Search

Since the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a trend toward self-sufficiency has developed in the U.S.

At the national level, the focus on energy self-sufficiency is largely a reaction to a distaste for the use of oil from the Middle East but also the perception that it is important for national security to be energy independent.  This requires capital investment in U.S. energy development rather than purchasing crude as a commodity from elsewhere.

In business, the trend comes from the growing requirement to limit carbon emissions and a shift toward corporate social responsibility in general. However, the outcome of capital investments to reach these goals can result in reduced costs, eliminating vulnerability and resulting in greater self-sufficiency.

Even in homes, the trend is to capital investments to create self-sufficiency. For example, installing rooftop solar and buying cars charged by solar are all capital investment strategies that avoid buying energy from utilities and gasoline stations.

Energy use and water utilities

Nearly 20 percent of electricity and 30 percent of natural gas in California are related to the movement and treatment of water. In San Diego, where the vast majority of the water must be imported, water utilities are heavily innovating and investing in capital projects to become more water and energy self-sufficient.

San Diego water agencies address water self-sufficiency in a number of ways. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) completed a desalination plant in the city of Carlsbad that will provide 8 to 10 percent of the region’s water. The SDCWA contracted directly with water agencies in the agriculturally-rich Imperial Valley to bypass water wholesaler Metropolitan Water District, which serves 26 retail agencies and must balance the needs of all of those agencies. In addition to water recycling, the city of San Diego has a plan to produce a third of the municipality’s water by re-purifying wastewater to potable standards, an investment that makes the city more water self-sufficient.

Energy is a significant cost for water utilities, and capital investments in new or existing infrastructure reduce those costs and are part of the self-sufficiency trend.

SDCWA is floating 20 acres of solar cells on Olivenhain Reservoir to not only generate up to 8 megawatts of electricity, but also to test its value in reducing evaporation. Another innovation is a proposed pumped storage project for the San Vicente Reservoir in partnership with the city of San Diego that would use the storage of water as a battery. During the day, when there is excess renewable energy from solar and wind available at low cost, water would be pumped uphill from San Vicente to a smaller reservoir, effectively storing energy in the upper reservoir. In the evening, or whenever energy is in demand at a higher cost, the water would flow downhill through a hydropower plant and the energy would be recaptured and sold at a profit. SDCWA is also creating electricity through the use of turbines in water distribution pipelines.

The city of San Diego’s Public Utilities Department also developed a number of projects to produce electricity.  The department uses methane from its wastewater treatment and water recycling plants to power fuel cells, run generators and, when cleaned, to be piped into San Diego Gas and Electric’s (SDG&E) natural gas pipelines. It uses the thermal energy from facility processes to heat digesters and air condition the plants. Solar arrays have been constructed on several of the department’s facilities. The excess electricity generated not used internally is sold. These capital investments are part of the city of San Diego’s goal to operate 100 percent on clean energy by 2035 and are making the utility more energy self-sufficient.

Business innovation in water and energy

Innovative technologies are emerging for businesses and agriculture, too. WaterFX has developed a solar desalination process that treats farm drainage water so it can be reused. A pipeline filled with mineral oil is heated using parabolic solar mirrors. The heated oil then energizes a solar still that desalinates the water by distilling it. The water becomes steam, leaving the minerals behind as it returns to its liquid state, ready for use as clean water.  The firm says the technology can also be used to treat runoff, saline groundwater and industrial process water. One module can produce 65,000 gallons per day or 70 acre feet per year, creating self-sufficiency for farmers or other users with water quality issues.

One way for businesses to become water self-sufficient is to eliminate water from industrial processes.  Nike, Adidas and Ikea are all using a process by DyeCoo Corp. that eliminates the need to use water to dye fabrics. Instead, carbon dioxide (CO2) is converted into a liquid under extreme pressure and heat and substituted for water. Branded as the ColorDry process, it reduces dying time by 40 percent and energy use by 60 percent. Of course, water use is reduced 100 percent.

Water/energy innovation on the home front

The desire for residential self-sufficiency is apparent on homes, too. What if you could take a shower continuously with the same water? That’s what astronauts do on the International Space Station, the inspiration behind Orbital Systems’ shower. The shower contains a basin in the floor with a filtration system the company claims will create drinking-quality water. It saves 90 percent of the water and 80 percent of the energy needed for a warm shower.

Heating water is estimated to account for between 20 percent and 25 percent of the total energy consumption in a typical home, so innovation in this area can be meaningful. Nexus Water developed a gray water capture system that recycles 67 percent of indoor water and reduces 70 percent of the energy used for water heating while reducing sewage flow. Renewability is a firm attempting to address this problem by creating the Power Pipe. An incoming copper water pipe wraps around an outgoing drain pipe.  The warmth of the water in the drain pipe heats the water in copper pipe wrapped around it. The process adds as much as 25 degrees to the temperature of the water entering the water heater, reducing heat cost by up to 40 percent.

The old saw that says “everything old is new again” applies to an innovation the U.S. EPA resurfaced (or perhaps never lost sight of): using solar panels to heat water. Solar can significantly reduce the cost of heating water for both gas and electric water heaters with a relatively small rooftop footprint. When solar first surfaced in the public’s mind, it was to heat water for swimming pools and water heaters, not to create electricity. Photovoltaic make room on the roof. The old is new again!

