Search

Happy Holidays! Check Out These Gifts for Everyone on Your List

The holidays are just around the corner!  Time to make your list, check it twice, and start finding gifts for all of the important people in your life.  And while those homemade sweaters you gave out last year were memorable (and even fit a few people), why not make your gifts Fair Trade this year and extend the goodwill one step further- to the people behind our favorite products?

When you choose gifts marked with the Fair Trade Certified seal, you’re saying “yes” to:

• Strong social and environmental standards that respect people and planet


• Additional money paid directly back to farmers and workers with every Fair Trade sale


• Unique products with a story to tell

This year’s Holiday Gift Guide features some of our favorite gifts that do good.  From that foodie friend to the family’s littlest holiday helpers, we’ve got something special for everyone on your list.

For Hearth & Home

More featured gifts: Merry & Bright Tree Skirt from Pottery Barn, Felt Snowflake Ornaments from West Elm, Bedding, Rugs and Decor from West Elm

For the Epicurean

More featured gifts: Vosgues Haut-Chocolate Holiday Chocolate Bar Library, Tony's Coffee BackCountry Blend, barkTHINS Dark Chocolate Gingerbread, Numi Turmeric "Golden Milk" Latte Mixes - Chai & Cocoa, Wholesome! Organic Frostings, Green Mountain Coffee Nantucket Blend, Marich Confectionery Gratitude & Cheer Box, Immaculate Baking Company Organic Chocolate Chunk Cookie Dough

 

For the Outdoor Explorer

More featured gifts: Better Sweater(R) Fleece Jacket from Patagonia, Thalia Sweater Vest from prAna, Ahnya Pants from Patagoina, Lalina Boot from Oliberte, Ngola Boot from Oliberte

For the New Arrivals of 2016!

More featured gifts: Slubbed Cotton Baby Sack by Coyuchi, Infant Capilene(R) Set from Patagonia

For the Hard-To-Shop-For

Still not sure what to do about that one friend who has everything or wants nothing? Think outside of the holiday gift box and consider a small donation to Fair Trade USA in their name. Every penny helps support safe working conditions and better livelihoods for the people who grow, sew, and catch our favorite products. It's a gift that keeps on giving! DONATE NOW!

Happy Holidays from all of us at Fair Trade!

 

During the World Economic Forum earlier this year in Davos, Switzerland, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation released a report on the New Plastics Economy.

The United Kingdom-based NGO, which is dedicated to the promotion of a worldwide circular economy, acknowledges that plastics have been important to global commerce. But in this 120-page report, the Foundation says too much value is lost as massive amounts of plastic, especially what is used for packaging, ends up in landfill.

Why focus on plastic?

As the production and consumption of this material are expected to increase rapidly in the coming years, the results of an unchecked plastics industry could include long-term risks to public health, further destruction of the world’s oceans and a loss of economic productivity.

Many organizations tout a closed-loop, zero-waste system, also called a circular economy. But the Ellen MacArthur Foundation arguably offers the most detailed research and compelling suggestions on how the world's economy can benefit from treating plastic more as a resource and less as waste. So, almost one year after its release, is the new plastics initiative gaining any traction?

"There is a large consensus that the plastics economy needs a fundamental rethink and redesign,” said Rob Opsomer, the New Plastics Economy Lead with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “and that the New Plastics Economy sets an economically and environmentally attractive direction to make that happen."

Opsomer and his colleagues at the Foundation said the response to the report was largely positive. Praise came from individual companies, trade associations and civil society.

Business leaders are facing the stubborn fact that the take-make-dispose process that defines the single-use plastics industry contributes anywhere from $80 billion to $120 billion in material value losses annually.

In addition, economic losses tied to the externalities that result from the plastics industry must be considered. A third of all plastic packaging leaks into the natural environment. This and other environmental problems associated with single-use plastic cost the global economy at least $40 billion a year -- more than the combined profit of the entire plastic packaging industry.

Indeed, there is consensus that the plastics economy requires a fundamental rethink and redesign. The trick, however, is reaching that point at which a circular plastics economy becomes economically viable.

What needs to happen?

According to the Foundation’s researchers, three large shifts need to occur if plastics will ever transform into more of a closed-loop or circular economic system:

1. An effective after-use plastics economy must be developed. To accomplish this, plastics, and their surrounding systems, must improve in quality and economic performance. As a society, we must also undergo a surge in reuse, recycling and composting.

Much of the focus in recent years has been on recycling. And the economics of plastics recycling today are certainly fragile, due to many factors such as low fossil fuel prices. But several levers could significantly improve the economics of plastics recycling, including what the Foundation describes as a Global Plastics Protocol.

More standardization, including shifts such as the replacement of PVC labels or certain pigments with more easily recyclable alternatives, would be one way to integrate the adoption of new best practices in plastics collection, sorting and reprocessing systems, the Foundation says.

2. Plastics industry stakeholders must dramatically reduce all negative externalities, including the excessive release of plastics into the natural environment. Creating an effective post-use plastics economy can provide an economic incentive to keep plastics in such a system, and in turn would help decrease leakage, the Foundation says. The plastic industry also needs to work on improving collection infrastructure in emerging markets, researchers insist.

3. In a reversal of how the industry grew over the past several decades, plastics must also be decoupled from fossil fuels by researching and incorporating more renewabable sources of feedstocks.

