Search

By Jacoba Aldersebaes

Environmental justice is in need of a win, especially when the current climate crisis serves to magnify racial inequality and dramatically effects the poor and communities of color. This win is exactly what is happening in California, where a cap-and-trade system is eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, and doing so without disproportionately impacting low-income communities.

A recent study by UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation, provided analysis of the California cap-and-trade program’s impact on households in disadvantaged communities across California, finding that the state is effectively protecting low-income residents from cap-and-trade compliance costs. Given that the study is based on modeling versus actual outcomes, it is perhaps far from ideal, but it does draw attention towards this issue and its need for further study. Assuredly, the report was specifically able to look at how well the state’s efforts to help low-income communities are reflected in the electricity, natural gas, and gasoline sectors.

The California carbon market’s tactics have been found to lower greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters, while simultaneously providing critical support to California communities. Policies implemented include helping residents reduce utility usage to lower bills; distributing cap-and-trade auction revenue directly to residents through climate credits; and working with utility companies to continue low-income incentive programs for households unable to afford their monthly bills.

A major concern when cap and trade was first implemented in 2013 was the possibility that the 450 covered entities would pass along the additional costs of greenhouse gas reduction strategies to the consumer, which could very quickly impact low-income communities at a higher rate. For example, a fee increase on an electricity bill would affect a low-income household more than a middle or upper class earner, as household bills account for a higher percentage of the total budget in a family with less discretionary funds.

The state strategies enacted to prevent this inequality and support consumers, have indeed made huge strides by ensuring low-income households are not disproportionately affected by cap-and-trade financial outcomes. Climate credits in particular are an impactful and replicable measure that others may be wise to implement in their own state systems. Climate credits in California show up as a line item credit on consumer’s energy bill twice per year. The money is derived from permits sold that the utility companies are required to hold to emit carbon. This credit is used to offset any partial costs passed down from the utility due to cap and trade.

However, environmental justice concerns have a wider span than simply income-related issues. The “trade” half of cap and trade can cause other non-desirable outcomes, such as cutting corners on environmental regulation by moving industry to more affordable locations to cut costs. These “more affordable” areas happen to be where most low-income communities reside, putting residents at a higher risk of exposure to pollutants. Health is a major concern for environmental justice advocates, and admittedly, has not been tracked as clearly as the financial impacts of the program.

Despite reporting around health benefits being less than ideal, an Environmental Defense Fund report recently found that California’s cap-and-trade program will actually prevent 40,000 lost workdays due to health concerns by 2020, and over 74,000 days by 2025. Other benefits include preventing premature deaths, asthma and heart attacks, and hospitalizations. While these are promising overall statistics, future measurements will need to be focused on disadvantaged communities, with an eye towards ensuring cap and trade doesn’t unduly impact the health of this vulnerable population.

In late 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown sent a directive to the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce a report that tracks public health and environmental exposures in disadvantaged communities. The California EPA has one year to complete the report, and will update the findings every three years thereafter. This directive is seen as a positive step by the environmental justice community, as it has finally drawn attention to this incredibly important issue.

Overall, California has been a consistent leader in the environmental movement and has once again proven its credentials by placing emphasis on the importance of environmental justice in the implementation of its cap-and-trade system. There has been strong sentiment from the state that while the climate crisis affects us all, it doesn’t affect us all equally. Much of the program’s success can be attributed to grassroots efforts, as well as a shared belief that protecting the environment and fighting climate change should not come at the expense of those struggling with poverty and inequality.

The next big hurdle for cap and trade will be to forge ahead and extend the program past the legislative end date of 2020. In July, Gov. Jerry Brown stated his intent to extend the cap-and-trade program through 2050, although questions of authority exist and nothing is yet settled. While this announcement is a strong signal for the continuation of the market, extending California’s cap-and-trade program is something environmental justice advocates, politicians, and everyone in between should be prepared to fight for.

By Joe Waters

Lisa Lewis wasn’t trying to change the world. She was just brainstorming ideas to get her startup storage company noticed. And she didn’t have much of a marketing budget to work with.

“I remembered getting a goat for a present,” Lisa said. “I thought it was a cool gift because I didn’t need more stuff and the goat helped a needy family. But could a goat work for a tech company?”

When Lisa pitched the small management team at Formation Data Systems (FDS) on using goats and cause marketing to woo clients, they didn’t get it.

“What’s a goat have to do with a storage company?”

“I’ve never heard of another business like ours doing something like this.”

“Sure, people love animals. But we sell to businesses not to consumers.”

Despite their doubts, Lisa got approval to test a new cause marketing program: See a Demo, Get a Goat. Working with Oxfam America, FDS would donate a goat to a needy family every time a business agreed to watch a demonstration of their storage solution.

