Search

These days the buzz in the auto industry is all about autonomous vehicles and the future of personal mobility. But a technology that's less obvious -- though forms an integral part of vehicle development -- is virtual reality (VR).

This week, we were fortunate to visit Ford Motor Co.’s Virtual Reality labs in Dearborn, Michigan, to take a look at the innovative ways the automaker uses VR across a broad range of activities involved in bringing a new vehicle to market. We examine these in three main functional areas: design, engineering and manufacturing.

Design

From the moment a new vehicle is conceived, virtual reality plays a part. This begins in Ford’s “Studio 2000X," which supports the company's design organization.

Of course, in the old days, cars were designed with pencil and paper. In more modern times, designers relied on computer-aided design (CAD) tools. But in either case, the design of a car -- a three-dimensional object -- was always done on a two-dimensional plane. With VR, however, Ford’s designers can now put on a headset and sketch out their ideas in three dimensions with a digital wand; walking around on a 3-D virtual canvas, so to speak.

Unlocking the potential of designing in 3-D, and by adding animations and placing a 3-D rendering into “photo-realistic environments,” designers can see how their idea for a new car would appear in the real world.

For example, a new sports car design could be placed into a virtual pit-lane at a racetrack and, by wearing a VR headset, designers can walk around it and inspect it in its potential environment from 360 degrees. As a designer, you’d be able to appreciate a full and accurate visualization of a potential vehicle, as clearly as if you were to walk out on somebody’s driveway. This experience is something VR makes possible, even before anything has physically been created.

Engineering

When a vehicle concept is approved and Ford decides to build it, VR again plays an essential role in translating the design into a physical end product.

Engineers get involved in figuring out the finer details and have to make decisions on components, engines, interior ergonomics and so forth. As the product development comes together, the Ford Immersive Vehicle Environment Lab (FiVE) gets to work and begins building a full-size, three-dimensional, virtual version of the car that eventually will go into production.

So, by the time a car is ready to be built, every nut and bolt is accounted for; the seats, dashboard, headlamp support brackets -- you name it -- become part of a fully-realized, virtual version of the car. And again, with a VR headset, designers and engineers are able walk around and inspect the vehicle as if it were really in the room.

They can even see through the car as well if need be. For example, engineers discussing the hinges for a trunk lid could choose to view them through virtual sheet metal of the closed trunk itself.

But why go to the trouble of building a virtual version of the car at all?

It brings efficiency and infinite possibilities to the engineering process that would be hard to achieve physically. For example, parts can be rapidly -- and digitally -- switched out to evaluate things like passenger ergonomics, assess the fit and finish of panels, or work through dashboard design. Designers can also see how subtle changes to the shape of a body panel will affect shadows and light reflection when the car is out there in the real world.

As a result, such immersive VR, as Ford calls it, allows rapid prototyping throughout design and engineering development. It is highly iterative, and can accommodate any necessary engineering variations too. For example, designers encountered a challenge with how an interior panel should be placed in right- and left-hand driving versions of the new Mustang, which they were able to work through using VR, Ford told us.

And the really cool part is designers and engineers can collaborate in remote locations. For example, in creating the new Mustang, teams in the VR lab in Dearborn were able to collaborate with teams in their sister lab in Australia -- and in real time, using VR, engineers were able to walk around the same full-size, 3-D virtual Mustang together and address any detail of the vehicle inside or out.

It’s certainly painstaking to build a virtual vehicle in this detail. But Ford says time is saved in engineering a new car using this technology, while rapid digital prototyping reduces the number of physical clay models Ford would otherwise have to build. In addition, remote collaboration cuts down on travel.

All of this, of course, saves cost. But, perhaps more importantly, Ford says the technology speeds up production timing and allows for superior craftsmanship. Ford claims to be the only car company, to its knowledge, using high-definition, 4-K, real-time VR in its engineering process.

Manufacturing

As the engineering is coming together, another Ford VR lab is busy at work in the area of virtual manufacturing technology, an important process that feeds back information into the design and engineering process.

The virtual manufacturing lab’s chief function is assessing the feasibility in building a vehicle, and it also introduces the human story. Because as much as you can design and engineer a perfect vehicle, it’s for nothing if it’s impossible or unsafe for workers to build.

At the virtual manufacturing lab, Ford’s team uses VR in combination with 3-D printing to create virtual workstations that will eventually be replicated on physical production lines around the world. And with the use of sensors strapped to an employee, full-body motion capture provides data on how a future production line worker would have to move in order to assemble subsystems for a new vehicle.

For example, in the photo to the right, you can see someone wearing a VR headset next to a white 3-D printed object, which is a dimensionally-accurate transmission. He has been asked to line up the transmission -- which you can see -- with the engine, which only he can see in his VR headset.

This was an actual test used to make sure workers would have a good sight-line to the bolt holes needed to attach the engine to the transmission. Based on the VR results, information went back to engineering team, requiring the length of the bolts to be changed in order to allow proper assembly.

A key point of using VR to plan production line workstations is that if something is easy to build, it both enhances quality and reduces the risk for worker injury.

For example, body motion capture allows Ford to measure things like spinal compression values on the lumbar spine if a worker must reach forward in a particular assembly process, and evaluate if these would exceed safe human limits. If they do, engineering teams change the process.

It also allows calculations as to whether, for example, sufficient physical force can be applied to fit a body panel at a given arm-joint angle. Does that change for workers of a different height? If so, how must the process be modified to accommodate workers at the extremes?

Being able to predict how workers will have to move around on a future production line by using VR has been tremendously valuable, Ford says. Impressively, since beginning its virtual manufacturing program, the automaker has:

• Reduced employee injury by 70 percent using the latest ergonomic research


• Reduced over-extended movements, difficult hand-clearance and hard-to-install parts at new vehicle launch by 90 percent


• Reduced employee days away from work due to injury by 75 percent

Putting it all together...