The need for next-gen plastics

The use of new feedstocks, such as those derived from plant-based sources or waste (ideally recycled plastics or organic refuse). But one hurdle for the industry is the confusion between conventional plastics and those made from renewable sources.

Some plant-based plastics can be composted; others can be recycled along with conventionally manufactured materials. The reality, however, is that the various forms of plastic we see in stores are different formulations of resin that can't yet be recycled together. Plastics are now designated by seven resin codes, which you'll notice between the chasing arrows on plastic packaging, including the “anything goes” plastic No. 7 (a catch-all code for resins such as nylon and acrylic).

"It is important to distinguish between where a material comes from (whether it is either renewably-sourced or fossil fuel-based) and where it is destined to go to, as in if it is ultimately recyclable, compostable, or neither,” Opsomer told us.

Again, this is a result of a highly fragmented plastics industry. More standardization would certainly help.

Contamination is also a concern with new, and often compostable, plastics. The Foundation suggests using compostable plastics for well-defined and targeted applications such as coffee pods and fast food packaging. Harmonized labeling would minimize the risk of contamination, the Foundation says, allowing industries that are now highly wasteful to become far more efficient.

The role of business

Business should drive any new transition to the New Plastics Economy. After all, many of the world’s largest companies benefit from plastic without having to compensate society for the material's decades-long environmental costs.

Calls for extended producer liability, which puts the onus for collecting and recycling on businesses instead of consumers and municipal governments, would be a start. So far, however, there has been little movement in that direction. And business often paints such measures as excessive regulation.

That being said, governments and other stakeholders in the plastics industry have shown they can play an important role in the transition. The evidence indicates a growing recognition from governments around the world that they can take the lead on a new plastics economy. The alternative for governments is business as usual: Spend taxpayer funds on collecting and sequestering plastic waste.

Over the past year, we've seen a surge of regulatory action on plastics circularity. Dozens of landmark regulations were introduced around the world, notably citizens' approval of restrictions on single-use carrier bags in California in this month’s election. Across the pond, almost a year ago, the European Commission announced its Circular Economy Action Plan, which aims to stimulate the region’s transition to a more closed-loop system.

While many businesses will complain about these new restrictions, the truth is that they can force companies to become more innovative – and perhaps even arrive at new revenue streams as a result of their efforts.

Hence the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is bullish on the prospects for plastic becoming more of an economic generator, rather than a material that leaves behind huge environmental and social costs. The business community’s willingness to reevaluate plastics is higher than ever, as more companies realize that greater standardization in both design and collection systems is overall more efficient in moving society toward a circular system.

As Opsomer explained, the Foundation already started its first convergence efforts, and will release more on the evolution of the plastics industry in 2017.

Image credit: Steven Depolo/Flickr

Women face barriers to healthcare coverage that men will never deal with. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) arguably narrowed this gap by expanding access to coverage to previously uninsured women through Medicaid expansions, private insurance reforms and premium tax credits. As a result, most of the 98 American million women aged 19 to 64 had some form of health insurance coverage last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“The ACA has been a landmark improvement in healthcare access for women – the greatest advance for women’s health in a generation,” Lauren Birchfield Kennedy, director of health policy for the National Partnership for Women and Families, told TriplePundit.  Founded in 1971 as the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, the National Partnership for Women and Families is a nonprofit that advocates for women's and family rights, including fairness in the workplace, access to affordable healthcare, and policies that "help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family," according to the organization.

Birchfield Kennedy said the ACA makes sure women with healthcare coverage “have access to key women's preventive health services, such as birth control and breast cancer screenings, with no additional out-of-pocket cost sharing, and to essential health benefits such as maternity care." Before the ACA, most of the plans sold on the individual market did not cover maternity care, she added.

The ACA guarantees that no American will be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition -- and this especially crucial for women. Before the ACA, a Caesarean section or complications with childbirth could have been considered pre-existing conditions.

Dr. Allison Bryant, an obstetrician-gynecologist affiliated with Mass General and a fellow with the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, spoke with TriplePundit to explain the distinction. Before the passage of the ACA, she told us, doctors “often took care of women who, for example, would qualify for Medicaid (public health insurance for low-income Americans) because they were pregnant, then when the pregnancy was over, would lose that insurance and have no way to access primary or speciality care to keep themselves healthy.” The women might then have an unplanned pregnancy “with health problems that might have been addressed had they had access to care.”

But gaps remain in both private-sector and publicly-funded programs that left a little over 1 in 10 women uninsured in 2015. One factor: Women are more likely to be insured through their spouse’s employer-based coverage than men. About 57.5 million women aged 19 to 64 received health insurance coverage in 2015 through their spouse’s employer (59 percent). The fact that many women obtain coverage as dependents makes them at greater risk of losing coverage if they become divorced or widowed, their spouse loses a job, or their spouse’s employer either drops family coverage or increases premium and out-of-pocket costs.

Low-income women, women of color and immigrant women are at a greater risk of being uninsured. Although the number of uninsured women has dropped sharply since the ACA went into effect, some still lack coverage. That includes 1.3 million poor women who lived in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs as of this year. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid expansion is optional for states. As of October, 19 states still opted not to expand their Medicaid coverage. “Not all states elected to expand Medicaid under the ACA," Bryant said, "so the benefits afforded by the overall program did not extend to all women."