To date, FDS has donated over 100 goats.

For Lisa and her team, the goats have become more than about landing clients. The real story of See a Demo, Get a Goat is how a cause promotion evolved into a business mission.

Lisa and FDS have some great lessons for all of us on what cause marketing is and isn’t, and how you can grow a promotion into a purpose.   

Cause marketing doesn’t have to be matchy-matchy

For most businesses, picking a cause marketing partner is like buying clothes: People want things to match. This means that if you run a restaurant, you should be feeding the hungry. Or, if you manage a bank you should be building homes for the homeless.

I call these carefully paired programs Garanimal Cause Marketing. You may have heard of or even worn Garanimals -- children's clothes that are easy to match because different animals show you what can be worn together.

But here’s the good news. Unlike a striped jacket with plaid pants, mismatched cause partners look fine together. That’s why fast food chain Wendy’s can focus on adoption services instead of feeding the needy. And why a tech company like FDS can give goats to the poor instead of committing to putting a computer in every classroom.

The key is passion. Wendy’s has a passion for helping children in foster care find their forever family because their founder, the late Dave Thomas, was himself adopted. While Lisa was an early supporter of the goats at FDS, her co-workers weren’t far behind.

“Our employees love the goats,” Lisa said. “Our millennial employees especially love supporting an animal cause.”

The lesson is clear. Go with your instincts and pick a cause you really care about -- whatever it may be. Pattern isn’t important, purpose is.

Cause marketing is a campaign ... and that’s okay

Cause-related programs are hot right now, and every business is scurrying to develop its signature cause platform. Everyone wants to plant their flag and champion a social issue.

For many, cause marketing seems ill-suited for this noble work. It’s promotional, transactional and campaign focused. They’re right. But it’s also a great place to start, especially for smaller companies.

“Our partnership with Oxfam began when we were brainstorming ideas for a trade show,” said Lisa. “We couldn’t afford a booth for the show but we still wanted to be part of it.”

Lisa hired people to stand outside the show with signs touting the virtues of goats. They asked attendees: “Do you want a goat?”

“It was an incredible ice-breaker,” Lisa said. “People from technology companies don’t expect you to talk to them about goats.”

From there, FDS began integrating the goats into every aspect of their business. This included creating a GoatBusters video series and featuring a goat on its homepage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4IwUqjil0&feature=youtu.be

“The goats became a metaphor for the problems companies have with storage issues and how FDS could solve them,” Lisa said. “The goats were so sticky,” she added. “People remembered them.”

The lesson is that it’s alright to start small with your cause initiatives and grow them organically. This especially makes sense for small companies and startups that can’t invest heavily in a program without seeing results.

Cause marketing is for every size and kind of company

Cause marketing also works with any type of marketing program, like trade shows.

“The last thing people need are another selfie stick or a mouse pad,” Lisa said. “Why not use your marketing dollars to support the greater good in a way that promotes your business in a positive and powerful way.”

Cause marketing isn’t just for large companies that raise millions of dollars. Nor is it for just consumer companies like retailers, restaurants and convenience stores. Cause marketing can work just as effectively for B2B (business-to-business) companies like FDS. But you need the right mindset.

“Our experience shows that even the tiniest company can use cause marketing to give back and market their business,” Lisa said. “But you need to be committed and creative.”

The takeaway for every business is that working with a cause is doable, effective and EASY. You don’t need to solve all the world’s problems with one campaign. Start small with one initiative and grow the program as experience and success follows.

The key is to begin. If a goat can climb a tree, your business can do well and good with cause marketing.

Image courtesy of Formation Data Systems (FDS)

Joe Waters helps nonprofits and businesses build win-win partnerships that raise money and change the world. Visit him at Selfishgiving.com.

by Brian Collett — An online database has been set up to show the global mutual funds with holdings in palm oil agriculture, today’s fastest-growing cause of rainforest destruction.

It will enable investors for the first time to discover links between their holdings and tropical deforestation and land grabs.  

The investors will then be confidently placed to demand deforestation-free investment and responsible policies from retirement plans and other funds.

The transparency tool is the work of the environment group Friends of the Earth and As You Sow, a California-based organisation that promotes environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder action.

 Friends of the Earth points out that 10 per cent of the farming of palm oil – which is used in more than half of all packaged products, from shampoo and toothpaste to instant noodles and doughnuts – is financed by equity investors, many of them mutual funds.

The environment group’s objections are that the plantations destroy rainforests, drive out orangutans, Sumatran tigers and other endangered species, and lead to social conflict and human rights abuses in many countries, including Liberia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia and Guatemala.

Andrew Behar, chief executive of As You Sow, said: “This web tool empowers investors to know exactly what they own so that they can pressure fund managers to implement sustainable investment policies and find investment options that support a forest-friendly future.”