The number of innovations and policies to create self-sufficiency are likely to multiply as the U.S. and other countries work to create a secure, self-sufficient and even sustainable world, whether at home, in the workplace, or at regional, state and national levels.

Image credit: Pixabay

By Dusty Wunderlich

Depending on your perspective, millennials are either fickle and unreliable, or they just have really high standards when it comes to their careers.

Gallup reports that 21 percent of millennials have changed jobs within the past year, a trend that cost the U.S. economy $30.5 billion. Only half of millennial workers intend to stay with their current companies for more than the next 12 months.

Older generations don’t understand the millennial approach because it’s antithetical to their experiences. They grew up with the understanding that once you landed a good job, you climbed the ladder at that company -- no matter how unfulfilled you were or how much you came to resent the work. Millennials demand more than that from their careers. They crave autonomy and purpose, and they’re willing to switch jobs frequently in pursuit of those values.

Is all of this job-hopping a headache for employers? Absolutely. But it also presents a unique opportunity. Millennials make up the largest percentage of the American workforce, so companies can’t afford to maintain the status quo. Younger generations reject traditional, hierarchical models -- and that might be the best thing to ever happen to U.S. businesses.

The intrapreneurial generation

Millennials move quickly between positions in pursuit of better salaries, work-life balance and a sense of purpose. They’re not trying to avoid responsibility; they’re seeking a culture in which they can thrive.

Although Millennials are often touted as the most entrepreneurial generation, not all of them want to start their own businesses. The potential for failure (coupled with high student debt) prevents many young professionals from striking out on their own. Likewise, the current financial climate has made Millennials the most risk-averse generation in nearly a century. Yet they still desire the freedom and creativity that comes with being their own bosses.

Here’s where employers can benefit. By offering the stability of employment and the creativity of intrapreneurship, they can engage and retain Millennial workers. Intrapreneurship programs give employees the freedom to explore their ideas and learn from their failures. When people know they’ll still have jobs to come back to the next morning, they’re willing to take risks that could pay off handsomely for their companies.

Some of Google’s most significant products -- including Gmail, AdSense and Google News -- began as intrapreneurial projects. Zappos took the concept a step further by implementing its Holacracy, in which no one holds managerial titles and decisions are made democratically. Both approaches empower employees to ship products quickly instead of getting hung up on bureaucratic details.

Building the new workforce

Startups are intrapreneurial by nature. The teams are small, so everyone needs be self-motivated and autonomous. As companies grow, they must decide whether they want to continue to support intrapreneurship or adopt a more traditional model. Intrapreneurship programs take businesses beyond initial profitability because they focus on growth and innovation. They also boost employee engagement.

If employees are invested in an organization’s success, they’re likely to stay with the company long-term. Team members who feel empowered to act on their ideas take ownership in the business and work doubly hard to help it grow. They feel connected to the larger vision and they appreciate the opportunity to work as they see fit.

Businesses can use the following guidelines to cultivate intrapraneurship:

1. Stack the deck in your favor. The best way to inspire and encourage an intrapreneurial spirit in your team members is to bring in new employees who already have that fire in their bellies. Not everyone works well without continuous oversight, so conduct personality tests to ensure each hire is a good fit.

Look for self-directed, ambitious candidates who will thrive in a nontraditional environment. A track record of taking initiative, passion for the industry and ideas about how to improve the company are all signs that someone is an intrapreneur in the making.

2. Provide support, but don’t micromanage. Millennials may be risk-averse, but given the right supportive environment, their creative minds will take off. Give employees the flexibility to try new concepts and the freedom to fail. Don’t insist that they report to management at every step of a project. Offer mentorship but let them have the autonomy that was promised.

Intuit encourages intrapreneurs through coaching, training and publicly recognizing quality work. But final products are devised and executed by employees. The more people can make their jobs their own, the more significant their contributions will be.

3. Expand opportunities incrementally. Trust builds over time. Rather than handing over the reins to company-defining projects right off the bat, greenlight smaller initiatives that let employees test their skills without jeopardizing the business. If they make mistakes, they’ll learn from them and be more prepared next time. Create a clear path toward bigger products while providing opportunities for learning and gaining experience along the way.

Intrapreneurship answers the question “How can companies retain Millennial talent?” This generation values purpose and accomplishment over money and titles, a fact that should delight employers. Intrapreneurship programs satisfy Millennials’ career requirements and help businesses bring more innovative solutions to the market.

Image credit: Flickr/Robert Scoble

Dusty Wunderlich is the founder and CEO of Bristlecone Holdings, a high-growth network of consumer and business-to-business finance platforms and financial technologies. Its mission is to democratize the world of finance for the better. Dusty is a current recipient of the Twenty under 40 Awards in Reno, Nevada, and is a member of the Young Entrepreneur Council.

The recent "Saturday Night Live" Black Jeopardy skit reveals that the economic and security hopes and fears of both black and white Americans are far more similar than the media would have us believe. Unfortunately, the tone of this year’s presidential election is doing a lot more to divide than unite citizens as the race goes down to the wire.

