image credit: SteveRwanda via Wikimedia Commons 

Tom Cassauwers is a Belgian writer that works on issues of business, world politics and history. He can be found on Twitter at @TCassauwers

A U.S. District Court has been reviewing arguments concerning the legality of the Dakota Access Pipeline route since it was green-lighted by incoming President Donald Trump. But pipeline critics suffered a major blow last week when the district judge refused a request for a temporary restraining order. The request was filed by the Cheyenne River Sioux, a joint plaintiff in the Standing Rock Sioux's legal challenge against the pipeline.

They maintain that the ongoing construction of the DAPL infrastructure on either side and under Lake Oahe will "desecrate the waters upon which Cheyenne River Sioux tribal members rely for their most important religious practices and therefore substantially burden the free exercise of their religion." The plaintiffs cited irreparable harm if the pipeline were to proceed.

But Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C. disagreed. He said the ruling wasn't about whether the pipeline "was a good or a bad idea," but whether the construction would cause "imminent harm." The court will meet again at the end of February to hear further testimony. For now, Boasberg said there is insufficient evidence that the construction of the empty section of pipeline under Lake Oahe would pose a risk to either the tribe's drinking water or cultural sites.

Any immediate risk to the tribe "would come when the spigot is turned on and the oil flows through the pipeline," Boasberg said.

This is the latest setback for North Dakota's Standing Rock Sioux and its water protectors, who say the pipeline will put their livelihood and their way of life at risk. The Cheyenne River tribe also alleges that the easement granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is "entirely unlawful" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“The government has granted the easement, and Dakota Access has begun to drill. This court cannot wait until the harm begins to issue equitable relief. When the free exercise of religion is at stake, a threat certain to that right is enough to constitute irreparable harm," the tribe stated in submitted documents.

Lawyers for the pipeline's developer, Energy Transfer Partners, call the stay request under the RFRA "exceedingly tardy" and a "last-minute tactic." They also insisted that the reasons for the request were "not construction related."

But Christina Sterbenz of Vice News suggests that authorizing the pipeline without completing the Environmental Impact Statement the Army Corps stared on Jan. 18 may have been illegal.

An expert familiar with laws pertaining to environmental impact statements told Sterbenz that when the president ordered the go-ahead for the pipeline and the Corps cancelled the impact report, it opened the government to a potential lawsuit.

“That may work when you’re on 'The Apprentice,'" said Zygmunt Plater, a professor of environmental law at Boston College.  "But when you’re in court, the allegations will be that the decision was originally based on fact and has been changed not on fact.”

And that may be the Standing Rock Sioux's next move. Jan Hasselman, counsel for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, maintains that while he has the power to write executive orders, "The president doesn't have the power to change the law."

Parties to the ongoing debate are scheduled to meet in court again on Feb. 27

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Argyleist; 2) Flickr/Becker1999

By Tarrah McCreary

Food belongs in stomachs, not in landfills. But unfortunately, an estimated 1 billion food items are discarded by K-12 students across the country each year, according to K12 Food Rescue.

As a socially responsible partner to school districts, Chartwells K12 wanted to do our part to ensure the healthy, great-tasting meals we serve are nourishing our students and community. So, last spring, we implemented a food rescue program at one of our schools in Indiana. After only five months, the food rescue program saw incredible success amongst middle- and high-school students – we rescued more than 11,200 food items!

How exactly are we 'rescuing' food? Kids in lunchrooms across America are tossing out perfectly good food – apples, juice boxes, unopened string cheeses, etc. Whether the child was full or just didn’t have time to eat it (they’re kids – who knows!), we wanted to put a stop to this in our café.

Chartwells K12 partnered with K12 Food Rescue to provide students with an alternative to discarding uneaten food. K12 Food Rescue provides us with bins that are set up in the school’s cafés where students can place certain uneaten or unopened items. Then, instead of being discarded, the food is brought to local charities.

What is truly unique about this program is it’s a student-led initiative. The students are responsible for managing the program; they oversee the collection process; and they encourage their peers to donate. Because it empowers students to make a real impact, we’ve found they’re more excited, eager and inclined to help. Not only are we reducing waste, but our students are also learning valuable lessons about sustainability and leadership that they’ll carry with them both inside and outside of the café walls.