In combination, using VR to enhance design, engineering and manufacturing has proved itself to be a powerful tool for Ford at every stage in a product development lifecycle.

Not only is VR an accurate proxy for real-world activities, but it also provides the benefit of being able to create an infinite number of possible realities, evaluate them all, and select for the most effective one at each stage. In this way, everything can be optimized.

Image credits: 1) Ford (press use only); 2) Courtesy of author

Editor's Note: Flights and accommodation for the author's trip was paid for by Ford Motor Co. Neither the author nor TriplePundit was required to write about the experience. Opinions of the author are his own.

President Barack Obama -- in an effort to cover as many bases as possible in not only cementing his legacy, but also in trying to maintain attention on a crucial issue -- published an article in Science magazine on Monday, entitled “The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy.” He is the first U.S. president to pen an article for the peer-reviewed magazine.

Written with full awareness of his successor’s intentions, the president clearly takes the long view in framing the issue when he says: “The latest science and economics provide a helpful guide for what the future may bring, in many cases independent of near-term policy choices, when it comes to combatting climate change and transitioning to a clean-energy economy.”

Rather than the typical scientific paper usually published in Science, this piece -- published under the Policy Forum heading -- could be read as an open letter to president-elect Donald Trump. Perhaps it’s also a precautionary measure, to put as much factual information on the subject as possible into print, when faced with the prospect of a fact-defying regime taking charge.

For those of us who follow the issue, the president is clearly using his bully pulpit here to make it clear to one and all that this is an issue he, along with virtually the entire scientific community, considers both important and urgent.

At a time when Donald Trump’s appointee for secretary of state, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, is telling the Senate confirmation panel, “I don’t see [climate change] as the imminent national security threat as others do,” it’s clear that Obama is making a pre-emptive strike against efforts by the new administration to turn the focus away.

With research support from senior advisor Brian Deese and science advisor John Holdren, the president lays out four reasons why the momentum of clean energy is now “irreversible.”

1. "Decoupling" energy consumption and carbon emissions from economic growth

For decades, energy consumption -- which, until recently, went hand-in-hand with carbon emissions -- correlated strongly with economic growth. As economies grew, they used more energy. It seemed almost a law of nature. But correlation is not causation, as the well-known statistics mantra reminds us.

First, as energy-efficiency measures are put in place, more work gets done with less energy -- and economic growth can and does occur. Secondly, as our energy supply becomes increasingly decarbonized, the energy that is used emits less carbon than before.

The bottom line is that while the economy grew by more than 10 percent during the Obama years, both energy consumption and carbon emissions fell. In fact, carbon emissions per dollar of GDP fell by a total of 18 percent.

2. Voluntary business action on climate

The president gave a shout-out to the business community for the actions they are taking -- in most cases voluntarily -- to reduce emissions, adding that doing so can “boost bottom lines, cut costs for consumers, and deliver returns for shareholders.”

He mentions the aggressive targets taken by General Motors (a 20 percent cut in emissions by 2020 with a 2011 baseline) and Alcoa (30 percent by 2020, 2005 baseline). And he says the efficiency standards his administration put in place for motor vehicles and appliances will eliminate a combined 10 billion tons of emissions by 2030.

And, according to the DOE, twice as many people are employed in the energy-efficiency industry than in the production of fossil fuels and their use for electric power generation, Obama points out.

3. Shifts in the electric power sector

He focused specifically on the electric power sector, our nation’s largest source of greenhouse emissions. Dramatic shifts in this sector include both the shift from coal to natural gas -- which grew from 21 percent of energy market share to 33 percent since 2008 -- and the precipitous drop in solar and wind prices.

He mentions two very different companies, Google and Walmart, both of which plan to purchase 100 percent of their power from renewable sources in the near term. He closes this section by noting that twice as many Americans work in the renewables industry as in coal.

4. Global momentum

Many countries are taking aggressive action on climate, to their own benefit as well as the benefit of all.

Emphasizing the need for prompt and substantive action, the president acknowledges that his successor can set his own policy. However, he warns that “were the United States to step away from [the Paris climate agreement], it would lose its seat at the table to hold other countries to their commitments, demand transparency, and encourage ambition.”

"This should not be a partisan issue."

“This should not be a partisan issue," Obama insists. "It is good business and good economics to lead a technological revolution and define market trends.

"And it is smart planning to set long-term emission-reduction targets and give American companies, entrepreneurs, and investors certainty so they can invest and manufacture the emission-reducing technologies that we can use domestically and export to the rest of the world.”

Indeed, given China’s recent announcement that it plans to invest 1 trillion yuan ($361 billion) in renewable technology, there can be no question the U.S. could be forced to relinquish our leadership role -- and import even more good s from China in the form of renewable technology -- in the years ahead.

In closing, President Obama tells us that he remains “convinced that no country is better suited to confront the climate challenge and reap the economic benefits of a low-carbon future than the United States."

He goes on to say: ".. [C]ontinued participation in the Paris process will yield great benefit for the American people, as well as the international community. Prudent U.S. policy over the next several decades would prioritize, among other actions, decarbonizing the U.S. energy system, storing carbon and reducing emissions within U.S. lands, and reducing non-CO2 emissions."

Image credit: Flickr/United Nations Photo

By Lynn Scarlett

It’s that time of the year again.

We’ve been having those tricky weeks here in the Southeast, where one day it’s mild enough for a fleece jacket and the next you have to put on a parka and tall boots. The house is too cold, so you adjust the thermostat; then it’s too hot.

Technology is reimagining all that, changing how we manage our daily routines. We have 'smart' thermostats that learn how we use heating and cooling and adjust to our preferences. We have refrigerators that will tell us if we are out of milk. And soon, we’ll have more cars on the roads that drive themselves (well, maybe).

As consumers, we are growing to expect that the technology we use will adapt in real time to how we live our lives. And technology companies are meeting the challenge.