Another factor: Women are more likely to be poor. That is particularly true for minority women and single women who are heads of households. In 2014, the poverty rate for women was 14.7 and only 10.9 percent for men, according to U.S. Census records. And poverty rates for female heads of household was a staggering 39.8 percent. The wage gap between women and men makes the problem even worse. Women working full-time still only receive 79 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts, and African American women working full time are paid only 60 cents on the dollar.

Women who lack health coverage tend to delay or forgo treatment. Over half of women reported having delayed healthcare because of cost, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families. Women, particularly lower-income women, are disproportionately likely to not fill prescriptions, see specialists, see doctors or get recommended medical tests due to costs. Women are three-quarters of the adults covered by Medicaid.

“All totaled, health care is expensive and presents a challenge to women and their families," Bryant said. "In addition, above and beyond financial access, women have competing priorities and often care for their families above and beyond themselves."

How can coverage be expanded to include more women?

Underserved women are defined by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as being unable to get quality healthcare because due to barriers such poverty, cultural differences, race or ethnicity, or geography. They are at an increased risk of health problems “related to to limited access to quality health care in addition to elevated levels of poverty and geographic and social isolation,” the group says.

One way to insure underserved women is by “protecting the ACA and preserving the integrity of the law is critical to ensuring that we sustain access, and are able to expand it further,” Birchfield Kennedy told us. Repealing key provisions of the ACA like premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions “would put the cost of coverage and care out of reach for millions of women and roll back progress we have made in helping women and their families access the care they need,” she added.

“It is also important that we continue supporting the transition of our healthcare system to value-based payment, which will help drive down the cost of care and promote quality improvement,” Birchfield Kennedy said. “Delivery of higher-quality, higher-value care plays an important role in keeping health coverage affordable, so that women do not face insurmountable financial barriers when they try to access care.”

A number of healthcare systems provide services for underserved women, including hospitals, publicly-funded clinics, community health centers, federally-qualified health centers, and clinics at retail locations like CVS Health’s MinuteClinics. CVS Health operates over 1,100 medical clinics in CVS Pharmacy and Target stores across the U.S. These clinics employ nurse practitioners and physician assistants who specialize in family healthcare, and they are able to diagnose, treat, and write prescriptions for common illnesses like strep throat and bronchial infections. They also offer prevention and wellness services, such as screening and monitoring diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Tuberculosis (TB) testing, contraceptive care and help to quit smoking are also provided.

CVS Health launched women’s health services at its MinuteClinics earlier this year. Some of the services these clinics provide for women include birth control care, birth control injection, HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines, pregnancy testing, and yeast infection diagnosis and treatment. In the “coming months,” CVS Health will launch services to “diagnose and, in some cases, treat sexually transmitted infections,” Dr. Andrew Sussman, president of MinuteClinic and executive vice president of CVS Health, told TriplePundit.

Through MinuteClinics, CVS Health offers “an array of services that support women’s health care needs when they are not able to get to their primary care provider or an OB/GYN,” Sussman said. Some of the patients who come to a MinuteClinic may not have a primary doctor, so nurse practitioners and physician assistants are able to “provide convenient, high-quality and compassionate care based on patients’ individual needs at times and locations that are convenient for them,” he said.

Image credit: Pexels

Just as the COP22 climate talks opened in Marrakesh, Morocco, fresh on the heels of a historic year of progress and growing momentum, the surprising result of the interminable U.S. election sucked the air out of the room.

Years of progress between China and the U.S. face the test of a new president who once claimed climate change was a Chinese hoax, then said he was only joking. It is unclear what happens next for the United States.

This is, so to speak, the elephant in the room.

But the rest of the world was at COP22. Even as the United States looks suddenly to an uncertain change of course, the global community sought to reassure its citizens of its resolve.

In the spirit of Paris: Reaffirming commitment

The fear that countries would run for cover in the wake of a Donald Trump victory has not, as yet, come to fruition. As of this writing, 113 countries have ratified the Paris Agreement -- which came into force on Nov. 4, less than one year since its adoption at COP21.

"There is no ignoring that the election of Donald Trump sent reverberations through the negotiation halls," Paula Caballero of the World Resources Institute said in a press statement. "But delegates carried on with a strong spirit of determination. No country stepped back from its commitment to climate action."

In fact, several countries announced ratification in the days just after the U.S. election, including Japan, Italy, Australia, Pakistan and Botswana. In all, 11 countries ratified the agreement during COP22.

In a press release, the Climate Action Network -- a global NGO representing civil society -- welcomed how "governments strongly reaffirmed their resolve to work together on implementing the Paris Agreement, even amidst uncertain political moments."

It seems as if the momentum and "political solidarity" set in motion over decades of hard work that came to fruition in Paris last year remains intact.

Getting down in the weeds: Making it work

If getting past the election was the first hurdle of COP22, many others persisted as the more substantive issues of implementation, ambition and finance took center stage. With earlier-than-expected ratification, this year's COP was also the first conference of parties under the Paris Agreement: CMA1.