The benefit of this is two-fold: First, we’re giving back to the local community. Second, we’re following our mission of sustainability by helping reduce waste and pollution. The more than 11,200 food items rescued thus far translates to about 2,250 meals and reduces carbon equivalent emissions by 1,400 pounds. That’s a huge impact for a district of 3,000 students!

While the execution of this program is simple, the implications for the students are far-reaching. Here are three reasons to give something similar a try at your own school district.

1. Instill knowledge

Many children, especially elementary-level students, don’t realize the impact they personally have on the environment. Start by making them aware of their personal choices and what they can do to contribute to a greener community.

This is also a good opportunity to teach children about giving back. 'Rescuing' food items provides a tangible example to help kids connect the dots on how they can help others within their community.

2. Develop leadership skills

The food rescue program is also an opportunity to empower individual students with leadership roles. While the exact responsibilities of food rescue student leader or leaders can vary, their role is the same at its core. Student leaders help collect and track all rescued food items and encourage their fellow students to further participate in the program.

The program also inspired positive peer pressure: Many students remind their friends not to throw out their food and instead place it in the donation bins. Since the program started, the number of students participating has steadily increased.

The student leadership aspect of this program is key and a big reason why it’s so successful. It helps the students feel empowered and gives them ownership of what to do with their uneaten food and where it actually goes. Without it, many might see it as another school-mandated initiative and not feel as much pride in their good work.

3. Showcase results

Finally, it’s important for students to see the results of their hard work in order to stay engaged. Provide regular updates on the progress of the food rescue program, share when milestones have been met, and keep students informed on the most current stats for their school and district.

K12 Food Rescue sets up partner schools with an online dashboard that gives kids a quick glance at their monthly food rescue stats. The kids are always excited to see the monthly metrics and work hard to top the previous months’ results.

The bottom line

The food rescue program we implemented has been incredibly successful, and we feel it can be easily replicated by students across the country. We’re excited to take our program even further in 2017 by expanding our student leadership opportunities, turning the program into a formal club, and bringing it to more Chartwells K12 schools around the country.

Image credit: 1) Flickr/U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2) Courtesy of the author

Tarrah McCreary is a resident dietitian at Chartwells K12, a provider of dining services for school districts across the country. Chartwells K12 is built on decades of food and education experience and driven by top culinary, nutrition, wellness, and sustainability talent.

For those who believe the federal government has a role in protecting the environment, this week’s U.S. Congressional calendar could seem like the start of a massive bloodletting.

Various U.S. House and Senate committees, emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, are reviewing the mandates of federal agencies including NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will start hearings on what it describes as the “Modernization of the Endangered Species Act.”

Enacted during the Richard Nixon administration, the law has long been slammed by critics who say it is costly and an obstacle to economic development.

Since the GOP won the Senate in 2014, legislators have set their sights on the law. As Sarah Emerson of Motherboard reports, the last Congress launched at least 135 bills to weaken or eliminate the act.

One House Republican from Utah, Rob Bishop, told the Associated Press last month that he “would love to invalidate the law.”

Opponents of the law point to Section 7, which requires a review of lands proposed for development in order to gauge whether there would be any impact on endangered species. Critics describe the law as especially punitive as there is no mechanism for compensating landowners in the event development cannot occur if it is determined that an area is critical to a species’ habitat.

Supporters of the law, however, insist that it has not only been effective at slowing the rate of species extinction in the past 40 years, but it also has its own economic benefits.

The NGO Defenders of Wildlife (the president of which is scheduled to testify during Wednesday’s hearing), wrote in one study that less than 1 percent of the almost 430,000 development projects subjected to Section 7 reviews were delayed in a six-year period between 1998 and 2004 – and only one could not proceed. A decade later, another study found a similar result in the years between 2008 and 2015 – with no projects halted or canceled.

Defenders of Wildlife also says the Endangered Species Act creates its own economic stimulus at the local level, from tourism dollars to the building of projects that enhance habit protection.

But Rep. Lamar Smith (R, Texas), chair of the House science committee, has long been hostile to any agency conducting research related to climate change. Last week, Smith held a hearing that purported to revamp (or eviscerate) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to “make it great again.” So expect that drumbeat to continue during this year’s session.

The 115 Congress’ attack on science, despite the fact that many companies say they will still commit to their sustainability programs regardless of the Trump administration’s agenda, will not let up anytime soon. On Thursday, Smith’s science committee will continue hearings on NASA’s role in leading climate change research, a function the Texas Republican insists should not be part of NASA’s directive.