With a week to go until the election, the race is tightening with the revelation that as many as 650,000 emails are sitting on a laptop that may or may not have links to Hillary Clinton’s controversial basement email server. The allegation that this was the same laptop used by Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, and her estranged oft-sexting husband, Anthony Weiner, further overshadows the issues that should be defining this campaign.

And one of these issues involves the economic security of black Americans -- who, thanks to social media, are now able to amplify their daily fears about violence and its ties to systematic racism.

Then there are the concerns that far too many black Americans live in poverty: over 27 percent, in fact, according to one NGO. There are many ways to contrast the incomes of black Americans versus the rest of the population. In 2014, the Washington Post offered one way to sum up how they are faring in the U.S.: If black America were a country, its per-capita income would range somewhere near that of Portugal or Lithuania, or approximately 40 places behind where the U.S. ranks. Hence there is an opening, if political candidates can offer compelling ideas in order to appeal to a voting bloc that represents about 12 percent of the U.S. population.

Once solidly behind Republicans, black Americans increasingly voted Democratic during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. By the time Harry Truman called for new civil rights measures in 1948, and the passage of laws ending th Jim Crow era in the 1960s, blacks were overwhelmingly backing Democratic candidates.

But in recent years, some grumbled that Democrats have taken black voters for granted. The country’s evolving demographics, which in a few words means the country is now far less white, have sparked some Republicans to find a way to rebrand the party as one that has appeal to America’s racial and ethnic minorities -- especially after Mitt Romney lost in his attempt to oust President Obama in 2012. Nevertheless, the stubborn fact is that no Republican has tried to woo black Americans with ideas that could resonate since the late Jack Kemp, a former upstate New York congressman and 1996 vice presidential candidate, preached the idea of “enterprise zones” for inner cities during the 1980s.

This year, Donald Trump often repeated his mantra that Democrats assume the black vote is theirs. During a speech last week in Charlotte, North Carolina, Trump claimed that he would never take black Americans’ votes for granted. He promised vague Kemp-esque tax incentives for inner cities, microloans for entrepreneurs and social enterprises, expanded school choice, and even a path for cities and states to declare inner cities “disaster areas.” And as part of his ongoing narrative, which seems like more of an appeal to his current base than a move to expand the GOP’s tent, Trump pledged to remove gang members from inner cities and continued to raise alarm over what he says is a rising murder rate.

But for Trump, his challenge in appealing to blacks and other Americans goes far beyond what are at a minimum missteps and at most ignorant assumptions about people of color. His urging of “the blacks” to vote for him because, well, “what the hell do you have to lose,” are easily juxtaposed with his confusion over thugs versus supporters and his family’s history of refusing to rent to black citizens. As Chauncey Devega of Salon wrote last week, Trump’s “New Deal” for blacks is particularly insulting when you consider his incessant claims that voter fraud is rampant throughout inner city neighborhoods (despite no evidence) and his refusal to acknowledge police brutality.

The real problem with Trump’s plan to address the “disaster” and the “crippling crime and total violence” in American cities is that it also grossly generalizes the reality of many black Americans. As Fortune's Joel Kotkin explained, the black American experience is hardly monolithic. In fact, many blacks are doing quite well in states that their grandparents and great-grandparents left in droves decades ago during the “Great Migration,” including metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Raleigh and Charlotte. In fact, the top 10 wealthiest black communities are all south of the Mason-Dixon line, with cities such as Washington, D.C.; Miami; Richmond, Virginia; Orlando, Florida; and San Antonio, Texas, also making this list.

Furthermore, despite Trump’s assumption, repeated during the second presidential debate as he answered a question from one black undecided voter (which SNL brilliantly parodied), more black Americans now live in the suburbs than the cities. Of course, many of those communities to which they relocated are inner-ring suburbs as more millennials, empty-nesters and professionals are moving back to the cities. Nevertheless, Trump’s Charlotte speech comes across more as a Hail Mary pass to finally expand his base, with a rewording of his vague proposals to fix the country’s economy, boost jobs and repair infrastructure.

Finally, while Trump did lament last month’s shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte as “uneven justice,” his clarion call to black voters in North Carolina’s largest city summed up his struggle to make his case to many of America’s citizens: The forum, as described by the local Charlotte newspaper, was an invitation-only event full of mostly white voters.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

By Tyler Jackson

If we want environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors to permeate all layers of the financial system, we need to talk about financial advisors.

As Jessica Matthews, head of mission-related investing at Cambridge Associates, said at SOCAP16, “We need to think of advisors as a gateway, rather than a gatekeeper to impact investing." Ultimately it’s financial advisors who hold the key to unlocking institutional-level disruption in this space. So, why aren’t we talking about them?

1. Advisors should be a gateway to impact

A favorite fact in the impact investing community is that investors, 75 percent of women and 84 percent of millennials, are demanding ethically sourced investments. However, the percentage of investors who have actually made ethical investments is closer to 18 percent.