Unlike COP21, with its clearly defined aspirational goal of reaching a global agreement, the focus in Marrakesh was on drier, more technical issues. Coming to terms with the devil in the details doesn't play as well to the public. But, perhaps aided by the reaction to Trump's election, key steps were reached by the end of the conference to "advance implementation of the global pact," said WRI's Paula Caballero.

A quick roundup of key points include:

• 2018 deadline for the rulebook: CMA2 is set for 2018 (COP24) to allow the Ad hoc Working Group Under the Paris Agreement (APA) sufficient time to finish their preliminary work setting ground rules for implementation.


• Vulnerable states: The Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 43 developing countries most vulnerable to climate change impacts, released its CVF Vision -- committing participating nations to adopt 100 percent renewable energy generation "as soon as possible." How soon this happens depends on financing the infrastructure of a new energy economy.


• Adaptation fund and climate finance: Delegates from developed nations relented to their peers, ensuring that the Adaptation Fund, started under the Kyoto Protocol, will continue under the umbrella of the Paris Agreement. Seeking to reassure emerging economies that the promise to deliver $100 billion to support low-carbon development still stands, developed nations released the Roadmap to $100 Billion. While welcomed at COP22, the plan was also met with skepticism. Dialogue on finance issue remains difficult, but open.


• Decarbonization strategy: Germany, Canada, Mexico and the United States released long-term plans for decarbonization by 2050, called the 2050 Platform.


• New partnerships: The NDC Partnership and the Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency launched to help developing countries achieve their commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Saving face

The failure of COP15 in Copenhagen cast its shadow in the opening days of Paris. The possibility of the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a long shadow stretching back to 2001 when George W. Bush scuttled U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, one of the first decisions of his new presidency.

Signed by the U.S. in 1997 at COP3 in Kyoto, many terms of the Kyoto Protocol were dictated by U.S. negotiators, only to be abandoned years later by a new administration.

The irony of Trump's unthoughtful comments, whether he was joking or not, is that it is China who benefits most from Trump's threat to "tear up the Paris Agreement." Beyond the damaged credibility, Trump will cede to China the global leadership role for the new energy economy.

Hope remains that, when presented with the consequences of following through on campaign rhetoric, Trump will seek what he considers the best option: saving face. He may come to realize that "making America great again" involves positive participation in global affairs.

Whatever Trump does in the coming months and years is open to speculation. It is unlikely his administration will be friendly to anything that smacks of environmental advocacy. In the U.S. leadership will come from states, cities and private industry. It will be a struggle.

Lessons of history: Lack of political will is no longer an excuse

Well-known for his science fiction writing, author Stanislaw Lem was also one of the most prescient futurists ever to record their vision. For Lem, history was the key to the future. "You can't unlearn what is already learned," writes New Scientist magazine of Lem's philosophy of the future.

As for global cooperation on climate change, lack of political will is no longer an excuse. We cannot unlearn what we learned in Paris or what we've learned about climate change in the fossil energy age. Paris taught us that we indeed have the political will to come together as a global community. Decades of science and observation teaches the consequences of failing to act, and these are already well underway.

The historic adoption and ratification of the Paris Agreement offers the world a reason for cautious optimism. Despite the fear and anxiety of a Trump administration, COP22 pushed ahead with a vision for the future, built on the lessons of history.

We can fail to act on what we know. Or we can push ahead, even in the face of hostile forces. Imperfect as it is, the process at COP22 remains intact.

For now.

Image credit: James Nerhebii, courtesy Flickr; UNFCCC

Researchers around the globe are looking into food waste as a renewable source for zero-emission hydrogen fuel. And a new circular economy pilot project here in the U.S. could help ramp things up a notch or two. The project boasts A-list participants including Target, Walgreens and the Walmart Foundation.

To be clear, the project is not focused on hydrogen. The idea is to choose a city and surrounding region -- yet to be named -- that have already established some promising programs, and leverage those assets to accelerate the transition to a circular economy overall.

But that does open up some intriguing possibilities for renewable hydrogen ...

The circular economy, coming soon to a city near you.

The new circular economy initiative was formally announced earlier this month under the title, “Beyond 34: Recycling and Recovery for A New Economy.”

The figure 34 comes from a 34 percent recycling rate, upon which the U.S. appears to stuck.

The leading partner in the project is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. That's the Chamber Foundation, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce is not exactly known as a promoter of sustainable commerce, but the Chamber Foundation has more than a few surprises up its sleeve.

Among them is a strong focus on transitioning to a circular economy. This focus began in earnest just a few years ago and has already built up a head of steam. The Chamber Foundation addresses the looming crisis for companies from the perspective of economic survival:

"If we continue with the business-as-usual approach, companies and society will witness a probable surge in price volatility, inflation of key commodities, and an overall decline and in some cases depletion of critical material inputs."

Along with the Chamber Foundation, Target, Walgreens and the Walmart Foundation, Republic Services and Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) also signed on as initial partners in Beyond 34.

The program is also expect to engage local stakeholders.

Here's the money quote:

“The circular economy is a huge opportunity for the business community and for the American economy,” said Marc DeCourcey, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. “‘Beyond 34’ will help accelerate recycling and recovery solutions that enhance business performance, competitiveness, and innovation while stimulating sustainable economic growth and development at the local level.”