Jeff Conant, senior international forests programme manager at Friends of the Earth, insisted that investors should not be misled. 

He said: “When Americans put their hard-earned money in savings and retirement accounts, they believe they are preparing for a better future. But large asset managers undermine that very future, globally speaking, by putting this money into destructive agribusiness firms, generally through complex investment chains and failures in due diligence.

“Financial managers must stop investing in companies that grab land from subsistence farmers and indigenous people in order to install massive plantations with dangerous, low-wage labour.”

 The database, which at present covers 6,500 global mutual funds, will eventually be spread to other investments in businesses that clear vital forests.

 A Friends of the Earth report accompanying the database names the top ten US asset managers that invest in palm oil production. The list includes BlackRock, Vanguard, CalPERS, TIAA-CREF and Dimensional Fund Advisors.

The report shows that none of them has clear criteria for disclosing involvement in or avoiding businesses that destroy forests and ride roughshod over land rights.

Photo: Flickr Creative Commons        

 

by Roger Aitken—Standish Mellon Asset Management (‘Standish’), a BNY Mellon investment boutique with around $158 billion (£121bn, €143bn) of assets under management, has joined the Climate Bond Initiative Partnership Program. Their move follows other blue chip firms that have recently teamed up with the partnership, including asset manager BlackRock, global audit firm EY and Thomson Reuters.

The Climate Bonds Initiative is an investor-focused ‘not-for-profit’ organisation that promotes large-scale investment. Banks, NGOs, institutional investors and governments are eligible to join as Climate Bond Partners to assist in growing the green and climate bonds market.

Specifically, Climate Bonds Partners develop initiatives to grow investment in climate solutions, participate in different market development committees and help define policy agendas for sector, country and sub-national programs. Their underlying mission is to mobilize the debt markets for climate change solutions and to ensure consistent standards are applied to debt issues labelled as green or climate bonds.

Standish describes its move in joining the Program as supporting efforts to use bond markets to “positively impact” climate change and ensure that the industry uses “consistent standards” for the issuance of green or climate bonds.

With a backdrop of increasing demand for innovative and sustainable investment solutions to address climate, carbon and environmental issues, Standish, a global leader in fixed-income investment that serves a diverse range of investors, touts what it describes as strategies for investors who wish to make “climate change mitigation” an explicit investment objective.

Mike Faloon, Chief Operating Officer at Standish, commenting in the wake of the Boston, MA-based firm’s decision said: “We believe that green and climate bonds will become core holdings for investors seeking to minimize climate degradation within their fixed-income allocations.” CFA-designated Faloon is responsible for risk management and technology implementation and oversight at the firm.

Standish’s commitment to sustainable investing dates back to 2007 when the firm incorporated Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) screens into their investment process.

Stephan Bonte, CFA, Director of Sustainable Investing at Standish, referring to the firm’s responsible investing and ESG initiatives, explained: “In 2012 we further strengthened our commitment by becoming a signatory to UN Principles of Responsible Investing (PRI). And, today we have a fully integrated, proprietary Corporate Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Risk Metrics & Analytics process in place.” His role at the firm involves driving their sustainability/ESG integration efforts.

Remarking on Standish’s decision to join the partnership program, Sean Kidney, CEO of Climate Bonds, said: “[It] adds significant depth and capability as we intensify our efforts to build robust and sustainable green bond markets.”

In relation to BNY Mellon’s own efforts to integrate climate change risks and opportunities into its operations, products and services as well as supply chain, it has made a number of strides of late. Evidencing this BNY Mellon was recognized last year by CDP’s Climate ‘A’ List and the S&P Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). Additionally, it is a signatory as part of the White House’s American Business Act on Climate Pledge and the UN’s Paris Pledge.

 

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

On Dec. 12, 2015, the U.N. Conference of Parties (COP) formally adopted the Paris Agreement, a global deal by nearly 200 nations to address climate change. On Earth Day of this year, representatives from 175 nations made their way to the U.N. Headquarters in New York to formally sign the agreement. It was "the largest one-day signing event in the history of the U.N.,” U.S. President Barack Obama said in April.

But the journey is far from over. In order for the agreement to go into effect and become legally binding, at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions need to formally join.

Most heads of state who ceremonially signed this spring returned to their countries to gain domestic approval to join the agreement. Once such domestic thresholds are crossed, leaders will return to the U.N. to issue their formal “instruments of ratification” — which is a fancy way of saying they agree to be bound by the terms of the agreement.

Only 15 nations representing a mere 0.04 percent of global emissions formally joined the agreement in April. But some large countries are tantalizingly close to joining this list -- which could lead to a full-force Paris Agreement by the end of the year.