Why does that gap exist? The fact is that investors are more likely to make financial decisions, particularly non-traditional ones that involve ESG factors, when they have the support of a trusted advisor. Consumer reliance on financial advisors has increased 43 percent in the aftermath of the financial crisis, from 28 percent in 2010 to 40 percent in 2015. However, fewer than 10 percent of advisors currently report being highly interested in the ESG field.

Financial advisors are stereotypically known for never being the first to market and are considered weary of exploring the unknown. The truth is that most financial advisor training and education programs still don’t incorporate ESG strategies, leaving the majority of financial advisors educated with the same tactics that created the 2008 financial crisis (and all the ones before it).

2. Finding the right advisor should be breathtakingly easy

The investor-advisor matchmaking process is often confusing, time consuming, and unsuccessful. In a 2016 survey conducted of 1,287 high net worth investors, Fidelity found that 45 percent of investors would not recommend their current advisors, while 20 percent were considering breaking up with their advisors altogether. A similar survey has not been conducted for investors who identify as values-driven, but it’s safe to surmise that those numbers would be significantly higher for that subset of the investor population.

At a time when consumers base the majority of their decision-making on information they find online, investors need to be given the online tools to make informed decisions about who their financial advisor is and what they believe in. Those tools simply do not exist. There are an average of 640,000 Google searches every month for the phrase “financial advisor," yet 49 percent of Americans who have not yet received financial advice report delaying getting that advice because they don’t know what sources or whom they can trust.

The bottom line

At SOCAP16 everyone was buzzing about the record level of investor demand for ESG investments. But nobody was talking about how those investors would find values-aligned financial advisors who would encourage them to actually write the checks. Values Advisor, the startup I work for, is attempting to bridge that gap. On one end, it is an online matchmaking platform where investors can find advisors who align with their social and environmental values as well as their financial goals, and on the other it’s an educational resource for advisors who are learning about adding ESG factors to their toolbelt.

Capital will not flow by itself. If we want to see ESG factors permeate all layers of the financial system, we need to make it painfully easy for everyone who says they are “interested” in ESG investing to actually move their money. More social finance innovations need to include financial professionals, rather than exclude them, and financial advisors need to actively seek out resources and organizations such as U.S. SIF, Paul Ellis Consulting, As You Sow and UNPRI that can help them incorporate ethical considerations into their practice.

Image credit: Pixabay

Tyler Jackson is a social finance consultant who helps mission-driven organizations research, develop, and manage projects that break down social investment barriers. He is the COO of Values Advisor, an online matchmaking startup that is revisioning the way investors find values-aligned financial advisors. Previously, he was the Development Director of Invest with Values and a Fellow at RSF Social Finance. Tyler holds an MBA in Sustainable Management from Presidio Graduate School.

Visit www.tylervjackson.com or follow him on twitter @tylervjackson

“Meats are what fuel brotherhood,” says a recent Arby’s advertisement marking the fall hunting season.

To that end, the $1.2 billion company with over 3,300 restaurants -- and a devoted following due to its competitively priced, quick-order deli meat sandwiches -- announced that it will test market venison sandwiches in six U.S. states.

This sandwich, which includes what the company describes as layers of thick-cut venison steak, deep fried onions and a Cabernet wine-infused juniper berry sauce on a toasted roll, will make its debut on Halloween in Nashville, Tennessee. During the weeks leading to the Thanksgiving holiday, the venison sandwich will appear at a total of 17 outlets in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

According to Arby's, the venison sandwich will pay homage to the fall deer hunting season that is a popular tradition within those states. The Georgia-based company also filmed a series of commercials celebrating hunters and their passion.

The venison is free-range and grass-fed: and sourced from a producer New Zealand. But USA Today reported the meat is from free-range farmed deer that graze on natural grass. Although plenty of bloggers make the case that hunting and raising venison for meat is relatively sustainable compared to the beef, pork and poultry industries, such reasoning is not behind Arby’s campaign at all. Indeed, this is the manliest of manly man campaigns, but there is no reason why women, and non-hunters in general, would also not show interest in this menu item. So far, the company has been pleased with the response.

"The guest response has been incredible. We sold out of the sandwich in 5 hours on our first day in Nashville on Monday," said an Arby's spokesperson in an emailed statement to TriplePundit. "We received feedback from serious deer hunters as well as guests who had never tried venison, and they all loved the sandwich."

While its competitors in the fast-food industry struggle with NGOs calling them out for questionable food sourcing practices and concerns over animal cruelty in their supply chains, Arby’s for the most part has been able to fly under the radar. Across the industry, chains such as Yum! Brands’ KFC, Wendy’s and McDonald’s replied with promises including the elimination of preservatives and experiments with organic options on their menus. More consumers, especially millennials, have in turn expressed how they feel about these companies with their feet as they walk into fast casual chains like Panera Bread and (until recently) Chipotle instead.

In contrast, while Arby’s endured its share of protests by NGOs and through social media campaigns, the company and its 74,000 employees have been largely excluded from the debate. The company has said it will phase out pork suppliers using gestation crates, will source only cage-free eggs by 2020 and is also a founding member of the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. In part by steering clear of the controversies that have bogged down other restaurant chains, the company began a resurgence since a private equity firm purchased the chain from Wendy’s in 2011. Customers continue to walk in to satisfy their protein fix, and sales in turn are healthy.