So it’s surprising that the tech sector hasn’t applied these same expectations, with the same spirit of innovation, to how we generate, transport and use electric power. We are only just starting to see the types of storage technologies that enable and adapt to renewable sources like solar and wind, allowing these sources to truly replace traditional generation. Energy-efficiency technologies offer consumers, businesses, and governments the opportunity to save energy, emissions and money all at the same time. But despite their popularity, uptake and innovation are still slow.

Technologies are available that can monitor and optimize our electric grid’s ability to deliver power where and when it’s most needed — and save consumers money.

Investments from the U.S. Department of Energy have led to the deployment of state-of-the-art grid technology, including 15 million smart meters, 8,500 automated feeder switches and over 1,000 phasor measurement units. But even with these initial modest successes, full integration of these technologies into our massive grid remains mostly an idea.

The Energy Department estimates that with an additional $100 billion investment by the industry as a whole — building off of the $10 billion DOE has already invested — we could fully modernize the grid, saving consumers $2 trillion over the next 20 years.

The electric power industry is as interested in grid reform as anyone. Industry leaders recognize we’re moving toward a world with more electricity generation sources — especially renewable sources — distributed more widely across the grid. Adapting to the new reality will require new technologies and functionalities that will make our grid more secure and efficient, but also save consumers money.

One of the most crucial first steps is visibility — enabling those managing the distribution of power along the grid to actually see, in real time, which sources are connected and what power is being drawn or produced from each source. Visibility is critical to managing a more distributed renewable generation-based grid from solar panels, wind turbines, storage batteries, electric cars and smart technologies.

This new, highly distributed, nimble grid will also be more reliable. More visibility not only allows generation to be deployed more efficiently, but also allows operators to see potential trouble spots and address them quickly and more effectively.

Visibility also empowers consumers by allowing users to see how their energy is delivered to them, including rate structures, costs and usage patterns. Consumers armed with such information gain an ability to alter their own usage patterns to reduce their consumption at critical times, saving themselves money and ultimately making the grid more efficient. Empowering consumers also, to some extent, means empowering innovation — giving entrepreneurs who are developing new energy delivery products and services the ability to access the grid and develop solutions at a reasonable cost.

None of these capabilities is so futuristic that they could not be realized in the very near term. In fact, some of this technology is already available, even if it is not yet widely used. Yet the smart grid of the future exists more as an ambition than an achievement.

Our focus as a nation on reinventing our electric power grid, much like the weather, has been running hot and cold. We need to make the switch — to turn up the heat on the demand for innovation. We need more capital, more research and development, and more commitment from policymakers at all levels of government.

The time has come for those of us who use electric power to demand more from our grid, those who manage it and the technologists who would take it to the next level.

For more on how smart technologies can shake up America's power grid, check out the infographic below:

Image credits: Dave Lauridsen/The Nature Conservancy

Lynn Scarlett is Global Managing Director for Public Policy at The Nature Conservancy. In this role, she directs policy in the United States and the 35 countries in which the Conservancy operates with a focus on climate and nature- based solutions. Most recently, she was the Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Lynn also served at Interior as the Acting Secretary of the Interior in 2006. 

By James Dalton and Peter Newborne

Water stewardship has progressively gained corporate and media attention over the last 10 years. Business is a water user, but it may also be a polluter.

To provide the world with food, for example, businesses rely on many different supply chains, all of which need water. The growing of crops takes large amounts of water for irrigation, around 40 percent of the water taken out of rivers and groundwater globally. What we eat, what we wear, what we buy, and what we build and use all need water in production and manufacturing processes.

Companies know this. Yet, perhaps not as well as they should.

Recent work suggests a growing number of companies are engaging in improved water management as part of water stewardship. But the tangible results remain unclear. Who benefits from this corporate engagement, and how is it helping water management beyond the factory fence?

Based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's recent report, Water Management and Stewardship: Taking stock of corporate water behavior, the following trends stand out:

• Distractions abound, with more marketing than investment in water management. Company directors need to move the language of corporate communications beyond corporate circles to become good stewards. If companies are unable to convince their own staff, what chance do they have to adjust practices or, better still, influence their often extensive supply chains to improve water use?


• Core business models are not changing. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth by the United Nations, we will need greener economies. This will require new businesses with new business models that go beyond short-termism and quick returns. For corporate water stewardship to mature, corporate practice must go further toward the standards and guides which have been laid out by international bodies – business federations as well as non-governmental organizations.


• Public regulators must be engaged in stewardship initiatives. Improving regulatory frameworks, data and monitoring is a sure way to increase impact at scale. Improved regulation must improve river health and groundwater sustainability, and therefore the use of water by business sectors. In the agriculture sector, for instance, growing the right crops in the right places can maximize crop production, improve soil condition, store carbon, and reduce overall water use.

Identifying where risks will materialize, and with what implications for operations and procurement, remains a major challenge for multinational companies, IUCN concluded in its report.

Despite water management being an area of growing concern, few company leaders are clear on what actions to take for the medium- and long-term. The CDP report released in November at the U.N. climate negotiations in Marrakech highlights what is at stake – with company-valued water risks reported at $14 billion in 2016, up from $2.6 billion a year earlier.

But it's also worth noting some interesting examples of new approaches to water dialogue involving businesses.

The California Water Action Collective (CWAC) started in 2014 as a response to ongoing water stress. With a population close to 40 million and recurring drought, managing and safeguarding water for California communities, businesses, agriculture and nature will not be solved by government alone.

California uses almost 80 percent of its water resources to grow food. The CWAC aims to develop projects that will support the public policy goals set out in the California State Action Plan. It represents a platform of food and beverage companies, their suppliers, conservation groups, and others trying to solve their water future, and at the same time contribute to public policy needs.

Companies need encouragement to look at new ways of doing business. Corporate water stewardship will only gain traction if companies can see their gain from it -- whether it be brand value, reputation or something else. Innovation in products and processes is already taking place by some leading lights.

