Search

Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared on Bond Street.

By the Bond Street Editorial Staff

There are few hardware stores that can brag of hosting 300-person art shows or can claim they have a pot-bellied pig parked in the backyard. Fewer still can be spotted in the background of Alexander Wang campaigns, models bedecked in expensive jumpers and coil chain. But Crest Hardware, a North Brooklyn staple, is known for all of these things and more. That they’re not just relied upon for their hammers and nails is proof positive that the store has, since current owner Joe Franquinha’s father, Manny, opened its doors in 1962, been diligently inserting itself into the fiber of the community it exists within, sometimes in the most unexpected of ways. Crest Hardware’s reach extends far behind the handle of a rake, so to speak.

In a world increasingly dominated by big-box stores swallowing mom-and-pops whole, what has kept Crest Hardware in business has been its very mom-and-popness. While Manny laid some serious groundwork over the last fifty-plus years, Joe has come in and pushed forward some more modern ideas. Longer hours, for one. A social media presence, additionally. But the core of Crest remains the same: to be a trusted one-stop shop for locals. It is that balance between old and new that kept them popular not only with the latest wave of Williamsburg newcomers, but with the originals—what has traditionally been a deeply Italian-American enclave. It’s no small feat to update a small business enough to make it relevant, while not turning away long-time patrons.

The balance can perhaps be attributed to the meeting—or battle, on occasion—of two minds. Manny brings with him years of practical experience and knowledge. Joe delivers a fresh eye, keeping the business competitive in an ever-changing landscape — hosting holiday pop-up shops at The Standard hotel, appearing in short films and even letting a company 3D scan that very same pig we mentioned earlier. Crest Hardware remains, frankly, cooler than the big-box chains precisely because of its idiosyncrasies. Because if you can’t beat your competitor on price, you sure better have a better looking canvas tote bag—and probably some quality power tools.

Bond Street got a chance to talk to Joe about how Crest Hardware has managed to stay a relevant presence in North Brooklyn using a combination of creativity, community, and old school know-how.

Bond Street: How did you get involved in the family business?

Joe Franquinha: My father started the shop in 1962. I grew up in the New York area, so Williamsburg is very much second skin. I went to Fordham University in the Bronx. I graduated in ‘04. By the mid- to late-2000s, I went from an administrative role to owner.

Bond Street: Did you always expect to be part of the family business?

JF: No, never. I didn’t think it was part of the formula for me at all. I had eyes on a whole bunch of stuff, maybe even moving out of New York. I was doing a lot of acting at the time. I just didn’t see the store for what it really truly was. As far as deciding to jump in, there was no real “ah-ha” moment; it just kind of crept into my subconscious and I realized that the store was an amazing opportunity to make a living, to contribute to the community, to do things on my terms, and to still flex my creative muscles. Anything I wanted to try, as long as it wasn’t costing the store a ton of money, I could—I could take some financial risks in order for the shop to grow.

Bond Street: Do you think your diverse interests influence how you run the store today?

JF: One-hundred percent. I think that is why I enjoy it as much as I do: because I’ve been able to make the store very much my own. At the same time, I’m constantly reminding myself that Crest was as successful as it was before I had a decision-making role. I think my creativity has brought it full circle and has made it a destination for an entirely new generation and demographic of people. But my dad must have been doing something right for the first 48 years before I got there. I’d be foolish to discredit or ignore that.

When my administrative role was growing and [my dad] was still the boss, it looked like a National Geographic scene of two rams battling for supremacy. Now I can look back and willingly admit that a lot of things where I was too overzealous with, like thinking we could change X and Y within a year. My dad had the knowledge to tell me otherwise, and explain that you don’t build a business like this overnight. It takes time. I always call him my “Hardware Yoda.” He’d give me these cryptic mantras with no real explanation; he’d let me figure out what the answer should be.

Bond Street: Are there things in particular that you thought you could accomplish really quickly that you learned wouldn’t be possible?

JF: There’s a ton of stuff. I wanted to rip off the Band-Aids. We’re talking mid-2000s, post-recession. I had all of these ideas to save us money and have us be profitable—some required cutting certain employee-related stuff. But my dad has seen tough financial times before. He wasn’t going to cut employees. It taught me the importance of them coming first. At the end of the day, our employees are the building blocks and the foundation of the shop. Better for me to be cutting my salary. That’s a tough lesson for a new administrative to learn.

Bond Street: And that’s a lesson your dad surely learned over decades in business.

JF: There were tougher times. There was undoubtedly weeks and months from ‘62 onward where my dad was the last to get a paycheck, if a paycheck at all. He would cut his salary instead in order to attain long-term goals as a business.

Bond Street: What are some of the changes you’ve made coming into the business?

JF: For 48 years, we were never open on Sunday. Obviously Williamsburg is changing today, but it was mostly an old school Catholic Italian American demographic for a long time. There used to be an understanding that you can’t get lightbulbs or a plunger on Sunday. You do that all on Saturday. That’s not the formula anymore. We can’t afford to do that. I wanted to be open on Sundays the same amount of hours, year-round. My dad was like, “Listen, if you’re going to do this, how about we start with limited and seasonal hours.” Move slowly. One of the things I added to the store was a garden center, seasonal plant merchandise. But that’s the type of stuff people buy on the weekends. I was trying to explain that to my dad, which he understood, but he wanted to ease into it, otherwise you’re going to have a mutiny on your hand. You’ve got long-term employees that you don’t want to upset.

Bond Street: So the pushback wasn’t from a neighborhood traditionalist; it would have been from employees?

JF: Oh, yeah. It wasn’t the neighborhood at all. For them, I think it was really one of those “hallelujah” moments. But the lesson from my dad was not to just open the flood gates right away—slowly ease your way into change.

Bond Street: I imagine when your dad started Crest it was an all-paper business. How was that changed?

JF: All paper. We’re talking a sliding credit card machine. Again, I utilized the whole MO of slow changes—it’s a marathon not a race. We changed over to digital little by little. One of the first things we did was digitize our entire inventory and get computerized POS systems and have credit cards that were all tied in. Then we increased our digital and social media presence.

They say you’re supposed to spend 1 percent of your annual revenue on marketing and branded advertising, but that’s still a lot of money for a small business. We did it slowly. As we waited, a lot of that technology became less expensive to dive into, like website templates. That kind of stuff saves you a lot of money because you’re able to do it yourself.