"The prospects of the Paris Agreement entering into full effect in under a year have gone from unlikely to plausible to 'too close to call,'" Rhys Gerholdt, communications manager for the World Resources Institute's Climate Program, told TriplePundit in an email.

As the agreement continues its slow march through legislatures around the world, there's one impending deadline no one is talking about -- at least not yet: If 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions formally join the agreement by Oct. 7, the agreement will go into effect before the COP22 climate talks in Morocco this November.

"Hitting that deadline would make COP22 the first session under the Paris Agreement, which has important implications for a wide array of rules and procedures that are meant to transform the Paris Agreement from high-level goals into specific action plans," Gerholdt said.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is arguably the No. 1 source of up-to-the-minute information on the Paris Agreement. The group launched its interactive Paris Agreement Tracker in April to keep tabs on the agreement as it moves toward implementation (below). And WRI analysts have their eyes on all plausible scenarios that could bring the agreement into effect.

Last week, WRI’s international legal expert Eliza Northrop examined countries that are on the cusp of ratifying the agreement domestically -- and the dozens of others that committed to complete that step this year. You can check out her full blog post here. But if you're short on time, read on for the nitty-gritty.

More countries join the agreement

Fifteen countries formally joined the agreement on the day of the signing ceremony in April. The vast majority were small island nations, including the Maldives, Palau, Fiji and 11 Caribbean states, as well as Somalia in East Africa.

The number of joined states has since risen to 22. Norway became the first European nation to join on June 20, and Peru formally joined at the end of last month. And analysts expect the list to keep on growing.

"Over the past two months, Cameroon, Brazil, Iran and Ukraine took important steps domestically to formally join the Paris Agreement," Northrop wrote on the WRI blog. She went on to elaborate on what's happening in these four nations:

Cameroon’s National Assembly approves ratification: "On June 10, members of Cameroon’s bicameral National Assembly adopted the bill authorizing the President of the Republic, Paul Biya, to join the Paris Agreement," Northrop wrote. The Central African nation, accounting for 0.45 percent of global GHG emissions, formally joined the agreement on July 29. It was the second African country to do so, following Somalia.

Brazil’s House of Representatives unanimously approves joining: "The House of Representatives (the lower house of Brazil’s bicameral National Congress) unanimously approved the country joining the Paris Agreement on July 12," Northrop wrote. It heads to the Senate next, where it will need an absolute majority in order to take the form of a legislative decree. "This process could be completed this year," Northrop predicted. And if so, it would be big news: Brazil is the world’s seventh-largest emitter, accounting for 2.48 percent of global emissions, and it's a key piece of the pie in most of the WRI's full-effect scenarios (see above).

Iran’s Cabinet of Ministers ratifies the Agreement: "Iran’s Cabinet, headed by President Hassan Rouhani, ratified the Paris Agreement on July 13 and sent it for final approval to the Majles, Iran’s unicameral legislative body," Northrop explained. If the agreement passes the legislative muster, it will be signed by the president and deposited with the U.N. With almost all of its energy coming from fossil fuel sources, Iran accounts for 1.3 percent of global emissions.

Ukraine adopts law to ratify: "On July 14, 279 members of Ukraine’s unicameral legislature, the Verkhovna Rada, voted to adopt a law ratifying the Paris Agreement," Northrop wrote. The country has yet to deposit its instrument of ratification, but is expected to do so soon. Ukraine is the largest country in Eastern European and accounts for 1.04 percent of global emissions.

So, what happens now?

In addition to these four nations, a number of big players have pledged to formally join the agreement by the end of this year -- including China, the U.S., Mexico, Canada and Australia, Northrop wrote. But even if all of these nations make good on their promises to join, "the world would still be 1.05 percent short of the 55-percent threshold," she explained.

While that's not necessarily great news, the story doesn't end there. "A number of other large emitters have sent positive signals in national statements of their intent to join in a timely manner," Northrop went on. These include India, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia and New Zealand.

"If a combination of these countries were to join this year, we would easily exceed the 55 percent of emissions needed for the agreement to take effect."

If we can cross the finish line before the Oct. 7 deadline, the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement would be held in conjunction with COP22 in Marrakech, Morocco, in November.

"Such rapid entry into force would continue the momentum created at Paris last year, help spur early implementation, and reinforce the global commitment to building a zero-carbon, climate-resilient future," Northrop concluded.

Explore the Paris Agreement Tracker to check out the scenarios in which the agreement could enter into force this year. And if you'd like to see your home country join, take a moment to call or email your representatives to let them know it's important to you.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/COP Paris; 2) Courtesy of the World Resources Institute 

This week, Kevin Roberts resigned as chairman of the venerable advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi, effective Sept. 1. Roberts planned to retire in May 2017, but outrage over inflammatory comments about gender issues in his industry hastened his departure from the advertising agency he joined as CEO in 1997.