To help achieve the SDGs, new investments and new capacities are needed, but so is new business -- business that can translate its success into benefits beyond the company itself; business that can work to improve water quality and physical downstream flows for and with other water users; business that works with regulators to improve overall catchment, and therefore economic health.

Attention to critical economic areas is paramount – protecting and managing our freshwater systems where we most need them and put them under intense pressure should be where corporate water stewardship platforms are established first. Ironically, it may be greenhouse gases that come to the rescue. We use water where we have the highest economic needs – for drinking, growing food, or producing energy.

What became at the COP22 climate negotiations in Marrakech is that agriculture needs to rapidly move to a lower greenhouse gas emitting, lower water use, and higher food production future. It is this triple win that may drive the water stewardship ‘market’ in the future, and the incentive will be reducing energy use, maintaining healthy soils, and improving carbon storage in productive agricultural landscapes.

The fear is that water stewardship gets stuck as a possible brand and revenue generating opportunity and the intrinsic link to the environment and other water users becomes lost. This will make it harder to achieve our catchment, state, and national objectives, and the collective Sustainable Development Goals -- and it may potentially create an environmental future that is difficult and more expensive to correct post-2030.

Image credit: Pexels

James Dalton is the Coordinator of Global Initiatives for the IUCN Global Water Programme based in Switzerland.

Peter Newborne is Research Associate to the ODI Water Policy Programme based in London.

The U.S. tosses a staggering $161 billion worth of food every year. While numerous efforts are underway to address that problem, they are taking place mostly at the local level or in the business sector. While that is necessary, national- and international-level policy has a role to play as well. And that is one area in which Europe is far ahead.

So, how did Europe leapfrog the U.S. in food waste policy? Karen Luyckx, coordinator of the Pig Idea campaign at the European NGO Feedback, a leader in the food waste movement, said it was Tristram Stuart’s book "Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal" that really shined the light on the issue in Europe.

"The incredible grassroots movement that followed in the shape of Disco Soups, gleaning and Feeding the 5,000 events ... throughout Europe was instrumental in getting local-, national- and EU-level authorities to start understanding the issue and the popular appetite to do something about it," Luyckx told TriplePundit.

It is noteworthy that Stuart's book is focused on the big picture -- looking at the global causes, and impacts, of food waste. This broad perspective has been a mainstay of European efforts to reduce waste. And what followed was quite groundbreaking, particularly in some of Europe's biggest countries.

France passed a historic law requiring all large supermarkets to donate unsold food to farms or charities. Italy followed soon thereafter with a law that provided millions in incentives for grocery stores to develop better systems to donate food waste.

In Germany, government officials are aiming to reduce food waste per-capita by 50 percent by 2025. This allows the country to work in conjunction with nonprofits like those running Restlos Gluclich, a restaurant that serves only food items rejected by other vendors. Germany's excellent recycling and waste management system – they banned traditional dumps back in 2005 – also helps.

It's not only individual countries making progress in Europe, but there is also momentum for change at the multinational level. The European Union functions as a single market, allowing for the free flow of goods and labor across its borders. This gives the EU power to regulate and develop strategies for much of the continent because, as we know all too well here at TriplePundit, sustainability is a not a national issue but an international one. And food waste is no different.

"Many supply chains run across borders, and so it makes sense to tackle waste resulting from barriers, issues and unfair trading practices in the supply chain from a cross-border perspective," Luyckx explained.

The European Commission, the chief executive body of the EU, is now working to develop food waste guidelines for the entire 28-country block, as part of a wider program called the Circular Economy Package. By looking at food waste within the larger goal of achieving zero-waste, the Commission can develop strategies that, ideally, will allow the entire continent to be on the same page.

So, why is the U.S. so far behind our brethren in Europe? Part of it is our extremely decentralized waste management system, which puts collection systems in the hands of thousands of different municipalities across the country. Moreover, many of the laws that regulate food waste are at the state level, despite the fact that much of the food we consume crosses state boundaries regularly. And these laws can vary greatly.

Politics is also to blame. Since 2010, when food waste became a global issue, the U.S. has seen unprecedented gridlock in Congress. This kept sustainability out of national-level policymaking -- something that is, unfortunately, unlikely to change with the incoming administration. That means good, common-sense and nearly universally-supported measures, such as Congresswomen Chellie Pingree's (D-Mass.) two bills, the Food Recovery Act and the Food Date Labeling Act, remain stuck in committee.

This is not to say that Europe has solved the food waste problem. It remains an issue there, though at smaller scale than here in the U.S. That's why Luyckx wants to make clear Europe has a lot to do. EU-wide rules for food waste are not yet set, and some policy barriers remain to what she sees as one part of the solution – turning some waste in to animal feed.

Still, the progress Europe has made in such a short time is remarkable. The EU is heading in the right direction, and unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the U.S. as a whole. We could learn a lot from our neighbors across the Atlantic -- and see how strong national policymaking, coordination within and across borders, and dedication can ensure that government supports the burgeoning food waste reduction movement.

Image credit: Tax via Wikimedia Commons

There’s been no lack of controversy over President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks. His nomination of Scott Pruitt (who had been branded a "climate-change skeptic") as head of the Environmental Protection Agency and failed U.S. District Court judge nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, has raised a fair amount of push-back from environmental organizations and civil rights groups who see his top executive choices as alarming at best.

But none of his announcements (save for his perennial tweets) have garnered as much media attention as Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon.

Trump's Dec. 13 appointment of Tillerson as secretary of state left a lot of questions in its wake, mostly around why a CEO of the world’s largest oil explorer with hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in deferred shares would take a position in the Trump administration.

In agreement with Exxon, Tillerson will cede control of about a quarter of a billion dollars in deferred compensation, which Exxon will place in a trust on his behalf. He will also sell some 600,000 shares and leave behind $4.1 million in cash bonuses in an effort to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest in the appointment. He’ll also lose another $3 million in the payout. All of these arrangements will only take place if he passes muster at the Congressional hearings.