Bond Street: And that wasn’t the case when you came on.

JF: I was asking for favors left and right. I was offering discounts and trades to graphic designers in order to get where we wanted to be. You gotta do what you gotta do.

Bond Street: In terms of less traditional marketing, Crest Hardware used to host the Crest Fest neighborhood festival, as well as an art show. How time intensive of a marketing effort was that?

JF: Definitely time intensive, which is why we don’t do Crest Fest anymore. For the most part, it was just my wife and I and one other friend producing an entire art show with upwards of 300 artists and installed in a retail environment. Crest Fest and the art show were amazing for the community. It was an all ages event, free to attend, but very, very time consuming for us. And we were putting it on during our busiest time of year. The day of the festival, sales were actually lower, but the stream of the foot traffic it created both day-of and long-term was really where the value was. Obviously I love the community and civic aspect of it. That’s always been one of the #1 things my father and my mother both preached to me: the civic mindedness of washing the other hand.

Bond Street: How important is it to you to be something bigger in the community than a hardware store?

JF: Massive. It’s equally important to me to do things like the Crest Fest as it is being profitable. For me, it’s a symbiotic relationship. I can’t do one without the other. It’s part of our identity. If we lose our identity then we lose everything, and we might as well just roll over and wait for a big-box store to come and swallow us whole. It’s what helps Crest Hardware stand heads above the competition and above other hardware stores, but more importantly above bland and sterile big-box corporate locations that sell the same product.

Bond Street: Does your old-school identity and community involvement keep the neighborhood loyal to you?

JF: One-hundred percent. There’s so many wonderful examples of it. You know, there are days as a small business owner when you think, “Why am I even doing this?” Every year there are new rules, new regulations, new fines to pay. But then you see a customer who comes in day-in day-out have a kid and then they bring their kid to the hardware store for the first time. Or a young guy and gal have their parents in town and want to show them the cool area and they bring them to the hardware store. Like, are you serious? You know how many times I’ve heard that? It never gets old. It almost makes me want to cry sometimes.

Bond Street: I imagine that gives you a sense of grander purpose, keeping Crest Hardware alive in the community?

JF: It’s not just about legacy. I know people that run family business that are guilted into a legacy. They know that the business model works so they don’t add anything, they don’t take anything away. And they live this miserable existence punching a clock. That’s boring. How can you want to live that type of life when there are so many easy steps you can take to make yourself a viable part of the community?

I don’t really do the typical type of advertising. It goes back to these events that we do. Is the civic part of it important? One-hundred percent. But like I was saying: we do something like Crest Fest or the art show or the pumpkin carving contest and it creates foot traffic. As far as marketing goes, you can either create an ad and hope that you get foot traffic or you create an event that is different and unique—maybe throw in some free food and booze—and you’ve got a whole bunch of people in the door and it inspires them to shop local and to put their money back in the community.

I don’t go up to every customer and spew out local business facts like, “Hey, for every dollar you spend it puts 30 percent more back into a local economy. It helps my employees live locally. Those dollars are spent and recycled within the neighborhood.” Brooklyn gets a lot of flack for this obsession with local this and local that. It’s easy to make fun of, but a lot of people don’t realize the actual benefits of it.

Bond Street: How do you protect your business in a rapidly changing landscape like Williamsburg?

JF: You gotta be aware of the businesses and your environment around you. For instance, I watched all those 99-cent and value stores close up—that’s where a lot of people were getting their inexpensive housewares. So I had to recognize that and say, “I don’t want to offer that low quality stuff but I think there’s a void in the market and I can offer a better selection to customers that need it.” It’s about versatility.

We try to keep a general store vibe, being able to go to one place and get everything. We’re not giving you everything under the sun, but we’re giving you what we think you need in order to survive, and curate it and make it cool. It takes a lot of time. It takes years. Just like my dad said, it takes years.

Images courtesy of Crest Hardware/Bond Street 

If you care about the environment and sustainability, it’s time to include the greenwashing of carpet waste management as one of your concerns.

Greenwashing, of course, refers to a product, service or legislation that purports to have environmental benefits, but actually doesn’t. The general public is perhaps most familiar with the term as it applies to food. The color green and the slogan “good for the earth” may appear on food packaging. But that’s no guarantee the food in it is raised or shipped sustainably, or is even healthy for you. The companies that do this kind of packaging are engaging in greenwashing.

Greenwashing in the carpet waste industry is much less well known. It’s a huge environmental problem, however. Greenwashing occurs at the level of both industry statements and legislation, because laws designed to recycle and reuse carpet waste do not in fact promote environmentally sustainable practices. Read on for more information about carpet waste management and what should be done to combat greenwashing.

The scope of the problem

The amount of carpet manufactured in the U.S. is significant. The American carpet industry makes 45 percent of the carpet used worldwide, more than any other single country.

The U.S. carpet industry produced 11.7 billion square feet of carpet and rugs in 2014. That figure is expected to be 14.6 billion in 2019, an increase of 4.5 percent every year.

When new carpets are placed into U.S. homes, old carpets are torn up and discarded. It is often not, however, discarded in an environmentally sustainable way.

In fact, 89 percent of discarded carpet ends up in U.S. landfills. Carpets alone constitute more than 3.5 percent of all materials placed in U.S. landfills every year. It equates to 4 billion pounds of material.

Carpets placed in landfills pose significant environmental hazards. If the carpet is made from synthetic materials, it degrades in landfills slowly and takes up space. Degrading carpets can also contribute to methane emissions.

The environmental effects don’t end with land and air. Carpets in landfills can leach dangerous chemicals which can eventually end up in the water supply. The chemicals, used for stain resistance in carpets, include formaldehyde and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Some chemicals, like perchlorate, are used for treatments against static.

Six percent of discarded carpet is burned. Last year, 206 million pounds of carpet were burned in municipal incinerators and cement kilns.

Like landfilling, incinerating carpet has deleterious environmental effects. Burning waste carpet causes more greenhouses gases than coal. And many carpets contain polyvinyl chloride (PVC). If carpets made with PVC are incinerated, dioxin will result. Dioxin has been proven to cause cancer. Mercury and lead can also be released from incinerated carpet.

How carpet waste is greenwashed

Currently, just 5 percent of carpet waste is recycled.