The Chamber Foundation makes a good case that, beyond a simple matter of economic survival, the circular economy is the key to a new age of economic growth:

"In a circular economy, products, components, and materials are designed and manufactured for reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling. Shifting to the circular economy could unlock an estimated $4.5 trillion in additional economic growth by 2030, according to research from Accenture, and could be the biggest economic revolution in 250 years."

"Economic revolution" -- them's fighting words!

Who will be the lucky city?

The Chamber Foundation expects to identify the city and surrounding region soon, and start phasing in the project by this January.

Place your bets now in the comment thread, but it seems that one lucky city is in the running.

Our friends over at Environmental Leader got a sneak peek at the Beyond 34 concept from the Chamber Foundation. Based on their reporting, it looks like the cities of Phoenix and Chandler, Arizona, exemplify the kind of test bed that fits the bill.

A strong corporate commitment to the circular economy seems helpful. Chandler, for example, hosts the second-largest Intel campus in the U.S.  In 1996, the company partnered with the city to deploy a reverse osmosis wastewater treatment facility to serve its 11,000 employees. The treated water is sent back to the local aquifer to recharge groundwater supplies.

An academic partner is also a plus. Environmental Leader reports that Arizona State University has partnered with Phoenix to launch the Resource Innovation Campus for "developing emerging products and technologies from the city’s waste resources."

The hydrogen angle

"Developing emerging products and technologies from the city’s waste resources" sure sounds like something that would fit in with Arizona State University's renewable hydrogen initiatives. The school now runs renewable hydrogen programs through its Center for Bio-Inspired Solar Fuel Production.

In 2007, ASU's Biodesign Institute launched a five-year, $2.5 million initiative to produce renewable hydrogen using a microbial process. Cyanobacteria and other tiny microbes naturally produce tiny amounts of hydrogen. The research is aimed at ramping that process up. Waste biomass from the initial process could also be reclaimed for additional hydrogen production.

As for whether or not renewable hydrogen research continues to get funded under the Trump administration, it's worth noting that the Energy Department's interest in renewable hydrogen remained consistent regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican occupied the White House.

ASU's Biodesign Institute, for example, launched during President George W. Bush's first term with this observation about biomass-to-energy and microbial systems:

"We need to change our point of view concerning what society now treats as wastes. ... To make society more sustainable, we need to capture these valuable resources, and microbial systems often are the best way.”

Even earlier in the Bush administration -- back in 2002 -- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory came up with a study indicating that the "growing concern about global climate change" would prompt the development of renewable hydrogen.

When ASU announced its five-year hydrogen program in 2007, it also launched a $1.5 million program aimed at renewable hydrogen from water-splitting. That initiative, as described by ASU, was part of a round of Energy Department funding "in support of President George W. Bush’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative."

Don't hold your breath for President Donald J. Trump's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, but stay tuned for more news as Beyond 34 starts to phase in.

No matter who holds the Oval Office, the circular economy is here to stay.

Image: via Arizona State University.

Save

Save

Save

Life in the South Pacific is rife with challenges: isolation, volatile weather, scarce economic opportunities and expensive energy. Such factors contribute to American Samoa’s status as the country's top U.S. Army recruitment center, as many of its citizens see limited job prospects.

Climate change imposes additional long-term risks across the region. But a recently launched clean-energy microgrid, comprising solar power and battery storage, hints what the future could look like for the small island states and territories in Oceania.

According Tesla and SolarCity, the small Amerian Somoan island of Ta‘u and its 600 residents have a new lifeline, thanks to SolarCity’s 1.4-megawatt solar power station and 6 megawatt hours of battery storage made possible by 60 Tesla Powerpacks. The installation, which took just under a year to complete, will provide almost all of the island’s power requirements.

SolarCity claims the new system is enough to displace almost 110,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually. It will also help keep the lights on at local schools, businesses, the island’s hospital, and its fire and police stations.

Of course, it is important to remember that this is one small project in a territory with four other islands that are home to 55,000 people. Public money paid for much of the project, with the funds coming from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Interior and the American Samoa Economic Development Authority. But such an investment can pay off many dividends in the long run – especially when freeing South Pacific communities from dependence on diesel fuels, which are polluting, expensive, subject to price volatility and often consume far too much of GDP.

But the sun provides an ample and risk-free source of power. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), nearby independent Samoa already harvests more than 20 percent of its electricity needs from renewables. But that proportion could increase to 93 percent if more solar, hydropower and wind power sources are tapped.

Battery storage systems like those manufactured by Tesla can further increase energy security across the South Pacific region, as more homes and businesses could keep the lights on with renewable power during the night. The Samoan government says it is aiming to reach 100 percent renewable energy by the end of next year.

For several years, the United Nations identified the South Pacific as one of the world’s regions most susceptible to climate change risks. The U.N. says the problems are already endemic: poverty, constant threats to infrastructure, unstable food supplies and an ongoing brain-drain as younger residents seek better economic opportunities abroad.

Indeed, the threat sea-level rise poses to these island countries will not be mitigated unless the world’s largest economies take bolder action on climate change. Nevertheless, investments in clean-energy projects such as the microgrid in Ta‘u can pay economic dividends. They can also serve as laboratories for companies like Tesla, which closed its merger with SolarCity last week, as they gauge which configurations work best and can scale.