Roberts’ fall has its origins in an interview with Business Insider last week. During the conversation, BI’s Lara O’Reilly asked him about the ongoing controversy over the lack of women executives within the advertising industry.

“Not in my view,” Roberts responded. “The f----ing debate is all over.”

O’Reilly pressed Roberts and brought up the fact that women leaders in the industry -- including former head of the global advertising agency BBH, Cindy Gallop -- have a lot to say about gender in the advertising world. And Roberts continued to vent.  "I think she's got problems that are of her own making,” he said of Gallop. “I think she's making up a lot of the stuff to create a profile [as on Twitter], and to take applause, and to get on a soap[box]."

The result was a firestorm on social media, with Gallop telling the Guardian that Roberts’ views were typical within the industry. Long before the outburst, she continued, most male advertising executives had long expressed such views privately. Meanwhile hashtags such as #ChangeTheRatio caught fire on Twitter as more women stepped up to share their experiences in an industry the New York Times has described as one still dominated by “Mad Men.”

Roberts’ outburst became such an embarrassment for Saatchi & Saatchi that its CEO, Robert Senior, issued a statement rebuking the chairman. “Kevin [Roberts] has given what are his personal views on the subject of gender diversity. However, those views are not mine, and nor are they the position of the agency,” said Senior, adding that “the issue of gender diversity is not in any way over for our industry.”

Despite the fact that the vast majority of advertised products are purchased by women, the leadership of the world’s most prominent advertising firms is still dominated by men. Women now comprise 11.5 percent of creative directors within the sector – and that is up from 3 percent in 2010, largely due to the activism sparked by the formation of an eponymous organization and conference that has tried to address this issue.

The disconnect between the industry's overwhelming propensity to target women, the fact that women are increasingly the majority of employees at advertising firms and the dearth of female executives has several underlying factors. Relatively low salaries for entry-level and individual contributor positions, coupled with the high cost of living in cities where advertising agencies have their marquee offices, are factors. Low morale certainly also contributes to disengaged male and female employees. But as a Forbes analysis highlights, the lack of work-life balance -- as parodied on AMC’s popular "Mad Men" series -- deters many women from pursuing a long-term career in the industry.

The result is the loss of talent and potential ideas in an industry that is coping with far more disparate channels than a generation ago. The Internet, and now the rise of social media, has made it more difficult for companies, and their advertising agencies, to communicate their messages to consumers. And as one of Saatchi & Saatchi’s creative directors explained to Fast Company a few years ago, the most creative moments are not necessarily at an office or in front of a whiteboard, but at home, around town or during mundane tasks such as working out or preparing a meal.

For the advertising industry’s long-term viability, the mentoring of more women so that they eventually become leaders at these firms is not about a ratio or political correctness. Such change is not even about doing the moral or humane thing, as it is well known a career in advertising can entail long hours. But more flexible schedules and creating a work environment in which a woman can feel as if she can juggle work and family can help transform an industry that few can respect and many love to lampoon. Advertising has to change with the times so it can still resonate, and this will only happen if change starts at the top.

As Gallop said in her interview with the Guardian, singling out Roberts or any other ogre is not enough, and in fact, is even a distraction. “I really want not to see one man who says what the rest are thinking become the sole lightning rod. I want to see action taken at the top and all the way though.”

Image credit: Saatchi & Saatchi

The end of last month brought big news in the battle to rein in climate change. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from airplanes pose a threat to human health and the environment and therefore are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

The Act was originally passed in 1970 to combat air pollution in the form of airborne lead and mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates, and ground-level ozone -- to name a few. It was updated in 1990 to include emissions that threaten the ozone layer, and again in 2009 to deal with emissions known to contribute to climate change.

This announcement now clears the way for the EPA to develop rules to regulate aircraft emissions, much as the agency has done for emissions from cars and trucks. Aircraft are responsible for roughly 12 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, or a little over 3 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions.

Says Janet McCabe, the EPA’s acting assistant administrator for air and radiation: “EPA has already set effective GHG standards for cars and trucks, and any future aircraft engine standards will also provide important climate and public health benefits.”

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is already working on regulations that are expected to be released in 2017. Under its charter, the EPA could not develop regulations until it definitively established endangerment, meaning evidence that jet engine exhaust poses a public health threat. Given that finding, the EPA is now obligated to develop regulations.

At the same time, climate change is expected to increase wind speeds in many areas. Such a scenario could not only cause more turbulent flights, but also increase fuel consumption -- as aircraft need more fuel to fly through turbulent conditions.  ICAO’s proposed regulation will cut fuel consumption by 4 percent in current aircraft delivered after 2023 and new aircraft delivered after 2028.