Six years ago, California signed into law the country's first carpet waste management legislation, AB 2398. The law was intended to make carpet manufacturers responsible for managing their waste. It was also planned to make the method of waste management recycling, rather than landfill or incineration.

However, the carpet industry fought AB 2398 from its inception. First, they shifted the method of payment from industry-sponsored to consumer-sponsored. When the bill was finally passed, consumers were charged the fees that underwrite a collection and waste management system that is run by carpet producers. The fee to consumers will be 25 cents per square yard beginning in 2017.

Because most of the financial burden was put on consumers, the bill represents a significant lost opportunity to incentivize carpet manufacturers to ensure recyclable products. This could be done via designing carpet to use more recyclable materials, or designing so that more recyclable materials would remain at lifecycle end, or simply promoting greater reuse.

Instead, what happened was greenwashing. A bill was passed purporting to better the management of carpet waste, but better management did not really occur.

Recycling of carpet waste has not improved since the bill was passed. In addition, the amount of carpet waste sent to incinerators has more than doubled.

California hoped to recycle 16 percent of its carpet waste by 2016. But the state never came close. For both 2014 and 2015, in fact, the recycling rate for carpet waste in the state dropped from 12 percent to 10 percent.

What should be done?

Since good management of carpet waste is important to both the earth’s resources and human health, the organization GAIA proposes several measures to make sure that the waste management promotes sustainability, not just gives the impression that something is being done.

It proposes stronger legislation in California to promote carpet waste sustainability, including amending the legislation so that manufacturers pay for eliminating carpet waste and recycling.

It also believes that manufacturers should be banned from incinerating their products as a method of waste disposal, and that landfill disposal should be limited.

Finally, GAIA proposes that carpet waste should have adequate and easy collection. If homeowners, property management companies, and manufacturers all join forces to fix this problem, greenwashing carpet waste can be stopped.

Greenwashing of all types diverts attention from how to best ensure sustainability and good stewardship of the earth. More knowledge of carpet waste greenwashing should result in improved recycling methods and better legislation.

Image via Pexels

Given the typical irreverence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, I’m pondering something I think he might like to know: He could be the Screwworm Mayor.

Some of you may know that the lowly screwworm threatened Southwestern cattle in the 20th century, decimating Texas ranchers’ livestock with the wasting disease it triggered.  The tenacity of those hard-scrabble ranchers in the Southwest Cattleman’s Association eradicated this invasive pest by introducing of millions of screwworm flies sterilized by radioactivity. (You with me, Rahm.) The Association contends that this was the most beneficial 20th-century program to livestock producers than any other.*

As science and policy swirls around the introduction of sterile male mosquitoes to help eliminate the global scourge of malaria in some regions, Chicago has its local version.  Here’s our story: In 1986, the mosquito Aedes albopictus – also known as the Asian tiger mosquito – arrived by way of standing water in used tires (which had come full circle from stripped rubber rings in the U.S., then via ship to Asia to be retread and home again) and bamboo.

The mosquito survived in Chicago, despite being well outside its native range, because of the urban heat island effect that increases the temperature of urban areas with lots of black, heat-trapping surfaces. (Think: tar paper roofs and asphalt roads and parking lots.)  In the meantime, while shipping rules for tires and bamboo  prevented the introduction of more of these pests, every year (10 generations in a mosquito’s life) some live on in Chicagoland, contributing to our mosquito population. As the climate changes, the range for this mosquito will move north.

What if Chicago established a Midwest Mosquito Infertility Association, introducing sterile males specifically for this invasive pest, thus halting that progression?

While mosquito fertility is a topic of much debate, the unique situation of Tigris mosquitos in Chicago gives us a chance to control this experiment and address two of the biggest issues in that debate: One, the population affected isn’t over an entire continent or state (making it harder to eradicate, given the scale of effort), and two, the population is not native to the area (thereby, the web of life does not depend on its existence to keep itself in balance).

Let’s give those tiger mosquitos a wrangle!

*Update:  Those sterile males may need to be called back into service.  The Washington Post reported this fall:  Screwworm outbreak in Florida deer marks first U.S. invasion of the parasite in 30 years.

Image credit: Agricultural Research Service via Wikimedia Commons

Joyce Coffee is president of Climate Resilience Consulting, based in Chicago, Illinois, and working with leaders to create strategies that protect and enhance markets and livelihoods through adaptation to climate change.

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads, and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

As we prepare to turn our calendars from one year to another, there's likely much about 2016 we'd prefer to leave behind. But some of the biggest issues that shaped the public discourse this year will be with us long into the future.

If you care for a catch-up, we've got you covered. Make the most of that holiday downtime with some of TriplePundit's best original reporting on topics that are sure to stick around in 2017 and beyond.

The Flint water crisis: A look back on how we got into this mess

Reporting from 3p's Andrea Newell

In March 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan, changed its water source to save money. While awaiting the construction of a new water pipeline, officials tapped the Flint River as a water source for the city of 100,000. By now, most of us know what happened next.

Water from the Flint River is far more corrosive than the prior water source, and no anticorrosive agent was used. This allowed lead from aging pipes to enter drinking water, and residents complained of ailments like rashes and hair loss. The city and state initially downplayed these concerns. It wasn't until over a year later, when a local pediatrician noticed elevated levels of lead in her young patients, that the state admitted the water was unsafe.

Michigan resident and 3p contributor Andrea Newell took a particular interest in the story. And she applied her knowledge of Michigan law to analyze how the state and city could have bungled the situation so badly.

We're now a year further down the road, and many Flint residents still do not have safe water flowing through their taps. Felony charges continue to roll in for state officials. And adding insult to injury, Flint residents say the state has failed to make good on its promises to provide bottled water.

As we continue to watch this story develop in 2017, Andrea's in-depth coverage is worth a read. You can find it here. 

CSR in Silicon Valley

Reporting from the 3p editorial staff

Thanks to the influx of large tech companies, the San Francisco Bay Area has ballooned in both wealth and population over the past two decades. But the picture isn’t always as pretty as those postcards of the Golden Gate Bridge.

As companies continue to pressure Bay Area communities to build new office parks, they often fail to lobby for housing and transportation options to go along with them, placing a strain on local infrastructure. And more highly-paid residents means more shops, restaurants and trendy coffee bars — all staffed by employees who are quickly being priced out of the area.