But for many members of the Senate taking part in Wednesday’s hearings, Tillerson’s strange financial decisions were the least of their concern. Tillerson’s views on climate change and relationship with Exxon, Russia’s potential and future relationship to the new administration, and Trump’s habitual tweets were among the senators’ biggest concerns.

That’s not to say the nominee's answers were clear-cut. After Sen. Tim Kaine asked him to explain why Exxon had attempted to deny that man-made climate change was possible after its own scientists discovered the phenomena in the 1970s, Tillerson evaded addressing the topic. The exchange became slightly heated.

“Do you lack the knowledge to answer my question, or are you refusing to answer my question?” Kaine asked.

“A little of both,” Tillerson retorted.

As to the concept of climate change, Tillerson was slightly less evasive. He said he came to the conclusion at one point that global warming does exist. But he went on to claim that while greenhouse gasses “are having an effect … our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”

As for climate talks stemming from the Paris agreement, he took a surprising stance in the Wednesday hearing: "We're better served by being at that table than leaving that table."

When it came to Russia, he said that he doubted that the two countries would ever be friends. “[Our] value systems are starkly different,” said the former recipient of Russia’s Order of Friendship. He also objected to Putin being characterized as a war criminal, and was less than forthcoming about his stance when it came to the disappearance of dissidents in Russia.

He was equally nebulous when it came to his role in Exxon’s business dealings. But when asked whether he would recommend sanctions against Russia if Exxon’s business dealings were being impacted by Russia, the former CEO stated that his commitment was to the United States. “If confirmed, I only serve in the interest of the American people.”

When it came to his relationship with his boss and his personal view of Trump’s use of Twitter to convey controversial views and what some perceived as personal attacks, Tillerson’s response was telling. “I don’t think I’ll be telling the boss how to communicate with the American people.”

Whatever the outcome of the Senate hearings, Tillerson will have a ways to go some to garner the ear and the support of many in the public arena. On Tuesday evening, environmental activists made their view of Trump’s latest controversial pick clear, projecting it on the side of the U.S. State Department building in Washington, D.C.

“The Secretary of State is charged with representing U.S. interests around the globe. Rex Tillerson has no diplomatic or government experience and a long track record of putting Exxon’s profits ahead of U.S. interests,” said Naomi Ages, a climate liability campaigner for Greenpeace USA. The organization, which was joined by other environmental NGOs in its protest, is calling on Congress to reject the former Exxon CEO’s nomination.

As with many of the president-elect’s earlier picks, however, Tillerson comes to the table with something that Trump -- a businessman by career -- seems to value: inside understanding of what it takes to make money and make economically- and politically-viable policies.

Whether that’s necessarily a great combination for a public servant with the power to affect human input to climate change and civil rights is a question that this Senate, with all of its healthy skepticism, may be unwilling to address.

Image credit: Tim Aubry/Greenpeace

As the Senate continues confirmation hearings for President-elect Donald Trump's incoming cabinet, a familiar conversation is back in the headlines: the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as Obamacare.

The court of public opinion is fairly split on the plan, but many Americans receiving coverage under ACA remain disappointed by rising premiums -- which spiked by an average of 25 percent this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

While the president-elect and members of Congress often insinuate that flaws inherent to the plan are to blame for hefty premium hikes, supporters of ACA point to a scantly-reported legislative action as the main cause for price increases.

We'll break it down quickly: The ACA initially included a provision, called the risk corridors program, to offset insurer losses in the first three years of the exchange. The program was intended to give insurers wiggle room as they figured out how to price plans on the marketplace. Insurance companies that made profits above a certain level paid into the program, while those with higher-than-anticipated medical claims received payouts.

The program would have expired at the end of last year. But a provision added to the federal budget in 2014 -- which required risk corridors to be revenue-neutral -- significantly limited their function long before that. Because the program could only pay out what it received, the Department of Health said it would pay only 12.6 percent of the risk-corridor requests for 2014, a funding gap that persisted in the following years, reports Modern Healthcare.

If you're interested in the broader backstory on risk corridors and ACA premiums, the Modern Healthcare piece is a must-read. But most of us can imagine the effect of paying insurers less than 13 percent of what they anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year. Many insurers closed down. Several sued to recoup overdue payments. And almost all warned of potential premium upticks due to increased financial uncertainty.

Such hikes are certainly upon us now. But despite high prices, even some Republicans in Congress are reticent to repeal the ACA without settling on an effective replacement -- inferring that such a move could incite chaos in the insurance market and leave millions without coverage.

A trio of studies released since the election point to yet another unintended consequence of repealing Obamacare without a replacement: lost jobs and revenue for local economies. And given the incoming administration's focus on jobs and "common sense" economics, the findings could throw a serious wrench in plans for an ACA repeal.

Could an ACA repeal cost jobs?

Vann R. Newkirk II of the Atlantic profiled the studies in an analysis published on Tuesday. Two of the research teams hypothesized the economic effects of a law similar to H.R. 3762, an ACA-repeal measure passed by Congress and vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2015.

The measure -- which would have eliminated employer and individual insurance mandates immediately, and cut Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies over two years -- is fairly similar to the so-called "repeal and delay" plan making its way through Congress today.

In December, Laurel Lucia and Ken Jacobs of the University of California, Berkeley, examined how a law similar to the 2015 resolution would affect California. Their findings were unsettling: "The net effect of partial ACA repeal would be the loss of 209,000 jobs" in the state, if no replacement is introduced.

Although the majority (135,000) of those jobs are in the healthcare industry, the risk also extends to other sectors. "Suppliers of the healthcare industry, such as food service, janitorial and accounting firms, would experience reduced demand, leading to job loss. The lost jobs also include those lost due to the 'induced effect' of healthcare workers spending less at restaurants, retail stores, and other local businesses," the team concluded.