The EPA’s rules are expected to be at least as stringent as that, if not more so. It is important, however, to harmonize regulations around the globe or risk creating an economic disadvantage for airlines of one country versus others.

Clearly, improving the fuel economy of jet engines will be a crucial aspect of the emissions-reduction program. And breakthroughs are already happening. United Technologies' geared turbofan, after many years in development, by itself is expected to reduce to burn 16 percent less fuel than the previous generation. Add to this other means of improving aircraft fuel economy such as winglets, which have already proven to be effective, as well as a host of other innovations aimed at either improving fuel economy or reduce greenhouse gas impact.

Aviation biofuels, for example, are being looked at seriously by a number of airlines as well as the military. Growing the fuel, rather the drilling it from petroleum reserves, will reduce the net climate impact of flying.

And as the Solar Impulse aircraft completed its around-the-world flight, powered only by the sun, we see Airbus developing a small two-seat electric airplane, with plans for a 75-seat regional version down the road.

EasyJet is testing a hybrid-electric system that powers the wheels of a plane while on the ground, conserving fuel in the process. The electric propulsion system uses regenerative braking while landing to charge up the fuel cell that provides power.

Perhaps most surprising is news of a study conducted by Virgin Airlines, which found that pilots could save a considerable amount of fuel by making a number of choices during the course of a trip. By offering incentives to the pilots, the company was able to realize significant savings.

Given the differences between air travel and ground transportation, the new EPA rules will need to be more than another version of the CAFE standards taken literally to a higher level. EPA has a proven track record of not only getting results, but also working with industry to come up with regulations that make sense and are achievable.

Image credit: Chuks Spotting – Aviation Photography’s photostream

Despite promises from Congress to reform the notorious payday loan industry, it's unlikely that anything will happen during an election year. NBC News noted that there are more payday lenders in the U.S. than McDonald’s, evident in the signs visible at just about every strip mall. The fees involved can lead to interest and borrowing rates that soar over 300 percent for whom the Pew Trust estimates are the 12 million Americans spending $7 billion on these payday loans.

The growing outcry to reform this industry is loud, but regulators and politicians haven't listened.

Until there is a change in how these companies are regulated, technology is offering more alternatives for those who find themselves suddenly cash-strapped. And they could have a role in closing the financial literacy gap that keeps many Americans mired in poverty. These options, some of which are still under development, include:

• ActiveHours: This app allows hourly workers to access wages that they have already earned. Founded by an entrepreneur who developed one of the first paycheck debit card services in the U.S., the company can front payday loans and makes money from contributions paid by its members. Users of ActiveHours are not charged a percentage rate, nor do they pay a set fee – instead, the service allows them to contribute what they want in return for that quick loan.


• Digit: Think of this app as nickel-and-diming you, only those small amounts are put into a separate account for a rainy-day fund. Depending on your spending history, Digit’s algorithms will take a small amount, as small as $1 and as large as $150, out of your checking account and move it into a separate savings account. The company claims it has a no-overdraft guarantee and makes its money by pocketing the interest out of your savings account.


• Even: With employees including alumni of Google and Facebook, this financial app works with hourly wage and tip earners to guarantee a steady, streamlined income. The app’s algorithms look at past deposit and debit history to ensure those payments on the first and 15th of the month are consistent. When paychecks fall short, Even adds money to make up the difference. In the case of a large paycheck, the app suggests how much to save and deposits it into a separate checking account. The caveat: Users must have a bank or credit union account, and the company says it will not be able to work with freelancers until later this year. After a free trial, the service costs $3 a week.


• LendStreet: This company promises to work with consumers who have huge debts financed at high interest rates. Payments are tailored so that they are affordable, and at the same time, this steady stream of income allows LendStreet to solicit investors for these loans. Participating  investors can purchase a share of individual loans, enlarging LendStreet’s pool of available funds while offering investors a decent rate of return.

Critics will respond that these services do not solve the problems of the unbanked or underbanked, which the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) estimates to be 8 and 18 percent of the population, respectively. The CFED has engaged in strategies to change that, from children’s savings account programs to the advocacy of programs that can teach people to save and eventually purchase their first home.

Consumers should also consider community banks and credit unions, which often have lower fees and thresholds necessary to open an account. Many of these financial institutions are waiving fees with the expectation that the paycheck-to-paycheck customer of today will eventually be the mortgage payer and retirement saver of tomorrow. Consumers who have ties to a university, large company or government agency – as in, a relative – could be eligible to open an account at a credit union. The rise of online banking and smartphone apps also makes it more affordable for these companies to take in less affluent customers. And for that sudden emergency, many credit unions offer their members access to small payday alternative loans (PALs), a much more affordable alternative to the more predatory payday loans.