This perfect storm creates a heap of problems for Bay Area residents — as well as significant opportunities for government and the private sector to collaborate on solutions. After running a successful crowdfunding campaign last year, TriplePundit launched a series on the topic that was something of a passion project for our staffers.

We looked at living, working and commuting in the Bay Area, how tech companies impact residents, and what these firms can do to ensure the long-term sustainability of the region. With 66 percent of the global population expected to live in cities by 2050, the issues we discovered will soon go far beyond Silicon Valley.

To learn more about how rapid urbanization shapes a city and solutions for a sustainable future, check out our series here. 

The rise of the hydrogen economy

Reporting from 3p's Tina Casey

Hydrogen first began to attract attention as a renewable fuel over a decade ago, with R&D programs established under the George W. Bush administration and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s dreams of a “hydrogen highway.” But after being pushed aside due to cost issues and lack of adequate technology, the so-called hydrogen economy is on the rise in the U.S. once again.

The U.S. Department of Energy is reviving a number of programs to spur hydrogen development in the private sector. And both companies and academic researchers are responding in kind.

When burned, hydrogen is a zero-emissions fuel. But the No. 1 source for hydrogen is still natural gas — a fossil fuel with a significant environmental impact related to extraction. But the latest in hydrogen economy development is out to change that with renewable hydrogen solutions for a sustainable fuel future.

TriplePundit's Tina Casey is tracking the development of the 21st-century hydrogen economy. You can read her coverage here. 

The corporate approach to racial justice

Reporting from the 3p editorial staff

In 2016, racial tension in America reached a level not seen in decades. The high-profile killings of unarmed black men by American police officers sparked outrage across the country and organized movements such as Black Lives Matter. At the same time, calls for equality harkened from the highest ranks, and spanned economic class, race, gender and sexual orientation.

People, of course, react emotionally to news headlines about discrimination and racially-motivated violence. And expecting American workers to leave those emotions at the door is unreasonable and can easily impact company morale. How then can companies address equity and equality -- conversations that can often become uncomfortable -- both internally and externally? How can executives -- beyond the human resources department -- not only assemble a diverse workforce, but also ensure those diverse workers know their employer is there to support them?

In partnership with Symantec, TriplePundit sought to answer these questions and provide some guidance about how companies can approach these crucial issues. We strived to showcase leaders in the space, but found that even companies that send press releases touting their diversity were uncomfortable being interviewed about it. It's a shame, but it proves we must continue to converse around these issues as companies look to improve.

As your company seeks to improve diversity and employee engagement in 2017, our series on equity and CSR is worth another look. 

The Volkswagen emissions scandal and what it says about CSR

Reporting from 3p's Jan Lee and Leon Kaye 

In September 2015, the EPA and the California Air and Resources Board (CARB) accused Volkswagen of rigging its vehicles with software intended to “cheat” U.S. emissions testing. The software was eventually found to be present in millions of vehicles in the U.S., Canada and Europe.

The resulting fallout left the German auto manufacturer in court for over a year, with state and federal agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Costs associated with the scandal numbered in the tens of billions -- now $17.5 billion in the U.S. alone, taking into account Volkswagen's latest settlement with 83,000 vehicle owners. And its troubles -- legal, reputational and otherwise -- are not over yet.

TriplePundit staffers analyzed the story as it unfolded, with a particular focus on how the case reflects the state of corporate social responsibility (CSR). You'll likely continue to see the topic in the news throughout 2017. And if you're looking to brush up on the backstory, their coverage is a must-read.

Read TriplePundit's coverage of CSR and the VW emissions scandal here. 

COP22 and the road ahead

Reporting by 3p's Thomas Schueneman and the 3p editorial staff

At COP21 in Paris last year, world leaders inked the first global agreement aimed a curbing climate change. The agreement entered into force in October -- months ahead of schedule and weeks before world leaders were set to meet again at COP22 in Marrakesh, Morocco.

At COP22, the conversation moved from negotiations on the language to heady debates on implementation of the plan. TriplePundit climate reporter Thomas Schueneman and the 3p editorial staff analyzed the happenings at COP22, and implications for the future of the agreement.

As we look to the next phase of the Paris agreement, you can catch up on the COP22 dispatch here. 

Image credits: 1) Pixabay; 2) Used with permission by Michigan photographer Petra Daher; 3) Flickr/Jimmy Baikovicius; 4) via U.S. Department of Energy; 5) @chriskendigphotography, courtesy of Net Impact (press use only); 6) Flickr/Nico Nic; 7) James Nerhebii, courtesy Flickr; UNFCCC

You could be honored as Masdar’s guest VIP blogger and win an all-expense-paid trip to Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week in mid-January, 2017. To enter Masdar’s Engage blogging contest, you'll need to write a blog post or create a video or a multimedia presentation.

Eligibility: The 2017 Engage Global Social Media Competition is open to all citizens across the globe 18 years of age or older. The winner will be flown to Abu Dhabi, with airfare, ground transportation within Abu Dhabi and accommodation paid by Masdar. The winner will be Masdar’s guest VIP Social Media Influencer during http://abudhabisustainabilityweek.com/, 15-19 January 2017.

Contest Deadline: Submissions must be entered by Tuesday, January 3, 2017at the end of the day, Eastern Standard Time (EST, 11:59:59 p.m.).Voting on all submissions will be permitted until Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12 Midnight EST.

Assignment: Please answer the following question in one of the formats explained below:

“Masdar’s Global GenZ Sustainability Survey, launched at COP22, revealed much insight into young citizens’ perspective: they see climate change as the biggest threat over the next decade. In your view, what will be the most important technological development over the next 10 years that will have the greatest impact in reducing climate change risks?

Contributors may submit one of the following:

1) a video explaining your point of view, no longer than 3 minutes; please include a 100-word summary- (post on YouTube and provide the URL to Masdar) - OR -

2) a multi-media presentation, which can include video clips, photos, charts, animation, or other features that get your views across; please include a 100-word summary- (post on your preferred platform and provide the URL to Masdar) - OR -

3) a 500- to 700-word written blog that articulates your ideas (cross-post on your blog and send the URL to Masdar, or send in MS Word to press@masdar.ae)

Guidelines to submitting the winning post: This year’s Engage competition is about how participants want to see changes in the world and their local communities by 2026; and Masdar wants to hear citizens’ perspectives on how society can embark on a path towards a low-carbon economy. And this year, Masdar is welcoming suggestions in the format of participants’ choosing.