While employing local residents, these microgrids can also provide much needed relief to national budgets, as fewer funds are spent on fuel and more invested in infrastructure, education and social services. The result could be an economic lift for countries and territories such as American Samoa, as its per-capita income of $13,000 currently ranks it between South Africa and Peru.

With the South Pacific serving as the canary in the coal mine when it comes to climate change impacts, the global community is starting to take notice. Abu Dhabi’s Masdar, for example, invested in solar projects in Oceanic countries such as Tuvalu, Kiribati and Palau.

Image credit: SolarCity

For months now, the world has been riveted by the increasing and sometimes bloody conflicts surrounding the Standing Rock Sioux protests in North Dakota. It began as a small, isolated effort by a local tribe to express concerns about the impact the $4 billion Dakota Access pipeline could have on its members rights and safety. But it is now arguably something much greater.

In addition to assaults on protesters, journalists reporting on the protests have been shot with rubber bullets. Others were arrested -- sometimes multiple times -- as they attempted to report on the water protectors' protests (which attendees stress were intended to be peaceful demonstrations or prayer gatherings).

Last weekend, the Morton County Sheriff's Office tried to deter protesters from crossing a bridge near the prayer camps. The resulting conflict sent more than 300 people to hospitals and medics after they were reportedly maced, shot with rubber bullets and sprayed with water in 25-degree temperatures.

These events came amid the Obama administration's assurances that the Standing Rock Sioux will have a voice in whether the pipeline is allowed to cross under its primary water source (Lake Oahe), leaving troubling questions about the future of civil rights when protestors face off against large business investments. Where do the rights of residents who wish to protest civilly end, and where do the expectations of business investors tentatively promised a windfall begin?

But it also paints a worrying picture about the right of Native tribes to expect that federal protections will not be eroded by lucrative business deals that seek to use federal lands for private investment.

The protection of suspected Sioux grave sites should have been guaranteed last summer. Instead Dakota Access contractors bulldozed ancestral sites in front of Standing Rock protesters. The enactment of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 followed a long history of struggles by Native Americans to ensure their access to sacred sites are protected -- many of which are on federal lands. It also sets guidelines to protect suspected artifacts and sacred sites from being bulldozed by ensuring federal and local authorities include tribal concerns when considering a construction permit.

"We have tried treaties. We have tried court cases. We have tried state and federal legislation," wrote Duane Champagne in an article for Indian Country Today. Champagne is a professor of Sociology and American Indian Studies at the University of California. He is also a professor of law at the same institution. Efforts to protect Native American sovereignty and to encourage the respect of cultural customs by the government and business entities, he says continue to be "mixed." 

The issue he maintains, isn't that there aren't treaties or laws in place to protect cultural rights and traditions. There are. "But [the federal officials] don’t generally understand or appreciate the spiritual geography of the land and its relation to the peoples." That's largely because the concept that these landmarks are "to be revered, remembered and continually honored" is out of sync with today's business priorities.

As North Americans, we will ascribe a day of remembrance to a cultural event or tragedy. We protect the right of workers to take a religious holiday. But we don't generally think of large acreages housing thousands of years of ancestral grave sites as holding sacred importance over the rights of a business contractor.

But it isn't just what the federal government does or doesn't do to protect Native cultural values that has put Native communities increasingly at risk in recent years. The growing schism between federal, state and local governments as to their responsibilities to protect Native rights have been underscored by the continual mixed messages the water protectors received during protests. The silence of the Obama administration amid charges of excessive force by a county sheriff's office and U.N. concerns of possible human rights abuses sends a chilling (albeit probably unintended) message about the rights of states and local governments to enforce their own priorities in favor of business development -- even in the face of federal law.

The next  few months will likely be trying for all sides. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that it intends to close the water protectors' encampment by Dec. 5. The protesters have, in turn, said they aren't moving. Their encampment is on federal lands, but they are lands the Sioux point out were once inhabited by their peoples and, as such, have ancestral significance.

"The best way to protect people during the winter, and reduce the risk of conflict between water protectors and militarized police is to deny the easement for the [Lake] Oahe crossing, and deny it now," Standing Rock Sioux Chariman David Archambault II said in a public statement.

Ironically, the water protectors may have one recent piece of history on their side when it comes to their right to camp indefinitely on federal land: Ammon Bundy's occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which resulted in the mishandling and destruction of Native American artifacts onsite. Under the concept of jury nullification, the heavily-armed ranchers were acquitted of all charges because the jury felt the alleged crime was the result of unjust laws.

The question that remains is whether Native American water protectors and thousands of supporters, facing off against the interests of one of the country's most lucrative industries, will be eligible for the same consideration if they end up in court.

Stay tuned.

Image: Flickr/Fibonacci Blue

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly denied climate change. In 2012, he tweeted that the “concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." His pick to lead the transition of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Myron Ebell, is also a climate denier and was recently featured in a campaign labeling him a “climate criminal.”

That is making some people concerned, including the mayors of 37 small and large American cities who wrote a letter to Trump on the topic.

In the open letter published last week on Medium, they asked the man who will take office in January to partner with them “to clean our air, strengthen our economy, and ensure that our children inherit a nation healthier and better prepared for the future than it is today.”

Representing nearly 31 million Americans “in both blue and red states,” the city leaders joined together in the U.S. Mayors’ National Climate Action Agenda (MNCAA) to address the “greatest challenge of our time, climate change.”