Once the dust settles from this election, Congress could also take action and boost the number of banked consumers by once again launching the U.S. Postal Savings system. First established in 1910, this program’s popularity surged during the Great Depression, but was eventually phased out by the end of the 1960s. Post office savings accounts are still the norm in many countries, where consumers can not only deposit money, but can also pay bills. The USPS could also leverage technology so that most banking can be done online or on a smartphone app – preventing longer lines at post offices while transforming these locations into a national banking system for millions of Americans. Such a system would be a cost-effective way to boost national savings, rejuvenate the Postal Service’s sagging fortunes, and make the financial system more inclusive and less punishing for younger and poorer workers.

Image credit: Taber Andrew Bain/Flickr

As the general election looms, who will be able to vote on Nov. 8 remains in question. Fifteen states are enacting new restrictions to deny those without a photo ID the right to vote. Of the more than a dozen states initiating these restrictions for the first time in the 2016 generals, six are swing states with major implications in the upcoming election.

Democrats, led by presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, are looking to enable those without photo IDs to vote in order to minimize voter discrimination, while Republicans aim to uphold the integrity of the election by preventing fraud. And while the battle between Democrats and Republicans persists in many states, courtrooms have recently shown a propensity to favor loosening such restrictions.

In the last few weeks, North Dakota and Texas — two through-and-through red states — and the battleground states of Wisconsin and North Carolina struck down legislation requiring voter ID, Fivethirtyeight reported on Wednesday. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas and two crucial swing states -- Ohio and Virginia -- are all in talks to reverse their voter ID laws.

Real estate mogul and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is already saying that if he loses the election will be “rigged.” He told the Washington Post that if no voter ID laws are in place, “You can just keep voting and voting and voting.”

A comprehensive 2014 investigation from Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt shows that Trump may have the wrong idea in assessing how much fraud actually takes place at the polls in the absence of strict voter ID laws. Levitt found 31 “credible incidents” of voter fraud in 1 billion ballots cast since 2000, making .000003 percent of all votes corrupt.

But Republicans, fearing a new wave of young and black voters following the 2008 election that saw the first African-American president take office, drew legislation to tighten the security of the polls. But critics say the legislation still in place in 15 states will reduce the participation of minority groups who tend to lean left.

“The enactment of strict voter ID laws tends to double or triple the gap in turnout between whites and racial and ethnic minorities,” Zoltan Hajnal of the University of California, San Diego told Fivethirtyeight.

Jonathan Brater, an attorney at NYU, was also critical of the law, saying: “It’s the biggest rollback of voting since Jim Crow.”

“The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population,” concluded Fivethirtyeight editor Nate Silver. The statistical significance, Silver wrote, ranges depending on who is assessing the data.

A 2014 report from the Government Accountability Office found that the drop in voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee — two states that tightened voter ID requirements from the 2008 to the 2012 elections — was 2 to 3 percent greater than states that didn’t tighten requirements.

Politico, citing the study, reported that the estimated reduction among black voters was almost 4 percent more than that of whites in Kansas. The report, which drew from 10 studies, found that 84 to 95 percent of registered voters have a license or state ID. But seven of the studies determined that blacks were less likely to own an ID.

Loosening voter ID laws will almost certainly boost Clinton’s chances to become the first female president in American history, seeing that she’s one of the chief lobbyists pushing for fewer restrictions. In an op-ed published in Wisconsin’s Journal Sentinel, she said the law “would unfairly target communities of color and prevent 300,000 mostly poor, elderly and student Wisconsinites from voting.”

Wisconsin, a state that listened to Clinton’s concerns and struck down its voter ID laws last week, is expected to go to Clinton in the election, according to Fivethirtyeight’s interactive prediction map. But it remains to be see if that prediction holds true. 

Photo by John Keane/Flickr

By Joseph Kirschke

On June 8, in a rocky, arid and remote corner of Western Australia, a copper-gold mine owned by Sandfire Resources, a mid-tier firm, witnessed the commissioning of an adjacent 34,080-panel photovoltaic (PV) solar installation. It was a milestone: With Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) financing, the DeGrussa mine uses one of the world’s largest off-grid solar PV systems and one of its biggest solar plants providing peak power load to a mining operation.

In Queensland, in another isolated spot 2,000 miles away, Rio Tinto pursued a different angle: Along with Arizona-based First Solar and help from ARENA, the Anglo-Australian multinational outfitted a bauxite mine with an 18,000-panel PV farm. While conserving 600,000 liters of fuel annually, it also shares electricity with a nearby township – a first for both industries.