Potential solutions could include ideas of sustainable development, investments in clean technologies such as renewables, or policy initiatives that participants believe must be emphasized in order to move towards a more low-carbon society; contributors are also encouraged to share how they think such changes could create impact within their local communities by 2026.

According to Masdar’s recent Global Youth Survey, which compiled interviews of over 4,700 citizens, many respondents say climate change will be biggest threat to the world over the next 10 years - ahead of the global economy and threats of terrorism. The survey also revealed that young people want to be proactive in finding solutions to climate change. And remarkably, young people in “frontier” or “emerging” economies - many of which are experiencing the effects of climate change now - express the strongest commitment to creating a more sustainable future.

This year, Masdar welcomes participants to join this important discussion in the format of their choosing. Digital content, videos and written submissions are all welcome. The winning contribution will provide a clear understanding of society’s sustainability challenges, offer unique solutions and present their ideas in a style that will be both engaging and persuasive.

To Enter:

1. Create your submission, post it, and post a link (as in a YouTube or blog URL) within the comments section of the 2017 Masdar Engage Contest page (if you are unsure of where to post, or in the case of written submissions you do not have a blog, you may send submissions to press@masdar.ae).

2. We encourage you share your contributions on all social media channels, using the hashtag #WorldIn2026. It is also recommended to share your social media posts related to your submitted content on Masdar’s Thunderclap platform.

IMPORTANT:Leave a comment on the 2017 Masdar Engage Contest page with a link to your post AND do not forget to mention the 2017 Masdar Engage Blogging Contest within your submission and the platforms on which you are sharing your content.

3.Qualifying content will be posted on the Masdar web site. Limit one (1) entry per person.

4. Winning Selection: A judging panel will review qualifying entries and will weigh: a) the overall quality of the submission, b) the number of votes for the post on the Masdar Engage website; c) and the number of Tweets, Facebook “Likes” and “Shares” through social channels (on both Masdar and the writer’s websites). Voting will continue until January 7, 2017.

5. Prize: One winner will be selected for a paid trip to Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week during mid-January 2017, will be honored as Masdar’s VIP Social Media Influencer throughout Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week, and will post regular updates during the event. The winner may also be asked to participate in an event during Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week. The winner must be able to arrive in Abu Dhabi in time for the opening ceremony on Monday, 16 January 2017, and must be able to stay in Abu Dhabi through 19 or 20 January 2017.

6. Prize Restrictions: Winners are subject to verification, including verification of age. If the winner resides within a 100-mile radius of Abu Dhabi, ground transportation may be provided in lieu of air transportation. Winners are responsible for having valid travel documents, including a passport. Employees of Masdar, its partners and subsidiaries are not eligible for Masdar’s Engage blogging contest.

7. Entry Requirements: Submissions must be the original work of the entrant; may not have been used previously for public display; must be suitable for publication; may not be promotional endorsements for brands or companies; and may not contain any copyrighted works owned by other parties. Entries will be reviewed for compliance with these rules before being published and/or judged. Masdar makes the final determination as to what entries are eligible.

8. Commercial Use of Entries: Submission of an entry grants Masdar the unconditional, irrevocable, worldwide right to publish, use, edit and/or modify such entry in any way, in any and all media, without limitation, and without consideration to the entrant, winning or not.

The US Environmental Protection Agency touched off a virtual tsumani of criticism from environmental stakeholders in June 2015, when it released a major oil and gas fracking study that seemed to downplay the risk to the nation's water resources. The drilling industry welcomed the report as vindication but it looks like both sides should have taken a deep breath and waited, because the 2015 report was only a draft version.

Earlier this month EPA released the final results of its fracking study. Although the final report was based on essentially the same data as the draft version, it elicited exactly the opposite set of responses. So, what changed?

Reading the fine fracking print

The main problem with the draft version of the fracking study seems to have been rooted in the way that EPA chose to present it to the public, not in the report itself.

EPA issued a press release for the draft report on June 4, 2015. Right under the headline, "Potential Impacts to Drinking Water Resources from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities," the press release provided a one-sentence summary that sparked waves of dismay among environmental groups and scientific organizations:

Assessment shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources...

That was actually not the entire one-sentence summary. The full sentence contains an important caveat (emphasis added):

Assessment shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources and identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources.

That "important vulnerabilities" caveat was repeated in the first paragraph of the press release (emphasis added again):

The assessment, done at the request of Congress, shows that while hydraulic fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources, there are potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.

The press release is also pretty clear that those risk factors do exist, and they do cause problems in specific cases:

EPA's review of data sources available to the agency found specific instances where well integrity and waste water management related to hydraulic fracturing activities impacted drinking water resources, but they were small compared to the large number of hydraulically fractured wells across the country.

As listed in the press release, the risk factors include:

• water withdrawals in areas with low water availability;


• hydraulic fracturing conducted directly into formations containing drinking water resources;


• inadequately cased or cemented wells resulting in below ground migration of gases and liquids;


• inadequately treated wastewater discharged into drinking water resources;


• and spills of hydraulic fluids and hydraulic fracturing wastewater, including flowback and produced water.

And, the press released emphasized that the study is intended as a risk prevention planning document, not a free pass for the drilling industry:

"EPA's draft assessment will give state regulators, tribes and local communities and industry around the country a critical resource to identify how best to protect public health and their drinking water resources," said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA's Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development...

Read the full report next time (or at least the Executive Summary)

Unfortunately, another significant error in the press release occurred in the second part of Dr. Burke's quote:

..."It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date, including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports."

In fact, in the full report and the Executive Summary, EPA repeatedly warned that the data available to it was egregiously incomplete.

Partly because of protective regulations issued under the Bush Administration, in the Executive Summary EPA stated that there was a “significant data gap for hazard identification” for the majority of chemicals used in fracking, and that key data were available for only 73 out of 1,076 chemicals compiled in the industry's voluntary FracFocus database.

The Executive Summary included a whole laundry list of data limitations and shortcomings, capped off by this observation:

…The limited amount of data collected before and during hydraulic fracturing activities reduces the ability to determine whether hydraulic fracturing affected drinking water resources in cases of alleged contamination.

In the Executive Summary, EPA also reminded stakeholders that it was not even able to assemble a definitive well count, and that the full report's usefulness in setting policy would be limited because it is essentially a “snapshot in time and the industry is rapidly changing.”