Although Arby’s insists its venison promotion is little more than paying homage to its customers who are passionate about hunting, the company could be onto something here. As Oliver Thring opined on the Guardian a few years ago, the posh history behind venison is amongst the many reasons why this meat has never had widespread popularity. Furthermore, while there is scant evidence suggesting whether venison is a more healthful and sustainable option versus beef or other animal meats, consumers have proven in recent years that they are willing to try new products if they lessen any impact on the planet. Venison, quite frankly, has just been never given a chance.

For years, Arby’s was the butt of jokes, especially from John Stewart when he hosted "The Daily Show." The company took those criticisms in stride, and let’s face it: There are hipster and millennial consumers out there who want to try new things to stand out in the crowd, but do not necessarily have the budget. Venison could be one step in Arby’s scoring more success in what is a very competitive, and yet struggling, industry.

Image credit: Arby’s

When the Bundy brothers and their gang took over a working federal facility at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon last winter, they claimed to be peaceful "cowboy campers" exercising their First Amendment rights in a classic act of civil disobedience. That portrayal seemed practically ludicrous, given the regular display of guns -- and reports of menacing by local residents -- that characterized the occupation.

Nevertheless, all seven gang members who faced federal charges over the incident were acquitted by a jury in Portland, Oregon, last week.

The Bundys and their supporters are celebrating the verdict as a vindication of their tactics and their cause, but a much more complicated picture emerges in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement and the recent protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline.

What is civil disobedience, anyways?

TriplePundit has been following the Bundy case since its inception because Ammon Bundy is a businessman who purports to be acting for the benefit of the community.

Those of you new to the case can catch up by browsing the TriplePundit archives. The short version is that Ammon and Ryan Bundy lead a group of armed followers into an administration building at Malheur in January, effectively chasing out Bureau of Land Management employees and preventing public use of the property.

Deploying arguments that neatly dovetailed with the land privatization lobby spearheaded by ALEC and other conservative organizations, the Bundys claimed to be acting on behalf of the local community. They promised to turn the land over to ranchers, loggers and miners.

Without the weaponry, one could adopt a reasonable case for civil disobedience in the occupation of Malheur or practically anywhere else.

After all, the conventional understanding of civil disobedience involves passive actions, such as occupying a space, in order to draw attention to laws or situations perceived to be unjust.

Some of the highest profile episodes of the 20th-century civil rights movement -- occupying a seat on a bus, or a stool at a lunch counter -- involved just such passivity.

Civil disobedience, with guns...

One critical element in conventional civil disobedience is the protester's expectation that arrests will occur, and that the protesters will be called to account for breaking laws.

In organized actions, protesters are carefully coached to remain passive throughout, including during arrest. Aside from helping to prevent serious injury, passivity underscores the protesters' commitment to justice and helps to amplify their message.

The constant presence of guns throughout the Malheur episode puts an entirely new wrinkle on the concept of civil disobedience.

Regardless of the intent of the protesters, bringing guns into an occupied space is not a passive act.

Nevertheless, the show of arms enabled the Bundys to hold their space for weeks, drawing attention to their cause throughout.

... unless you are POC.

Federal law officers handled the Bundy occupation with an excess of caution partly because of continued fallout from the Waco, Texas, incident of 1993, in which 70 members of the Branch Davidian cult and several officers were killed.

To be clear, the Waco incident was not a response to civil disobedience -- the episode was sparked when federal agents raided the cult's compound on weapons charges -- but it has impacted the tactics that federal officers use to defuse situations on federal property.

Be that as it may, the "kid glove" approach that federal officers deployed at Malheur is a stark contrast with racial patterns of local police violence highlighted by Black Lives Matter and some violent responses to peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters.

Observers are also drawing contrasts with the ongoing response to protests over construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, in which state-based law enforcement agencies have brought in military equipment to remove protesters by force from at least one protest site.

The difference in jurisdiction is a critical differentiator. As of this writing, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided Dakota protesters with a legal right to occupy another protest site, located on federal land. By way of broader context, that decision appears related to the agency's emerging emphasis on environmental security, under which U.S. ACE has leveraged Native American treaty rights to prevent the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Black Lives Matter protests generally take case on city streets (and the occasional freeway), where a variety of city police forces and state troopers, who come with a wide range of training and tools in protest response, hold jurisdiction.

What comes next

Some commenters on the Bundy verdict believe that it may have normalized armed protest, leading to more acts of violence in the future.

There are a number of reasons why that probably won't happen, at least not in the context of the land privatization movement.

In an article last week, Think Progress charted the decline of the land rights movement. For one thing, its and Bundy's central argument -- that the federal government has no constitutional authority over land outside of Washington, D.C. -- has been thoroughly debunked by constitutional scholars.

Even within its western constituency, the movement has failed to attract mainstream legal support. In September, the Associated Press reported that a two-year study by the Western Conference of Attorneys General cast doubt on the arguments advanced by "land rights" advocates in Utah. The organization, which consists of 15 western states and three territories, voted 11-1 to adopt the finding.