Employees of various government agencies are responding in kind. A group calling itself the “Alt” National Park Service, in addition to its postings on Twitter, has urged citizens to call their senators and representatives and voice their opposition to the “modernization” of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws.

Image credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Flickr

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that the Department of Energy's SunShot Initiative was mentioned in the Congressional hearings. The initiative was not mentioned, and this post was updated on Feb. 27 to correct the error. 

We read and hear a lot about climate change these days, some of it inaccurate, and many average citizens don’t know what or who to trust. I recently met with a friend from many years past, and he told me of his inability to accurately assess the differing information available about climate change. He thought there were two sides to the issue.

“I’m a tree hugger,” he said. “But I understand that people need trees to build houses.” This thoughtful person, an engineer by training, had a balanced view of the importance of the environment and how the economy and environmental protection must be balanced in a sustainable way.  However, he was baffled by the stories promulgated by those who would deny climate change is caused by humans.

I tried to explain to him, as I have with others, that there aren’t two sides to the climate issue. Ninety-five percent of the world’s climate scientists have assessed that the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere pose a significant threat to human populations, the natural environment and the world economy.

I told him the confusion often comes from intertwining what scientists know concretely with analyses that provide a range of predictions for the future. In simple terms, scientists know and can document the past growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide. They can also document changes in temperature in the atmosphere and the ocean, and correlate those changes with the increase in greenhouse gases. They also know the source of greenhouse gases and can advise policymakers of which greenhouse gases cause the most change.

What scientists can’t predict precisely is the future. Scientists around the world share information, data sets and hypotheses to develop models of how the planet will change because of greenhouse gases. What they agree on is that there will be change within a range of predicted impacts such as these from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

• By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 3 degrees to 12 degrees Fahrenheit, a broad range that depends on emissions scenario and climate model.


• Studies project global sea levels to rise by another 1 to 4 feet by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 0.66 to 6.6 feet.

The confusion comes over reports that scientists don’t know exactly what impacts will be created by climate change or why scientists refine their initial projections. Those who deny humans are causing climate change say scientists’ inability to precisely forecast when and where impacts will occur means that scientists can’t demonstrate that humans are the cause of climate change impacts to-date and in the future. This confuses the public. However, scientists have determined past impacts and that there will be impacts in the future.

The day after our meeting, my friend sent me an article from an online magazine focused on giving people the knowledge to “push back at the erosion of our liberties and restore constitutionally limited small government.” The article’s lead said that “scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been tinkering with their data to make it look as if the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence global climate negotiations.” It used the claims of a whistleblower who formerly worked at NOAA. As reported previously in 3p, the claims initiated a call for a House hearing on the issue.

I sent my friend a link to NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. That Web page explained that the work done was a normal examination of data sets. Scientists at NOAA gained new knowledge that explained discrepancies in several ocean temperature data sets and caused them to re-calibrate older data now that they understood the discrepancies.

The original story casting doubt on NOAA’s work first appeared in a sister paper to the Daily Mail, a publication Wikipedia recently banned as an unreliable source. The story was then reported in multiple media outlets that are considered credible by their readers, including the one sent to my friend.

Those readers were not given information that would help them understand the purpose and background of NOAA’s analysis. This lack of knowledge gave credibility to a story that was not credible.

In covering the issue, the New York Times quoted Dr. Zeke Hausfather, a scientist at U.C. Berkeley, and one of the reviewers of the ocean data refinement process. He said the result “strongly suggests NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.”

My friend, who admittedly does understand science, wrote back after reading the NOAA Web page: “This is spot on. I can’t believe you found it so quickly.”

But how do average citizens, who don’t have access to people who can guide them to the source, sort out the kind of inaccurate information that courses across the Internet? The answer to that question might be more difficult than predicting the future extent of climate change impacts.

Image credit: Flickr/Bob Familiar

The recent surge in boycotts prompted TriplePundit to explore why some consumer-driven exercises in social activism work, and some don't.

A good case study is Starbucks. The company has become a prime target for boycotts over the past several years, and it is facing yet another consumer backlash after pledging to hire thousands of refugees. The pledge was a direct rebuke to the Donald Trump administration's Muslim travel ban.

Considering that Starbucks survived all of the previous boycotts levied against it, the question is whether or not this latest effort will break the string of failures.

The Muslim ban and Starbucks

On Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order that abruptly halted travel to the U.S. for citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, even those with valid visas and green cards.