Unfortunately, despite all the emphasis on risk in the press release and in the report, once the media got hold of that "no widespread impacts" introduction it was impossible for EPA to reset public perceptions.

A fracking report do-over

That brings us to the final version of the report, released on December 13 under the title, "Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources."

The New York Times greeted the final version with the headline, "Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water," which is clearly not what happened. EPA already included specific instances of contamination in the draft report, and it also referred to them in last year's press release.

So, there was no course reversal.

What EPA did do was revise its press release. In the final version, the headline is "EPA Releases Final Report on Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities on Drinking Water," and the new one-sentence summary is this:

EPA’s report concludes that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances and identifies factors that influence these impacts.

Citing Dr. Burke again, the new press release emphasizes the large volume of information surveyed by EPA for the report, describing it once again as "the most complete compilation to date," including citations from more than 1,200 scientific sources.

However, this time the press release makes it clear that critical knowledge gaps remain, despite the volume of information at hand:

As part of the report, EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe. The report also identifies uncertainties and data gaps. These uncertainties and data gaps limited EPA’s ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally.

In addition, the new press release -- which is quite a bit longer than last year's -- emphasizes that impacts on drinking water have been identified by EPA at each stage in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle, and that these impacts can range from "temporary changes in water quality" all the way up to "contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable."

Most importantly, the new press release emphasizes that the report is not a comprehensive list of instances where impacts have occurred:

Generally, comprehensive information on the location of activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle is lacking, either because it is not collected, not publicly available, or prohibitively difficult to aggregate...Because of these data gaps and uncertainties, as well as others described in the assessment, it was not possible to fully characterize the severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle.

Oil and gas stakeholders respond

All of this material was previously available in the draft version of the report, and most of it was included in last year's press release. The framing was practically all that changed.

The new press release provides environmental stakeholders with a much stronger platform to advocate for increased regulation of oil and gas drilling.

It also pulled the rug out from under oil and gas stakeholders.

Here's a representative sample from the American Petroleum Institute, regarding the June 2015 draft report:

A draft report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirms that hydraulic fracturing has not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources thanks to the safety and effectiveness of state and federal regulations, and current industry practices, said API.

And, here is API responding to the same information with different framing in December 2016:

...The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process.

Oh, well. As the saying goes, you can please some of the people some of the time.

Meanwhile, apart from EPA's focus on water resource impacts, researchers continue to uncover evidence of serious public health impacts linked to fracking, including increased risk of asthma and low birthweight.

In one recent development, a study released by Johns Hopkins University last August linked high exposure to active natural gas fracking operations with an increased risk of combined symptoms including migraine headaches, chronic nasal and sinus conditions and fatigue.

Image: via US EPA.

Save

Save

By Rebecca Ballard

There are many ways to seek justice. Over time we’ve had vigilantes, tribunals and trials, and mediations and out-of-court settlements. As a lawyer who has worked on a wide range of human and labor rights issues, I do have a favorite approach. Its name may not be well known, but success rates are high on both an international and interpersonal level. Data also shows it has the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.

Restorative justice aims to address the harm to an individual or community with an emphasis on accountability. The focus is on honest communication between the victim, offender and community to bring about healing through reconciliation and behavioral change. Restorative justice gives a perpetrator the chance to make amends and begin anew, learning from mistakes and showing their victims through word and deed how truly sorry they are. One of the most famous examples of restorative justice is in South Africa via the Truth and Reconciliation Commission conducted as the country moved toward healing after decades of Apartheid.

Here in the United States, restorative justice presents an opportunity for victims and their families to enter the long journey toward peace and reconciliation with offenders. We see restorative justice through programs like Bridges to Life, a Texas initiative that brings healing to victims of crime, reduces recidivism and makes communities safer.

I appreciate how restorative justice can be used in the legal realm, however I think the application is much broader.

One of the tragedies in life is that we will often cause the most harm to those with whom we are closest and love the most. Restorative justice can be used to make amends when there is harm to a friend or family member, lighting the way to forgiveness after pain and hardship. This can be seen through the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), which led millions through a path toward recovery. The 12 Steps take a restorative justice approach, stating that we should make a list of those we harmed, be willing to make direct amends to them, and seek to do so whenever possible.

In our globalized world, our purchases link us to people all over the globe. We may not feel like we are in relationship with them, but the hands of workers around the world touch the same items we use on a daily basis.

Sadly and all too often, this global footprint brings with it slavery and exploitation. Americans en masse are buying cheap products made in hazardous, destructive ways. There is nothing new here, as the United States profited from exploitation of workers during the Atlantic slave trade and long after. However, the decidedly global nature of our purchases can often shield us from their consequences in foreign lands, including terrible pollution, health catastrophes, worker harassment, and death and destruction.

Whenever we purchase products made by exploitation and environmental degradation, we play a role in the harm caused through their production. And I for one carry guilt about the harm my past purchases have done to people and our planet.

Restorative justice gives us a model to change the narrative, flip the script, and right the wrongs of past consumption. Workers around the world enter industries like the global garment sector for economic empowerment. They see it as a chance to improve their lives. And our future purchase offer an opportunity for us to help this promise be fulfilled.

We can seek brands that connect us with the lives of those who create what we buy and are in the rare minority of both knowing and disclosing this information. In our culture of waste, we are also able to find so much of what we need via thrift or online searches for used items (e.g., the comfortable chair I am seated in while writing this was purchased used). Each year there are also more and more companies creating products and clothing in line with strong environmental and human rights standards. We can each buy less, buy better, buy used or borrow whenever possible, and pay the true cost.

Image courtesy of the author. 

Rebecca Ballard is a lawyer, advocate, and the founder of Maven Women, which creates savvy, sustainable styles for women thoughtful about people and the planet at each step. She encourages you to check out their presales and take $10 off each item with the code TriplePundit at checkout. Follow @MavenWomen on Twitter and Facebook and sign up for their listserv for the latest discounts and updates. 

By Peter Schulte

We’ve all seen this classic drawing.

Depending on how you look at it, you can see both a young woman and an old woman. At first glance, we either see the young woman or the old woman. Once someone points it out to us, the second image suddenly comes into view.

Notice: our minds cannot see these two images at once. We have to switch back and forth. Intellectually, we know both are there, but we aren’t naturally equipped to truly take in both at once. We are designed to identify and isolate one pattern, even if many exist.