Last week, researchers from George Washington University and the Commonwealth Fund expanded this analysis to all 50 states. Their conclusions are equally disturbing:

"Repeal results in a $140 billion loss in federal funding for health care in 2019, leading to the loss of 2.6 million jobs (mostly in the private sector) that year across all states," wrote the research team headed by Leighton Ku of Georgetown.

"... If replacement policies are not in place, there will be a cumulative $1.5 trillion loss in gross state products and a $2.6 trillion reduction in business output from 2019 to 2023."

The knee-jerk reaction for many who look at these numbers is to ask: Okay, but how do those financial losses stack up with what the federal government would have spent on ACA for those five years? Wouldn't most of those dollars come from the federal government anyway?

It turns out, not so much, say the researchers. According to their findings, federal investment in ACA actually yields a pretty solid return. States could expect to receive a little over $800 billion in Obamacare funds from 2019 through 2023 -- which is certainly a sizable sum, but the numbers above put it into perspective when it comes to ROI.

It's also worth noting that almost all of these at-risk jobs are in the private sector. And on average across all 50 states, according to the Georgetown study, only a third are in the healthcare field -- with the others coming from industries spanning construction, real estate and finance.

The ACA as an economic stimulus

The Berkeley researchers spoke of the "induced effect" ACA spending has on the economy -- a factor also noted by the Georgetown team: "Health care will comprise almost one-fifth (18.5 percent) of the nation’s economy by 2019," they insisted. "As such, major changes to health care will reverberate across other parts of the economy."

In other words, inferred Newkirk of the Atlantic, "Federal funding for the Affordable Care Act works as a general economic stimulus." That's why the employment and business output that can be traced back to ACA funding extends far beyond the healthcare sector.

But does this argument have teeth? A study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine takes a look, using Michigan's Medicaid expansion as an example.

Under ACA, the federal government now pays the full cost of Medicaid expansion in Michigan and 31 other states -- a total that will drop to 90 percent by 2020. Researchers from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, estimate this increased Medicaid spending created 39,000 new jobs in Michigan as of last year, a number expected to stabilize at about 30,000 jobs by 2021. Two-thirds of these jobs are outside the healthcare sector, and all could be at risk if funding is cut.

And, according to the Georgetown research, ending Medicare expansion could carry financial repercussions even for the 19 states that did not choose to expand Medicaid.

“Our initial guess was that obviously most of the effect was going to occur among the 32 states that expanded Medicaid,” Ku of Georgetown told the Atlantic. “We were surprised at the fact that there were large effects for the non-expanding states.”

Again, Ku cited the broader stimulus of ACA spending, saying funding changes would affect "people in expansion states working in, working for, and purchasing goods from businesses in non-expansion states," Newkirk reported. This would result in the loss of over 300,000 jobs in non-expansion states in 2019 alone if the funding is cut.

The bottom line

It's important to note that these are just hypotheses.

As the Georgetown researchers underscored: "Other health policy changes, or even changes to tax policy, could modify our projections" -- meaning a replacement plan from Congressional Republicans, if one is ever put forth, could change the employment and financial landscape outlined above.

But the findings certainly give Congress a gristly bit of fat to chew as they consider rushing a repeal of ACA without a replacement. And as Americans prepare to rally at demonstrations across the country on Sunday, organized by Congressional Democrats to oppose an ACA repeal, the spotlight illuminating their decision shows no signs of dimming any time soon.

Image credit: Flickr/U.S. Embassy Kabul Afghanistan

ExxonMobil insists it supports the Paris climate agreement. And the company is beginning to prepare for an economic future in which greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants are significantly lower than they are now. That doesn't mean, though, that ExxonMobil plans to do any less drilling.

In the latest development, ExxonMobil is planning to build what is reported to be the world's largest ethane cracker. It is on track to be constructed in the Corpus Christie area of Texas, unless local protestors succeed in blocking it.

World's largest ethane cracker

For those of you new to the topic, ethane is a component of natural gas and natural gas liquids. It can also be derived from petroleum as part of the refining process. It is used to produce ethylene in a process called cracking, and the facility designed to do that is called an ethane cracker.

The trade organization AFPM (American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers) describes ethylene as "one of the most important chemicals in American manufacturing." Among other uses, it is the main building block in manufacturing plastics. While not a direct, high-volume contributor to global warming, a new ethylene plant causes many concerns for local air and water quality.

That importance is reflected in ExxonMobil's growth plans. In 2014, ExxonMobil announced a major expansion of its petrochemical facility in Baytown, Texas -- indicating that the company intends to capitalize on low shale gas prices over the long run by moving into high-value chemical products. As described by a report in Platts, the expansion includes an ethane cracker and related systems.

Last July, Platts confirmed that ExxonMobil anticipates a "steady increase in chemical demand through 2040." That optimism is reflected in outsized plans for the proposed new facility, which ExxonMobil will build in partnership with Saudi Arabia's Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC):

"The two companies said earlier this week they are considering locations in South Texas and Louisiana for a proposed multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex anchored by a world-scale ethane-fed steam cracker," Platts found. "The project would feature a 1.8 million metric tons/year ethylene-capacity steam cracker that would feed a monoethylene glycol plant and two polyethylene plants."

Here are more details about the new petrochemical facility from the Houston Chronicle:

"The project could come online as early as 2020, which would coincide with the anticipated rebound in the global petrochemical market, which, like its feedstocks, oil and natural gas, is struggling with a supply glut," wrote Jordan Blum of the Chronicle. "The plan is to take advantage of cheap and ample shale natural gas available here to make chemicals and plastics."

According to Platts, ExxonMobil foresees enough growth in demand to support additional capacity in the future.

On its part, SABIC is consolidating its U.S. activities in Houston with an eye toward global growth.

Who pays up when ExxonMobil doubles down on shale gas?