The response from Starbucks was swift and unequivocal.

In an open letter to employees dated Jan. 29, CEO Howard Schultz detailed concrete actions the company will take to support its team and oppose the Trump administration.

That includes a new pledge to hire refugees, beginning in the U.S. with a focus on refugees who have supported American troops overseas in the capacity of interpreters and other services. The pledge will eventually encompass scores of countries with the goal of hiring 10,000 refugees in five years.

Schultz also said the company will step up its support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, continue building on its strong relationship with Mexico, and provide health coverage for eligible employees if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

In addition, Schultz encouraged Starbucks employees to become politically active:

"Your voice and your vote matter more than ever. We are all obligated to ensure our elected officials hear from us individually and collectively. Starbucks is doing its part; we need you to use the collective power of your voices to do the same."

And, Schultz closes with a resounding affirmation of the company's values:

"We are in business to inspire and nurture the human spirit, one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time – whether that neighborhood is in a Red State or a Blue State; a Christian country or a Muslim country; a divided nation or a united nation. That will not change.  You have my word on that."

The boycott begins . . .

The backlash from conservative Trump supporters was just as swift. On Jan. 30, Fortune magazine reported that #BoycottStarbucks was trending on Twitter. Here's s representative tweet:

While President Trump is working to get Americans jobs, Starbucks CEO wants to hire 10,000 refugees.

What about us?#BoycottStarbucks

— Scott Presler VA (@ScottPresler) January 30, 2017

On Jan. 31, Breitbart -- a news organization associated with the rise of white nationalism in the U.S. -- promoted the boycott under the headline, "Starbucks Pledge to Hire 10,000 Refugees Sparks #BoycottStarbucks Movement on Social Media."

. . . but it probably won't work

It's too early to tell if the new boycott will have an impact on Starbucks. Judging by past performance, though, success is highly unlikely.

Shortly after news of the boycott broke, Newsweek posted an item on that topic from the online question-and-answer community Quora.

Quora contributor Archie D'Cruz looked into seven boycotts against Starbucks that have trended on Twitter since 2012. In each case, he found that the company's stock actually rose in tandem with publicity surrounding the boycotts.

Do read the full article for details. For those of you on the go, D'Cruz summarizes that 5 of the 7 boycotts were undertaken in opposition to progressive policies articulated by Starbucks.

That category includes legalizing same sex marriage (2012 and 2013), the 2015 "Christmas Cup" controversy promoted by Breitbart as well as Trump, and Schultz's endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president (2016).

The fifth action in that category is the 2016 campaign urging supporters to give Trump's name instead of their own when ordering specialty coffees at Starbucks. Though not a direct boycott (in fact, quite the opposite), the intention was to draw negative publicity to Starbucks.

The other two boycotts did not come from conservatives, at least not obviously so. Those related to a tax avoidance issue in the U.K. (2012) and a new dress code for baristas (2014).

D'Cruz sums it all up with this observation:

"The next time you see #BoycottStarbucks trending on Twitter, you might just want to place a call to your stock broker."

So, how does Starbucks do it?

There are a number of reasons why companies like Starbucks are not impacted by boycotts while others stumble.

Research indicates that a company already on the decline is more vulnerable to experiencing a significant impact, as demonstrated by the recent troubles of the Ivanka Trump brand.

Starbucks certainly does not fall into that category.

The Schultz letter illustrates one area of particular strength for Starbucks. The company has a clarity of purpose that drives it to take progressive positions. That makes it a magnet for boycotts from the conservative side, but it also cements loyalty among its target customers.

At the same time, Starbucks reaches out to conservative-leaning customers by emphasizing diversity of opinion at the point of sale.

TriplePundit reached out to Starbucks by email for comment on the latest boycott, and a spokesperson for the company underscored that point:

"We make decisions based on our mission, values and heritage, and we recognize that sometimes there are some who may disagree with us. We respect the diverse points of views held by our partners and customers and will continue to listen," the spokesperson told 3p.

"Everyone is welcome at Starbucks. We’ve been committed to diversity and inclusion since our earliest days and creating a culture of belonging is a core company value."

The Houston Chronicle's small business section featured a piece on Starbucks's customers and picks out several points of support for progressive issues:

"Starbucks’ primary target market is men and women aged 25 to 40 ... Starbucks’ appeal to this consumer age group through hip, contemporary design that is consistent in its advertising and decor, and working to keep its products current as status symbols. Customers tend to be urbanites with relatively high income, professional careers and a focus on social welfare."