Seeing the old woman and a young woman in your office

The same is true in the workplace.

Imagine you get a big project and a team is formed to work on it. At first, the project lead gives everyone tasks and they all set out to execute. They are free to make the decisions they need to.

After a few weeks, the team gets together and people start complaining. Their decisions aren’t aligned with one another. There is no cohesion or buy-in among the team. The team begins devolving into secret resentment and disengagement, if not outright bickering.

Finally, the tension reaches a tipping point. Everyone is either livid or disengaged. Everyone agrees they need more coherence. They want to move in lock step as one unit, rather than as disparate parts. So they all agree: from now on, they are going to make decisions by consensus.

After a few weeks of consensus, everyone is at each other’s throats again. Decisions take forever to make. Some people aren’t as inclined to argue, so the more vocal of the group get their way. The most creative ideas are stamped out in favor of more stale, middle-of-the-road approaches.

The team suddenly realizes that making decisions by consensus is overly burdensome. So they now empower everyone to make decisions on their own.

This pattern repeats itself on and on.

The team moves from one pole to another. In one moment, they value collaboration. In the next, they value autonomy. They are constantly moving toward a definitive solution and away from what they deem to be the problem. When that doesn’t work, they reverse their judgment on what the problem is and start moving toward the new solution (which used to be the problem).

There is no answer to wicked problems

This same dynamic is taking place all around us, at all times, on a range of different issues. We go from planning to action to planning to action, from personal growth to acceptance of who we are to personal growth, from centralization to decentralization to centralization, from asking for compassion to demanding accountability back to compassion, from capitalism to socialism to capitalism.

In this dynamic, we never find a good solution. We never get what we need because we believe that there is one clear, simple answer to our problems.

In truth, these problems are unsolvable. They are wicked problems. Neither autonomy nor collaboration is better than the other. Both are essential. Both must be consciously and deliberately balanced with one another from moment to moment.

Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.

~ Laurence J. Peter

This balancing process is called polarity management.

Balancing necessary opposites

The most basic message of polarity management is: there is no one “right” answer. There is no simple solution. You may see the old woman, but that doesn’t mean that perspective is “right” or somehow more legitimate. It just means that is what your mind sees.

In many, if not most, cases, if you believe something, the opposite is equally true. You may see extremely clearly how desperately your organization must embrace change and adaptability. But your colleague may see the need for stability just as vividly and be just as “right.”

The deepest wisdom – and your potentially greatest contribution to your organization – is in embracing both those truths at the same time.

Together, these seemingly conflicting truths are polarities. These polarities represent some of the fundamental tensions that come up in our organizations and beyond.

Some common examples of pairs of polarities include:

• Leading AND empowering


• Advocating AND being curious


• Structure AND flexibility


• Confidence AND humility


• Supporting AND challenging

We tend to think that one end of the spectrum must ultimately win out over the other. We choose either to lead or to empower, to support or challenge. But often the most effective way forward is in honoring and embracing both at the same time.

Implementing polarity management in practice

If you’ve accepted that there is no simple answer, that the truest answer lies in the tension and uncertainty, then you’ve already done the hard part. Actually implementing polarity is fairly straight-forward.

To manage polarities all you must do is: 1) identify the two poles or opposites you tend to move between and 2) create a map of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the poles (as shown below).

 

This map should be filled with the symptoms and indicators of when you are experiencing these advantages or disadvantages. For example, if you’re mapping consensus vs. autonomy, you might include “slow decision making” as a disadvantage of consensus.

Diagonal from one another (represented by the orange boxes and purple boxes in the graphic) are corresponding advantages and disadvantages. These are the traits we usually see at one time. If we see the stifling aspects of consensus-based decision making (in the bottom left), we are likely to see the empowering aspects of autonomy (in the top right). But typically, if we are focused on purple, we are unlikely to see the opposite, but equal truth of orange.

Once you have your map, you are ready.

Implementing polarity management for the long haul

The next step never ends. In the next step, you commit to continuously sensing which of the advantages and disadvantages you are experiencing in any given movement. If you are experiencing a disadvantage of one pole, you take steps to move toward the other. Once you start experiencing the disadvantages of the opposite pole, you move back toward the other.

The difference between this and traditional management is that you don’t ever seek to fully embody one pole; the poles aren’t the goal. Rather, you constantly are moving between the poles in an upward spiral toward the perfect balance between the two. The goal is between the poles.

You put processes in place to avoid the disadvantages and maximize the advantages of both simultaneously. You invite discussion and analysis of where you are in this tension and where you need to be right now. You accept that that answer might be different tomorrow and different yet again the day after.

Polarity management for humanity itself

Polarity management has become prominent as an organizational management tool. That’s great.

But polarity management is equally applicable and valuable in many other spheres of life – for individuals, for families, for communities, and for countries. Perhaps most importantly, humanity itself can learn from polarity management.

As just one example, more and more of us are calling for us to look beyond skin color and cultural norms, to see the humanity that binds us. This is absolutely essential for our survival and prosperity.

At the same time, it’s equally true that many of us want to protect tradition and our own cultural identities. We fear that in focusing only on our common humanity, we will lose the qualities that made our communities unique and gave us our sense of identity.

What if we all accepted that both are equally true and equally necessary? What if instead of arguing which is more important, we began a discussion of how to balance the two?

When we allow ourselves to see the truth in opposites, we reveal a world of possibility and beauty. That is polarity management.

Peter Schulte is the founder and editor-in-chief of Kindling - an online magazine for our next systems. Peter holds undergraduate degrees from University of California, Berkeley, and an M.B.A. in Sustainable Systems from Presidio Graduate School (formerly Pinchot University).

By Devi Thomas

Can a brand step in to solve the world’s biggest problems where nations have failed?

In the new wave of political discourse, the biggest question seems to be who’s on first – in the case of social responsibility, who is really on point to solve pressing global issues?

A centennial and even decades ago, there was an expectation that our nations would take a strong, hard look and play a significant role in solving some of the biggest issues affecting our communities, our citizens and our world. This role has increasingly been shared by NGOs, faith-based groups, activists, neighborhoods and even private companies.

Corporate social responsibility has stealthily and meaningfully moved to occupy more floors in corporate headquarters from the grant-making offices of the corporate foundation department and the ethics-bound desks of the environment, health and safety teams, to the floors where purpose really starts – on the calendars of the executive decision-makers: CEOs and brand managers.