ExxonMobil has been planning ahead for its transition into petrochemicals and natural gas. The company is historically known for its oil ventures, but by 2012 it was aggressively promoting itself as a natural gas company.

By 2014, when a drop in the price of natural gas was driving other companies out of the market, ExxonMobil was gobbling up shale reserves in the U.S.

That focus on natural gas has made ExxonMobil one of the driving forces behind the decline of the U.S. coal industry. (In 2013, the company also released a study nailing coal for higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, compared to natural gas.)

The company's CEO Rex Tillerson recently left the company in order to pursue a role as Secretary of State under President-elect Donald Trump. He's now being vetted by the Senate, but there is little doubt that he'll be bringing his decades of international business dealings in the extractives sector to the new position if confirmed. This may well include public pressure for the advancement of natural gas resources over coal.

That's a good thing in terms of reducing global warming emissions from power plants. But evidence is beginning to demonstrate that methane emissions along the natural gas supply chain are a significant factor in climate change.

The local impacts of natural gas facilities and fracking operations are also beginning to attract more attention, including complaints of air and noise pollution as well as earthquakes linked to fracking wastewater disposal.

In sum, the proposed new facility will create hundreds of permanent jobs in the Corpus Christie area, but it will generate the potential for new risks and hazards in other communities that host shale gas reserves and infrastructure for transportation and storage.

Adding to the hurt, reports Blum of the Houston Chronicle, much of the output from the plant will not go to create additional jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Most of the output from the new facility is destined for overseas markets:

"The petrochemical complex would include the world's largest ethane cracker, capable of producing 1.8 million metric tons of ethylene annually," Blum wrote.

"The joint venture also would build units to churn out polyethylene, the most common plastic, as well as a unit for monoethylene glycol, which is used in plastics, latex paints, automotive coolants and anti-freeze, according to Exxon. Much of the products would be exported."

About that Texas location...

ExxonMobil and SABIC are apparently still considering two locations in Texas and one in Louisiana. But the latest news indicates that one site just outside of the city of Portland has emerged as a favorite.

As the Corpus Christie Caller-Times reported last month, local officials have not consolidated opposition to the proposed facility, but they are asking the partners to consider another location because the proposed site is about 1.5 miles from the local high school.

Meanwhile, local residents opposed to the plant started a Change.org petition with the following pitch:

"Exxon Mobil and SABIC (Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp.) want to build a massive steam cracker plant and a polyethylene plant off of Highway 181 and Wildcat Drive. This petrochemical complex will dwarf the towns of Gregory and Portland, Texas and diminish our quality of life forever ..."

Adding to the tension is the recent water pollution scare in Corpus Christie. The city (population 300,000+) experienced an emergency water use ban last month, resulting from industrial backflow linked to a local refinery.

The New ExxonMobil facility would draw water from local suppliers for both industrial and potable uses.

Photo (cropped): Exxon by Mike Mozart via flickr.com, creative commons license.

Save

All it takes is a glance at Singapore’s water conservation strategy to realize the city-state understands the importance of conserving water. Singapore seems to have a better grasp on water conservation than even California, a state that has suffered six long years of drought and has become one of America's conservation leaders.

Singapore’s water demand is about 430 million gallons daily, but it's likely to double by 2061 when its current water agreement with Malaysia runs out, Motherboard contributor Meredith Rutland Bauer wrote in an analysis published last week.

The government wants to reduce domestic water consumption from the current 151 liters to 147 liters per person, per day by 2020. So, lawmakers want to make every resident aware of the need for water conservation. As Singapore’s national water agency, PUB, states on its website: “Every drop counts, every contribution matters, no matter how big or small.”

Singapore's water supply comes from four different sources, which it calls the Four National Taps, that supply water to over 5 million people. The Four National Taps consist of water from the following:

• Local catchment: Rainwater that is collected and stored in the country’s 17 reservoirs and treated to become drinking water. Singapore is one of the few nations in the world to harvest urban rainwater on a large scale to be used for drinking water.


• Imported water: The country imports water from Malaysia’s Johor River and will be able to do so until 2061.


• Reclaimed water: Used water that is treated and recycled. It is able to meet about 40 percent of Singapore’s water needs, but the government plans to expand the capacity of reclaimed water to meet 55 percent of water needs.


• Desalinated water meets 25 percent of the country’s water needs. Singapore plans to increase desalinated water production to meet 30 percent of its water needs by 2060.

The Water Resources Institute ranked Singapore as one of the most water-stressed countries in the world in 2015. Singapore is one of eight countries most vulnerable to disruption of its water supply. The tiny country lacks enough room to collect and store all the water it needs, according to a 2016 publication by PUB called Our Water, Our Future. So, Singapore developed the Four National Taps.

There was a time in Singapore’s history, about 50 years ago, when people had to line up in the streets for water during periods of water rationing caused by prolonged dry spells. However, in a few decades, PUB has been able to transform the country into one where water people have no memory of the water rationing.

It did so by “tapping technology and embarking on ambitious engineering projects,” as PUB’s publication states. Singapore began collecting and treating rainwater, reclaiming water used by its citizens and building desalination plants.

PUB launched water conservation awareness programs in 2009 and claims that water conservation “has become an inseparable part of the people, public and private sectors.”

The awareness programs typically run during the drier period from January to April and has support from supermarket and fast food chains. They typically consist of television commercials, a radio jingle, posters and handbooks available in print on the Internet, a mobile showroom rolled out in shopping malls, social media campaigning, and online games.

What California can learn from Singapore

Just as Singapore is a water-poor place, so is California, the most populous state in the U.S. At the moment, a big swath of the state is experiencing what meteorologists are calling a super storm.

As the Weather Channel described it, the state has gone from drought to deluge. Some parts of the Sierra Nevada Mountains received up to 12 inches of rain. Unfortunately, the state severely lacks storage to capture all of that rainwater and has had to release water from its reservoirs in order to avoid flooding.