Significantly, the Chronicle reports that demographic has been growing by 3 percent annually.

Young adults aged 18 to 24 is another important -- and growing -- market segment for Starbucks that tends to favor Democratic candidates over Republicans. Last November Bloomberg noted that "Republicans fared poorly with youth voters overall" on Election Day 2016.

A Trump supporter commenting on D'Cruz's piece measured the likelihood of a successful boycott and concluded that the company's appeal to Democratic voters would help it weather the storm:

"Starbucks’ customers have a high degree of brand loyalty, and for every deplorable customer they lost, they probably gained a student lefty to replace him."

A Starbucks fan in the same comment thread made the point that publicity over boycotts does not necessarily reach a saturation point that would drive conservative-leaning customers away from Starbucks:

"Like millions of other iPad-toting customers I pony up my five bucks to buy a seat in a quiet, mocha-smelling room with free wifi. Most adults and conservatives in particular don’t care about #BoycottUnimportantIssue."

Stronger together

Of course, like any major company, Starbucks has made its share of unforced errors over the years. Its recent "Race Together" campaign fell flat, and its supply chain exposes the company to criticism from environmental organizations related to paper products and palm oil.

Starbucks has also taken hits for lackluster performance in the areas of food waste management and recycling initiatives.

In other words, anyone who would like to mount a more successful boycott against Starbucks has plenty of ammunition at hand.

That's a long shot, though. Starbucks carefully laid the groundwork for customer loyalty through its willingness to take proactive stands on marriage equality and immigration, among other social issues.

In effect, Starbucks's social positions created a cushion of trust that continue to provide it with publicity attractive to its progressive customer base, regardless of any negative news about its environmental track record.

The company is also starting to pay more (much more) attention to environmental concerns, so the door on that route of attack is also closing.

Photo (cropped): by Noel Reinhold via flickr.com, creative commons license

Donald Trump’s promise to revitalize the coal industry pushed him to big wins across Appalachia as people continued to see jobs disappear largely because of the natural gas boom. He scored one of his largest margins in West Virginia, a onetime Democratic stronghold that he swept with 69 percent of the vote.

But the stubborn fact persists that as the U.S. adds new energy capacity, coal struggles to remain even a footnote. Last year, only 45 megawatts of electrical power, or 0.17 percent of all new capacity in the U.S., came from coal.

Coal, for better or worse depending on one’s perspective, will score some short-term gains in the next few years. Coal hit peak production in 2008 and steadily declined thereafter, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast a slight increase in coal production over the next two years.

The major reason for the temporary boost in coal is that, despite a recent dip in prices, the cost of natural gas has been on an upward trajectory over the past year. But as renewables continue to fall in price and increase their efficiency, that small increase in coal production will not last long.

The problem for Trump, however, is that the small surge in coal consumption will not benefit the voters in Appalachia who saw the insurgent Republican as their savior and the antidote to what they viewed as a heavy-handed Obama administration hostile to their way of life.

So why won't coal gains help Appalachia? Because any increase in coal production will largely benefit the state of Wyoming, Robert W. Godby, a University of Wyoming professor who is also the director of its Energy Economics and Public Policy Center, told to CNBC this week.

Not only will Wyoming grab the lion’s share of revenues -- and, more importantly to Trump supporters, jobs -- but Appalachian states could experience an additional loss of over 1,000 coal jobs in the next two years.

Goody projects utilities’ drive to keep procurement costs low will push them to source coal from Wyoming, including the Powder River Basin. Unlike the smaller and deeper mines in states such as West Virginia and Kentucky, Wyoming’s coal deposits are much easier to exploit as the fuel source lies just beneath the earth’s surface. As a result, that hydrocarbon-rich area in northeastern Wyoming could score as many as 600 jobs.

Nevertheless, the coal industry would continue to suffer a net loss in jobs as less labor is needed to extract the Cowboy State’s resources than what is necessary in the older Appalachian mines.

Energy companies are responding in kind as they continue to ditch their coal businesses.

Two weeks ago, Consol Energy, which has a 150-year history in the coal-mining sector, announced it would spin off that division of its business before the end of this year. The CFO of the company, which reported a $306 million loss last fiscal quarter, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that it concluded coal is a “topsy-turvy” business at best, and will focus on its oil and gas operations instead.

Image credit: BLM/Flickr