The movement is also receiving significant pushback from the recreation industry, which cuts across party lines.

Last week, for example, an op-ed appeared in the conservative-leaning website The Hill drawing attention to widespread support for land preservation.

The Hill also provided space for an op-ed attributed to the organization Western Watersheds Proejct, which had this to say about the Bundy verdict:

This sorry episode of armed bullying succeeded only in spreading public awareness of pernicious attempts to despoil or steal outright our national treasure of Western public lands.

Ammon and Ryan Bundy are still due to stand trial in Nevada for another armed standoff on federal land orchestrated by their father Cliven back in 2014. The outcome of that trial could be quite different, especially if lessons learned from the failure in Oregon are applied.

In the end, the Bundy show of force did nothing for the land rights movement, and may have done serious damage to its public profile.

On the other hand, despite isolated episodes of violence, Black Lives Matter continues to gather force, and the Dakota Access protests are gaining a sympathetic public response while drawing more attention to the risks and impacts of new fossil infrastructure.

Perhaps armed "civil disobedience" has its limits.

Photo: “Damage at Malheur NWR” by USFWS-Pacific Region via flickr.com, creative commons license.

Save

Save

Save

Save

There is a serious lack of diversity among tech companies. While many have made efforts to increase their diversity numbers, the results are lackluster at best.

LinkedIn recently released its 2016 diversity report. Women make up 42 percent of the company’s workforce, while men are 58 percent. White people are 54 percent of the workforce, Asian 36 percent, Latino 5 percent, and African American a dismal 3 percent.

LinkedIn included global statistics for the tech industry in its report, and it showed the company has made progress. Globally, men make up 80 percent of the tech industry workforce. LinkedIn also included statistics for the non-tech workforce, which is 52 percent female and 48 percent male. So, clearly the tech industry is behind the non-tech workforce when it comes to diversity and inclusion. 

“We will continue to strive to do better,” Pat Wadors, LinkedIn SVP for global talent organization, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.

Data from other tech companies makes it clear the entire tech industry needs to do better when it comes to diversity. Take Facebook and Google. Facebook’s workforce, as of July 2016, is 27 percent women, 3 percent African-American, and 3 percent Latino. Its senior leadership hires in the U.S. over the last 12 months were 9 percent African-American, 5 percent Hispanic and 29 percent female. Google’s workforce consists of 31 percent women and 69 percent men. Its employees are also 59 percent white, with Latinos and African-Americans making up 2 and 3 percent, respectively.

Data on the diversity of tech companies compiled by Pixel Envy shows similar results to the diversity reports by LinkedIn, Facebook and Google. So, what can companies do to improve?

They can start by focusing on two things that help companies build more inclusive organizations, Tyi McCray, a partner at Paradigm, told TriplePundit. She said companies must look not only at their hiring processes, but also at how they attract candidates.

To increase diversity, a company must first increase transparency, McCray explained. As Hudson, which helps companies find talent, put it: Companies need to do an “honest, accurate and transparent assessment” of their diversity shortcomings. In other words, companies must conduct self-assessments. McCray believes that a self-assessment should always be the first step. In the self assessment, a company should “reflect on what their current processes look like, and how these process might be limiting or advancing inclusion,” she added.

McCray cites examples about how a company can conduct a self-assessment. They “should consider how they write job descriptions, review resumes, structure interviews, write interview feedback, and discuss candidates,” she told us. The “entire hiring process is a prime setting for unconscious bias.”

Companies that do not design a “fair and objective process” will not be able to increase diversity and “miss out on the best candidates," McCray explained. Companies can also use “an outside firm" to conduct a “thorough assessment of the culture of the organization including discrimination in pay and hiring practices,” author Bonnie Marcus suggested last year in Forbes.

What can companies do beyond conducting self assessments? The website Hire More Women in Tech lists steps companies can take to increase diversity, as does Marcus in her Forbes piece. One of those steps is finding ways to expand networks. Partnering with influential organizations and companies is one way to do better networking. Hudson lists examples of potential partner organizations, including historically black colleges, minority business associations and women’s professional networks.

Other steps include:

• Offer mandatory training for every employee in unconscious bias. Pinterest includes training in unconscious bias in their diversity plain.
• Develop career paths for employees that enable them to see how they can advance.
• Develop coaching and training programs for women and minorities on relational skills.
• Create mentor programs to help women and minorities both understand the culture and politics of their organization.
• Track the gender of applicants, not just the hires.
• Invest in existing women and minority tech communities.
• Invest in the future by sponsoring events and underwriting scholarships, paying fellows or interns in the communities a company is trying to reach, start a mentoring program, and underwrite trainings.
• Treat well the women and minorities who already work for you.

McCray also suggested that firms take a look at their company websites. Career websites in tech “very often depict homogenous cultures, showing images of young (and often primarily white) men,” she explained. Women and minorities might look at those images and “conclude they don’t belong.” Companies need to “showcase the range of people in their organization,” she told us, and the company website is a “great place to promote inclusive policies.” In other words: Tech companies need to rethink the image they portray to women and minorities on their websites.