The Pacific Institute describes storms in California as both a blessing and a curse: The state and its residents desperately need every drop of rainfall, but storms can often bring floods and mudslides. And the state lacks the storage to capture those precious drops of water falling from the sky.

What California needs is not more surface storage or new dams. What is needed is groundwater recharge. The state is pumping groundwater at an unsustainable rate.

One district in the state’s San Joaquin Valley, the Alta Irrigation District, is bucking this trend. It puts excess water in small recharge ponds during wet periods to refill its groundwater. During dry periods, groundwater is pumped out to meet water needs.

As Pacific Institute describes, “Done right, this is a sustainable, brilliant, water-management tool.” And it is a tool every major watershed in the Golden State should watch. 

Image credit: Flickr/Shlabotnik

By Gaurav Bhattacharya 

New startups are launched every day. Some die slow, agonizing, painful deaths and fade into oblivion, while others go on to fly high. These 13 are exceeding expectations, all while giving back to the community in the form of charitable and social work.

1. Maker’s Kit

Founded in 2014, this Los Angeles-based company specializes in offering do-it-yourself project kits. The kits are paired with how-to videos featuring the company founders. This is a classic example of startups which are very much rooted in the community and are working to support social causes.

In the words of company founder Mike Stone: “We believe that everyone can benefit from being creative and we're bringing that idea to life by partnering with PS ARTS and Pledge 1%. With every MakersKit.com purchase, we're able to support arts programs in public schools and give kids the supplies they need to be creative."

2. Founder Institute

The Founder Institute, an idea-stage accelerator, helps aspiring entrepreneurs to form and improve their business ideas and build their company.

Founder Institute used its corporate social responsibility program to not only do good in the community, but also as a team-development activity! (Check out its work with Habitat for Humanity above.) Doing good along with your co-workers builds a strong, positive bond amongst the team members, thus improving interpersonal relationships.

3. Charity Cab

Charity Cab, a startup based in the Tri-Valley area just north of San Francisco, is working on the concept of the traditional cab model that supports the community.

This small taxi company offers services like airport transit, with a portion of proceeds going to a notable charity. So far, the company has donated over $24,000. Now that’s a lot of charity for such a small upstart.

4. Grindr

The Hollywood-based startup Grindr has increased its popularity ever since it earned the title of "the gay dating app." As a company, it speaks openly in favor of supporting LGBT issues. To make this startup even more lovable, it contributes a part of its proceeds toward fighting transphobia and homophobia in sports.

5. Mogl

Mogl, the company behind a restaurant rewards app of the same name, is focussed on giving back to the community. And it says each employee is highly mission-driven and wants to make an impact. Employees often attend fundraisers, go to team-volunteering opportunities and participate in beach cleanups.

6. OneHope Wine

Since its founding in 2007, OneHope Wine has grown considerably. Based in El Segundo, the startup has deeply ingrained philanthropy in its DNA. The company exploited the idea of drinking for charity considering the fact it’s something that most Americans will support enthusiastically.

Since its inception, the startup has donated over $2 million. Additionally, it has provided over 2,600 clinical trials to treat cancer patients, distributed 1.1 million meals to children, offered lifesaving vaccinations and lots more.

7. Thrive Market

In addition to offering environmentally-friendly and healthy products, this startup is all about supporting the community.

The company helps low-income families get healthier foods and partnered up with programs like Feeding America to offer free memberships for its healthy meal subscription service.

The startup also launched the Thrive Market Cares program in December to leverage social media shares into philanthropy. For every post shared to Twitter, Instagram or Facebook with the hashtag #ThriveMarket, the company donated $5 in groceries to low-income families last month.

8. SnackNation

The Culver City, California-based startup SnackNation offers snack subscription services. The subscription was primarily intended as a B2B healthy snacking for offices. But the company recently started offering services to individuals as well.

The startup is doing its fair share of community work by donating 10 meals to a family for every box of snacks it ships. The meals are offered to families that are enrolled with the Feeding America program.

9. DogVacay

This Santa Monica, California-based startup is well aware of American’s love for dogs. The company help dog owners find sitters and has also taken a step forward to help pets in bad situations: In 2012, when Hurricane Sandy hit America, the company started DogVacay Disaster Relief Program to help dog owners stay prepared in the event of a disaster.

10. DDG (Disease Diagnostic Group)

This tech startup recently attracted funding from Chinese investors. Founded by John Lewandowski, a student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, DDG invented a magneto-optical technology to diagnose diseases like malaria faster. The technology is available at a much lesser price than the currently available solutions.

11. Goodworld

This startup based in Washington, D.C. is exploiting the power of viral content that is circulated on social media to support philanthropy work.

At its core, Goodworld is all about making it easy to give money by utilizing the power of social media. The startup feels that the power of sharing and posting information on social sites is an untapped resource to change the way people give and how much of it they give.

12. Trifacta

This startup from San Francisco is another fine example of a tech company that is working to make the world a better place. Trifacta has partnered up with many nonprofits to help them standardize and organize their data, thus making their services easily affordable to most organizations.

13. Skyless Games Studios

This startup based in Philadelphia uses the power of gaming to empower and support various educational, social and philanthropy issues. The company is doing its bit toward promoting a healthier tomorrow by creating fun, engaging games that showcase a cause which people support.

Image credits: 1) Founder Institute; 2) Mogl

Gaurav is the CEO and co-founder of Involve which is a software as a service platform to help companies and its employees give back to their favorite causes by creating personalized giving and volunteering opportunities. He actively participates in the LA tech innovation ecosystem through panel discussions and mentoring. Gaurav started his career by starting a medical software business while still in high school and is an accomplished technology leader with 6 years of team and program leadership with PwC, Montgomery County & Cymer. When he’s not working with the tech community, Gaurav enjoys volunteering for local events with his team. You can follow Involve on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.