Each of these mayors' cities is committed to “ambitious targets” to tackle climate change, which include greenhouse gas emissions reductions, they noted in their letter. The mayors also pointed out that American voters approved over $200 billion in local measures, “funded by their own local tax dollars, to improve quality of life and reduce carbon pollution.”

For example, 70 percent of voters in Los Angeles County approved a $120 billion “commitment to public transit,” the mayors wrote. Seattle voters approved transit investments of $54 billion, and Austin voters approved a $720 million mobility bond. All three cities' mayors signed the open letter to Trump.

Last week, Donald Trump discussed climate change with the New York Times. “I have an open mind to it,” he told Times pubilsher Arthuer Sulzberger Jr. and opinion columnist Thomas Friedman. He further claimed his administration is “going to look very carefully” at climate change. He admitted that there is “something” to climate change but said taking action “depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies.” Jonathan Chait of New York magazine later characterized Trump's comments to the Times as creating a portrait “of almost complete ignorance.” 

We do know this: NASA will not be doing climate change research under Trump. As the Guardian reported this week, “NASA’s earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor exploration of deep space.” And that could mean NASA’s research on things like “temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena” could cease, at least until Trump is out of office, the paper reported.

While Trump has an “open mind” about climate change, the majority of climate experts are convinced it is happening and is human-induced. Or as the Union of Concerned Scientists states: “There is now an overwhelming scientific consensus” on climate change. The organization compiled statements from experts on climate change to make its point. Here are two:

• The American Meteorological Society stated in 2007 that “strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change."


• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007.

What president-elect Trump needs to understand is that climate change is not only real, but it is one of the biggest threats humanity faces. Whether he will remains to be seen. We can only hope the words of these mayors will penetrate. In the meantime, American cities and businesses will continue to lead the way in climate action. 

Image credit: Flickr/Downtown Los Angeles

By Mark Feldman

America has spoken. And post-election, we are all contemplating how a new administration will impact our lives and work.

As someone who has spent over 25 years helping companies create and communicate their corporate citizenship activities, I believe something game-changing is happening. These times compel business leaders at all levels to reimagine how we will step up around the social issues important to our businesses and stakeholders. More than ever before, American companies will choose their path between apathy and action. It will be an era of increased complexity and opportunity.

As the transition in Washington drives new legislation, fresh funding priorities and fewer government regulations, executives must analyze immediate and long-term business impacts. While navigating choices and opportunities brought on by the shifting environment, we will look toward shared anchors, values or a “True North” to guide our decisions. As social issues and challenges are thrust to the forefront, we will decide whether to watch from the sidelines, get more engaged or take a leadership role.

Employees, consumers and neighbors will become increasingly powerful influencers on decision-making. During uncertain and potentially polarizing times, these groups will look for comfort and alignment with their beliefs. Their voices around the social issues that are important to them will rise even louder as they get more inspired and passionate, especially if they are scared. We need to be prepared to answer what our companies and brands stand for.

In the face of the many complex challenges that lie ahead, it might be easier to passively observe and wait for the pendulum to shift back, but ultimately that means being left behind. The role of corporate America around social issues is too important - and the opportunity too great -- for us not to take carefully considered, strategic action.

Having worked with executives who act boldly and make a difference, here is what I optimistically expect to see more of from companies in the future:

• They will be open about sharing their purpose and values. If they haven’t yet developed them, this is the time to do some corporate soul-searching and define what the organization or brand stands for. For companies with strong corporate citizenship programs, I expect to see increased articulation of their values and purpose, and even greater communication around their social impact work.


• They will cultivate deeper engagement with stakeholders. This election highlighted the importance of listening to the people and the frustrations of those who feel “unheard” by leadership. Many companies already have channels for soliciting and acting on stakeholder feedback and incorporating what they learn into business decisions. Those that don’t will need to create them.


• They will recognize that a deep understanding of social issues is critical to their ability to make a difference. They will be more focused and strategic. These businesses will be more effective and smarter about their corporate citizenship thanks to this expertise, and they will be positioned to respond to potential voids in social support or changes to legislation that we might see in the next administration.


• They will take leadership roles around issues that are most important and relevant to their employees, consumers and other stakeholders. Building upon years of corporate responsibility innovation, companies will apply a broad combination of expertise, product, financial and advocacy resources to drive social impact.

Our task this year is to look deep inside our companies and ourselves and ask what is truly important.   We’ll need a point of view, a lens to make decisions, and at times, the guts to go outside our comfort zone and stand up for what we believe in. I hope we will all choose to capitalize on opportunities to both strengthen business and impact society.

Image Credit: Flickr/Doug Geisler 

Mark Feldman is the Founder and Managing Director of Cause Consulting, a social impact strategy and communications firm dedicated to simultaneously strengthening business and impacting society.

If this month’s divisive presidential election did anything for the country, it’s put the issue of diversity back into the national narrative.

It’s forced educational organizations to declare their campuses as “safe spaces” for students who fear being persecuted or forced out of school because of their heritage or their legal status. It’s galvanized discussion in some of the nation’s largest companies about how they will address inclusion in their workplaces when the federal government’s new presidential cabinet may not share that same value. It prompted flash-mob-style appeals for lawmakers to show compassion and open-mindedness toward those with more inclusive values.