 

Image credit: Flickr/Jakob Steinschaden

The Rio Grande Valley, at the southernmost tip of Texas along the Mexican border, is one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S. Its local economy is largely dependent on agriculture, which grows crops such as the region’s popular citrus fruit. In addition, ecotourism is also a major employer due to coastal destinations such as South Padre Island and the valley’s rich and diverse semi-tropical wildlife.

But according to the environmental NGO Rainforest Action Network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals proposed in cities such as Brownsville are a long-term threat to both the local economy and environment.

Despite the two-year slump in conventional energy prices, the LNG industry is still bullish about its future, especially in Texas. But where energy companies see opportunities, RAN views the impact of new LNG terminals as putting much of the Rio Grande Valley’s environment -- and the health of poorer local residents -- at risk.

LNG is often derived from fracking. The fuel is transported along pipelines from where it was originally extracted to terminals at coastal ports. The gas is then cooled to a temperature of -260 degrees Fahrenheit (-160 degrees Celsius), allowing it to be compressed into a liquid.

NGOs, as well as business publications such as the Wall Street Journal, insist the U.S. now faces an oversupply of natural gas due to excessive extraction from fracking. In order to compensate for low energy prices, fossil fuel corporations are now looking to international markets. Enter LNG export terminals or, as RAN describes, “fracked gas terminals.”

The problem, say RAN’s researchers, is that if approved, these terminals would be constructed near neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in the U.S. The results could be an egregious violation of environmental justice as these LNG terminals could cause air pollution levels to spike. The outcome, therefore, would be students missing more days of school, an increase in asthma attacks and contaminated water. The quest to expand fracking in southern Texas, in fact, even led one energy company to suggest fracking in the middle of residential neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, what is now a mostly pristine coastline would see risks imposed on its local shrimping and fishing industries. In addition, ecotourism jobs that depend on popular recreational activities like sport fishing and bird watching would also come under threat. The NGO suggested that, in total, as many 6,600 jobs reliant on ecotourism could be negatively affected. In contrast, RAN’s study concludes that the construction of LNG terminals would create only a few hundred permanent jobs after the temporary workers needed to build these plants were terminated.

RAN also paints a portrait of intimidation tactics and power grabs by the companies proposing three southern Texas LNG terminals. RAN accused Annova LNG and Rio Grande LNG of demanding property tax breaks as well as forging dubious research partnerships with a local university. Residents responded in kind, as local press reports covered protests at public hearings held to discuss whether these proposed LNG terminals will move forward.

The RAN study estimates that if all three LNG terminals are approved, Brownsville’s port would be the scene of 5.1 billion cubic feet of gas produced every day. One year’s worth of gas exported out of Brownsville would be the equivalent of the annual carbon emissions coming from 30 coal-fired power plants. Investors in the LNG plants would profit handsomely, while local communities would pay the health, environmental and social costs.

The problem in south Texas, RAN insists, is more than a jobs-versus-environment fight. The NGO called out several of the largest American and international banks for funding the companies seeking these LNG terminals. The list includes France’s BNP Paribas, Japan’s Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. (SMBC), Switzerland's Credit Suisse, and America's Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.

RAN urged these banks to “stop harming local communities and shorting the climate” with these LNG investments. The alternative, in RAN’s view, is the Rio Grande Valley growing as a hub for Texas’ burgeoning clean-energy industry, as well as a region where ecotourism can continue to thrive.

"This study puts banks on notice: Fracked gas and its infrastructure is a bridge to disaster,” said Jason Opeña Disterhoft, a senior campaigner with RAN. “These projects export a commodity that is even worse for the climate than coal and represent a blatant deviation from U.S. climate commitments. Banks are in deep despite all the red flags that this industry raises, and need to stop fueling this frenzy."

Image credit: Vince Smith/Flickr

"Over the past decade, there has been nearly $48 billion in documented investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, transportation and other climate projects resulting from California climate policies, programs and actions." -- Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2)

Change is hard.

And change is particularly hard when it comes to climate change. The economic and environmental issue can be likened to a disease barely showing symptoms, like having the sniffles before pneumonia sets in. How can emitting an invisible molecule that doesn’t directly affect human health be a problem? Unlike smog, carbon dioxide (CO2) doesn’t make your lungs hurt or your eyes water -- but it does trap heat in our atmosphere that leads to climate change.

As a result of the invisibility of this threat, climate change is viewed by those without an understanding of the science as yet another reason to create regulations to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Many of the businesses that must comply with new regulations or make investments in new technology see nothing but costs.

There is another side of the equation, though. Many businesses are positioning themselves to be competitive in the future. They understand that new regulations and the push to dramatically limit or even eliminate the use of fossil fuels are creating technological innovation, jobs and significant investment. In effect, the cures to the disease of climate change are creating a new economy.

While some naysayers dismiss the economic benefits of climate change innovation, one organization, Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), has commissioned a number of studies to document the positive change that is underway.  E2 is a national, nonpartisan group of business leaders, investors and others who advocate for smart policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment. (Full disclosure, I'm on the California state and national advisory committees for E2; I have unabashed support for the organization and its research.)