We see CSR messages being the main theme behind the company’s profit vision from brands like PepsiCo, Warby Parker and CVS Health. Today, PepsiCo’s main message to stakeholders is about its support of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education for girls; recycling as a way of life; and its Performance with Purpose business model that it claims steeps into every facet of PepsiCo’s global operations.

While relatively new as a global citizen, the socially-responsible, purpose-driven, for-profit brand has been recently asked to take on a newer and more complicated role. In the absence of political leadership that will solve some of the world’s heftiest problems – from climate change to energy poverty to under-five nutrition to women’s reproductive rights – the brand must fill a new role as a global problem-solver.

When REI tells us to go outside on Black Friday and Walgreens matches a product purchase to a gift toward life-saving medicine with Get a Shot, Give a Shot, we are letting our brands reflect our values and create meaningful social change. The values that were once only associated with political parties, nonprofits and churches are now espoused by trusted brands.

Take, for example, Ben & Jerry’s comparison of ice caps to ice cream in its climate justice message. Or look at Dow Chemical’s global employees standing up together in purple this past October for LGBTQ youth on Spirit Day. These company values are bold, loud and often timely with the public policy announcements that indicate the companies' support or opposition to a national issue. And now brands could need to try even harder in the current political climate.

Purpose brands are often trusted more than the profitable business that is behind them. But that also makes them truly accountable to their customers.

Now consumers may expect more of their cause-related purchases – including measuring their own impact on social movements. Beyond how much product partnered with (RED), for example, raised for the Global Fund and HIV/AIDs efforts, can the brand be part of effectively changing the global perception, awareness, and response to the disease? With $350 million going to help over 60 million people in countries like Swaziland and Zambia, the partners in Product (RED) like GAP and Bank of America have a stake in the outcomes.

If we are all in the problem-solving business, it makes sense that corporate brands can take the driving seat – they often have the customers, the strategy, the resources and the motivation. This election has shown as not how corporate social responsibility needs to take a back seat while we sort out trade deals but how CSR is on the precipice of becoming our nation’s next answer to social progress.

Image credit: Pixabay

Devi Thomas is Senior Vice President of CSR for Fenton.

By Patrick McVeigh

Water is one of the world’s most precious resources. Ongoing efforts are focused on battling drought conditions in populous regions around the world, while the U.S. places a growing emphasis on water education.  Businesses that tackle water conservation and replenishment are key to providing solutions and will have the opportunity to take leadership positions in the industry.

According to the World of Meteorological Organization: “it is very likely that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, with global temperature even higher than the record-breaking temperatures in 2015.” Along with the threat of global warming, sustained droughts are becoming a mainstay for regions across the world, with 10 percent of the world’s population (663 million people) lacking access to safe water.

The threat of expensive water rights is therefore looming.  In most parts of the country, relative luxuries such as internet and cell phone services still cost quite a bit of more than water, which has been seen as a necessity that should be distributed at a low price. However, the average cost of that perceived right to water is already on the rise, having increased 48 percent since 2010.

The business sector is rising to meet a range of these associated challenges, and perhaps the most pressing is the steady decline of universal access to potable water. Water.org estimates that every $1 invested in water and sanitation provides a $4 economic return, and companies looking to support and invest in preservation and reuse technologies will leap to the foreground.

A clear opportunity exists for managing systems that will have an impact on water consumption and conservation:

Irrigation

Producing crops is critical to a growing population, making efficient irrigation a paramount concern. National Geographic estimated that the use of micro-irrigation has risen worldwide at least 6.4-fold, from 1.6 million hectares to more than 10.3 million.

Even more efficient than the spray irrigation system is drip irrigation, a practice seeing heavy use in arid climates as it delivers water predictably and directly to plant roots, making it a highly effective and conservative method. Compared with conventional irrigation, drip methods can reduce the volume of water applied to fields by up to 70 percent, while increasing crop yields by 20-90 percent.

Metering

Household leaks waste more than 1 trillion gallons annually nationwide, the equivalent of the annual household water use of more than 11 million homes.  Conservation requires stemming these losses – and calls for tracking water use (and loss) at a more granular level. An hourly meter that shows a small but steady flow all night long – while most people are asleep – may be an indication of a faulty valve or punctured pipe somewhere in the system.

A new generation of companies using internet connections and radio transmitters are making it possible for consumers to spot leaks before they become a major problem. Readings on an hourly or quarter-hourly basis, as opposed to monthly, bimonthly, or even quarterly measurements traditionally employed by utilities.

Water reuse

Direct water reuse – the process of treating municipal wastewater in order to remove contaminants so that water can be safely reused for a variety of purposes – has emerged as a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable alternative for communities seeking to address mounting supply and demand imbalances. The water reuse market is expected to have considerable growth over the next four years. Reports anticipate growth in recycled water production and use across all market sectors, including commercial, residential, municipal, agricultural, and industrial to the tune of a compounding annual growth rate of 22 percent.

The concept of treating wastewater streams for immediate re-entry into the water cycle is gaining traction, unlocking the “hidden source” of portable supply for many areas.

Filtration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet (UV) purification are all technologies that have applications in this growth, though it is worth noting that UV technology has been used in all recent large-scale projects. These initiatives are capturing the inherent advantage of UV treatment, which helps to purify water by replacing the use of chlorine - a known poison that is believed to have negative side effects on human health.

As the situation unfolds, education and business will unite to provide the next generation of solutions for distributing, conserving, and replenishing supply. Well-positioned players can capitalize on the need for innovative technology and investors who understand the issues and scope of the crisis may gain from early entry into the marketplace.

Image credit: Pixabay

Patrick McVeigh, President and Chief Investment Officer of Reynders, McVeigh Capital Management LLC., has more than 30 years of experience in socially responsible investing (SRI). He was an owner and key employee of one of the first SRI wealth management firms, and he served on the board of the Social Investment Forum. At SIF, he pioneered research on SRI, and he has authored articles on finance, ethics and ecology, and contributed to The Social Investment Almanac (New York: Henry Holt, 1992) and Working Capital: The Power of Labor’s Pensions (Cornell University Press, 2001).

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed do not constitute investment advice, are subject to change, and represent the current, good-faith views of the authors at the time of publication. Accuracy of information obtained from sources is not guaranteed