Mining and clean energy don’t share obvious common ground. Take centuries of environmental devastation – add coal – and mineral extraction has a dirty reputation. Indeed, profit-driven boardrooms seldom prioritize climate change considerations. But with an estimated $13.5 trillion needed for commitments made at COP21, the global mining sector, which consumes 38 percent of industrial energy, offers unique opportunities to reduce carbon emissions – while addressing energy insecurity – writ-large.

Motivations aside, the collapse of the emerging market commodities boom of the 2000s has miners scrambling to reinvent themselves – and since 2010, clean energy is recognized for its multi-billion dollar savings potential. In all, Navigant, a consultancy, estimates alternative energy use by the mining industry will surge to 8 percent – or $3.9 billion – by 2022 – up from 1.8 percent today. And while no mine is 100 percent renewable, battery storage breakthroughs – accompanied by solar PV costs having plunged 80 percent since 2008 – mean a fossil fuel-free future is all but imminent.

The subsector has flourished most in Chile, home to the world's leading copper industry, where, in recent years, costs and logistics have rendered coal-fired plants, gas pipelines and diesel trucks incompatible with some of the planet’s most extreme geographies.

At its Gabriela Mistral mine in the Atacama Desert, for instance, Codelco has a project generating 51,800 thermal megawatt Hours (TMh) annually, offsetting the need to truck 67,000 barrels of diesel to one of the planet’s highest elevations. Similar projects abound. Next year, a 110-MW concentrated solar power (CSP) plant will supply power to an Antofagasta Minerals complex, also in the Atacama. One of the world’s largest CSP plants, it will use thermal molten salts for storage.

In fact, while frequently unacknowledged outside the country, Chile's miners have been key in sparking an alternative energy ripple effect nationwide: Now, 18,000 megawatts are in the works – alongside government plans to boost the overall renewable energy mix to 70 percent by 2050.

Africa, replete with wind and solar resources, offers other compelling scenarios: During the boom, that is, an exhaustion of existing ore bodies catapulted supplies, equipment and people to far-flung places with few, if any, roads or infrastructure. This means that, as the sub-sector for mining and clean energy grows, some 80 percent of new African mines will be at least partially clean energy-dependent by 2026, according to the International Finance Corp. (IFC).

This casts a light on South Africa, the continent’s top mining nation. In isolated Limpopo Province, Germany’s Cronimet Mining-Power Solutions set up a 1.6 Mw solar mini grid to meet 60 percent of its needs, while saving 450,000 liters of diesel. The Rocky Mountain Institute-Carbon War Room's Sunshine For Mines initiative, partly founded by Sir Richard Branson to promote 15 percent alternative energy use industry-wide by 2025, meanwhile, helped the Johannesburg-based Gold Fields for a 40 Mw solar project at its South Deep asset, one of the world’s largest gold mines.

Subarctic Northwest Canada is feeling the winds of change, too. In 2013, Rio Tinto installed four massive wind turbines at its Diavik diamond mine to conserve $5 million needed annually to ply diesel trucks across ice-covered roads stretching more than 340 miles. In 2014, Swiss-based commodities giant Glencore installed a 3-Mw turbine at its Raglan nickel mine in the northern Quebec tundra; this year, a micro grid will be installed onsite, including a lithium-ion battery and hydrogen station system.

But it’s Rio Tinto’s Weipa bauxite project, the only mining operation to share power with a local community, which offers the most compelling precedent – to expand renewable energy across a planet where 1.2 billion struggle without electricity.

Last year, moreover, the World Bank issued a report calling for mines to serve as “anchors” for power distribution in Africa, where energy poverty afflicts some 600 million people. Despite a slow start, the U.S. government seeks to double energy access in sub-Saharan Africa through renewables and other energy sources with new connections to 60 million households and businesses; since 2013, the global public private-sector initiative has raised $43 billion.

Other movement is afoot. In April, the Rockefeller Foundation launched its own decentralized anchor network encompassing telecommunications towers to provide clean energy to 1,000 villages in rural India by 2017. Back in Chile, meanwhile, a 1,900-mile transmission line is being constructed to expand the power distribution system by connecting renewable energy from its mines to the national grid.

The international climate change agenda is one of trillion-dollar promises and progress alike – yet apart from high-profile signatures and sprawling frameworks, its newness leaves businesses, governments and investors in need of a definitive core. On the other hand, our planet’s 2,200 mechanized mines – many with life cycles surpassing 50 years – are steadfast and elemental to the world around us.

To counter the existential threat facing our planet, while lifting millions from energy poverty, the potential of these sprawling mines to become clean energy resources cannot be underestimated.

Joseph Kirschke is a consultant who advises mining companies on sustainability and a former editor at Mining Media International, a Jacksonville-based publishing house.