In August 2016, E2 released a report detailing the impact of California’s climate change regulations since the Global Warming Act of 2006 (AB32) became law in California.  The report's findings were substantive and played a key role in the passage of SB32 this year. SB32 effectively builds on the foundation established by AB32 and requires the state to reduce carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB32 set an initial target of returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

According to E2’s report, District Economic Facts from Climate Policies, California stakeholders invested $48 billion in renewable energy, energy efficiency, transportation and other climate projects since 2006. These investments by both public and private entities produced more than 500,000 jobs in California.

The report analyzed investments, jobs, cap-and-trade fund allocations, and emission-reduction equivalents for each California assembly district to make sure legislators understand how climate change regulation benefits their districts, constituents and the state overall.

“[California] is by far the nation’s leader in clean-energy jobs and investments," said E2 Executive Director Bob Keefe. "No other state comes close." In addition, Keefe asserts that these investments made clean energy the fastest-growing industry sector in the state, contributing to California’s position as the fastest-growing economy in the country.

The continuation of those clean-technology innovations depends on investors having certainty that the regulatory climate will continue to be supportive of their products and services. Keefe says the passage of SB32 “has given clean energy investors, companies and their employees badly needed clarity about where the state’s energy marketplace is headed, which is critical for business planning.”

E2’s work isn’t limited to California. With chapters in the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, the Midwest, New England, New York and the Mid-Atlantic, the organization is working hard to identify the economic benefits that are critical to progress in addressing climate change.

Clean Jobs in America, an E2 report published earlier this year, found that more than 2.5 million Americans work in clean energy jobs across the nation. Other recent work includes mapping clean-energy jobs in Pennsylvania (66,000 jobs); determining the number of clean jobs in New York (85,000) and the Midwest (569,000 in 12 states); analyzing Colorado and Oregon’s clean energy future; and publishing Clean Power Players: Land a Job in Clean Energy, a report that offers “practical, how-to advice for young people seeking careers in clean energy.”

Click here for more information about Environmental Entrepreneurs.

Image credit: Flickr/Paul Hamilton

After months of controversy surrounding allegations of racial discrimination by Airbnb hosts, the San Francisco-based company will require all users to agree to an anti-discrimination pledge starting tomorrow, November 1. The company has already started to roll out new technological features including smaller profile photos, an expansion of instant bookings and reporting processes that will allow users to document suspected racial and ethnic discrimination.

These changes follow several months of turmoil for the company that started this spring, when a Virginia resident filed a lawsuit claiming that Airbnb’s booking policies violated his civil rights. Last March, after downloading Airbnb’s smartphone app and using his Facebook profile to register quickly for the house sharing site, Gregory Selden’s request to book a room for his travel to Philadelphia was denied. Selden then created two fake profiles that purported to be white men after he realized the room was still available. Both of these profiles, upon sending a booking request, were accepted.

After Selden contacted Airbnb with his concerns, and the company did not reply, he shared his story on social media and launched the hashtag #AirBnbWhileBlack. The result was a rapid firestorm as more African-Americans and citizens of other racial and ethnic minorities reported similar patterns of discriminatory behavior. As a result,  house sharing alternatives that promised safe and reliable places to stay emerged. Airbnb then scrambled to hire big names from the political world, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, in an effort to rehabilitate its already hammered image as yet another predatory and aloof Silicon Valley “unicorn.”

Accusations of discrimination by Airbnb hosts are not just unique to the U.S. Earlier this month, a radio station in Stockholm sent inquiries to 200 hosts in three of Sweden’s largest cities on behalf of guest accounts owned by black citizens. Almost half of the requests were denied, and after requests were again sent to those hosts but from white users, the answer almost uniformly was a “yes.” Meanwhile, in Amsterdam, a Dutch host was banned from the site after she denied four Israeli travelers a stay in her home over what she said was a protest against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Other companies built upon the sharing economy have also been accused of fomenting racial bias. The ridesharing service Uber, for example, has been accused of turning a blind eye to discrimination, as drivers and a Boston-based attorney claim the five-star rating system used to evaluate drivers is discriminatory due to passengers’ personal biases.

Airbnb’s revamped non-discriminatory policy was based largely based after an engagement with a Washington, D.C. consulting firm. The outcome is a long list of recommendations including improved workflows to halt discrimination, a more diverse workforce within Airbnb’s internal operations and a call on Airbnb to become more assertive in boosting the number of hosts in communities of color. Furthermore, Airbnb users starting this week must check the following disclaimer in order to either host or stay as a guest:

“We believe that no matter who you are, where you are from, or where you travel, you should be able to belong in the Airbnb community. By joining this community, you commit to treat all fellow members of this community, regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age, with respect, and without judgment or bias.”

Leveraging the power of technology in order to fight bias and racism is not easy for companies such as Airbnb, especially since it is challenging to enforce policies against people who are not these firms’ employees. Nevertheless, that is no excuse for a company to throw up its hands and not try to change how users within their online communities treat each other. After all, the neighborhood social networking platform Nextdoor was slammed last year for allowing racial profiling to proliferate on its site. One later, a complete overhaul on how users can report neighborhood safety and crime events resulted in a 75 percent decrease in racist postings.

Image credit: Open Grid Scheduler/Flickr