And it’s forced many of us to wonder just what a multicultural 21st-century America would look like without a legislative body that doesn’t respect, or enforce diversity and inclusion in society.

Driving diversity: A public-private partnership

It’s not like we haven’t been here before.

The path to assuring the civil rights of minorities and women has been marked by both troubling failures and surprising wins throughout the country’s 240-plus history. Anti-slavery and pro-suffragist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries have been replaced today with calls for better legal protections and job access for minorities, assured rights for immigrants, and equal pay and rights for women in business. Women and minorities may have won the right to vote decades ago, but gaining parity to their white male counterpart in many areas of the business world is still a work in progress.

And that may be in part because in today’s world, effecting social change takes a private-public partnership. Government legislation can set the framework for how companies govern their workplaces, but companies make the business case for improvements like a more inclusive workforce, explained MaryAnne Howland.

Howland co-directs work on inclusion for the American Sustainable Business Council. She is also the founder of Ibis Communications, and a partner of Cluster Americas at the startup Bezgraniz Couture, a fashion company that helps self-empower individuals with disabilities.

In recent years, business organizations like ASBC have become valuable to ensuring that diversity and inclusion are part of the dialogue in Washington about business vitality. The organization, which comprises businesses across every sector, has been vocal about the need for better support for minority- and women-owned businesses.

“The number-one challenge for minority businesses is access to capital,” Howland said. It’s a common refrain among minority-owned companies, which are often the brick and mortar of small ethnic communities, and are struggling themselves. The ASBC’s mission in such cases is to try to find innovative ways to increase access to capital. “In other words, taking a look at any new legislation or any new government initiatives where we see there is an angle that can be carved out for minority businesses that will give them an opportunity to compete.” That support network of businesses is often what helps to drive new dialogue about ways to streamline access to capital that in turn, can translate to more jobs and business opportunities for minorities and women.

And there are a number of ways that could be done, Howland suggested. "Government could increase the flow of capital to medium-sized businesses so they can afford to grow into large-size businesses."

Some legislation does give preferential access to minorities, but according to Howland, it doesn’t go far enough. It also relies on businesses to constantly push and lobby for improvements. Under federal law, 5 percent of government contracts must be “set aside” for women and minority-led disadvantaged businesses. The provision is meant to make it just a little easier for struggling businesses (that meet the guidelines) to access good-paying contracts. But that 5 percent of contracts is barely a drop in the bucket when one considers that 55 percent of businesses in the sprawling Los Angeles area alone are owned and operated by minority business owners.

“They have all these people competing for this little bitty [5 percent]. Well, that doesn’t create much opportunity for a medium-sized business to grow.” She said the provision has helped some businesses, but there must be “some leveling of the playing field” if the country’s smallest businesses are truly going to feel the economic impact of government set-asides.

“Government-driven mandates like that are good. I think it is time for the government to increase it,” Howland said. And unfortunately, it’s again up to small and medium businesses to remind the government that the percentage needs to be representative of the country’s demographics.

Gender diversity at the top

But small, local businesses aren’t the only place that diversity needs to grow. Earlier this year some of the country’s largest corporations joined forces to support legislation that would help ensure more female representation on corporate boards. HR 4718, authored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-D), would force companies to disclose their diversity statistics to the Security and Exchange Commission. And it would require business to actually explain their representation of women and minorities in the seats of the country’s largest and most influential businesses.

The legislation didn’t just get the support of investors who were lobbying for more transparency at the corporate top, but also from Catalyst, a NGO designed to support the advancement of women in businesses, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It also garnered bipartisan support in its first lap through the House.

With a Republican-led administration and Congress moving in next year, getting the bill passed may be harder than initially anticipated. But businesses are letting lawmakers know that diversity at the top of the corporate ladder matters just as much as sustainable, economic opportunities do for smaller companies.

Time for companies to lead

Howland said she is pragmatic, and doesn’t expect to see the support for inclusive businesses in Washington as there was under the Obama Administration. And that will likely make it much harder for businesses to push progressive business values at the federal level. But that doesn’t mean businesses – or the ASBC for that matter – should stop advocating for diversity and inclusion.

“One of the things that I strongly believe … is that corporations should be taking the lead in [advocating for diversity and inclusion],” Howland said. “It’s an enormous opportunity for them, because [irrespective of] what kind of politics are going on, the demographics are the demographics.” Businesses still need sound, sustainable policies that will allow them to grow and prosper. They just may not find as receptive an ear in Washington as they did last year.

“So you go state,” Howland said. You lobby and network where your values will be heard in state legislatures and hopefully, eventually, carried forward to Washington.

Or, as Howland said would likely be the case in her home state, Republican-led Tennessee, you go local, where Nashville’s first woman mayor, Megan Barry, was just elected. You use your network, and when possible, you innovate to bring change.

“Can we empower her and her voice with the Council of Mayors and help her make the case to the mayors in other neighboring cities, and then those that will carry forward to the legislature and the state government?” reflected Howland. “I don’t know. But we have a champion right here, who we can support [and] uplift." And even in these uncertain times, networks are what help to build strong, inclusive neighborhoods.

“Maybe we should start with the friends we have,” she said.

Image credit: Flickr/Wonder woman0731