Search

This article is part of a series of interviews with companies supporting the Rock the Green sustainability festival. Follow along here.

One of the most sustainable music festivals in the United States is scheduled to rock Milwaukee once again on Sept. 17, and TriplePundit is pleased to be playing a role. Rock the Green is a one-day event. It's also one of the only music festivals around with sustainability as a key goal -- in fact, it's more properly referred to as a sustainability festival. Rock the Green's stated mission is to educate and empower the community to take actionable steps to live sustainably through a combination of engagement and entertainment.

Our Midwest readers may already have plans to attend (get your tickets here after July 18!). But for those of you elsewhere, we've put together a short series of interviews with some of the companies and organizations that support the event. Each one, large and small, has its own reason for getting involved and its own sustainability story to tell. For the next several weeks, 3p will publish the interviews and tell you more about the festival -- stay tuned!

To kick things off, I spent some time talking to Rock the Green's organizers to hear a little about how things got started and why sustainability matters.

TriplePundit: What's your company's definition of sustainability, and why is it important to you?

Rock the Green: Our definition of sustainability is any small or large action that helps to protect the planet. Rock the Green is an environmental charity that spotlights environmental innovation at an annual sustainability festival. Our mission is simple: Educate and engage people to live more sustainably through spotlighting environmental innovators and providing every day examples that others can copy.

After producing hundreds of events and festivals around the country, Lindsay Stevens Gardner, Rock the Green founder and executive director, saw the environmental impact from large-scale events. And it wasn’t pretty! Public events generated tons of waste. She wanted to create a festival that was different: one that looked at every aspect of production and holistically greened it -- step-by-step.

By making conscious production decisions, involving key community innovators and applying zero-waste techniques, Rock the Green proves that we can have all of the music without the waste. Lindsay envisioned the festival as an example and an educational opportunity for communities and music fans. We embrace all ranges of sustainable living, whether a daily recycler or a tenured environmentalist, because every small step helps protect the planet. And collectively, every small step adds up to huge impact.

3p: How do partnerships play into the success of Rock the Green?

RTG: Our partnerships with community innovators are key to our success in both educating and engaging the community. By spotlighting the efforts and eco-stories of these innovators, we inspire the community to try some of these efforts in their own lives. Our partners can speak for themselves:

"By merging entertainment and sustainable engagement, Rock the Green makes a positive impact on communities while establishing our city as an environmental leader. Our hope is that Rock the Green’s message isn’t for just one day of the year. The goal is for attendees to leave the festival with a greater appreciation for sustainability and an enhanced desire to make their hometown more sustainable."      

- Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett

"Rock the Green rocks! Speaking on behalf of InSinkErator, we were extremely happy to be part of message again this year." 

- Jeff McMahon, Director, Grind to Energy - InSinkErator (A RTG Sponsor)

"It was indeed a great day!!!! I talked all day to so many interested people in the charge station, and even one woman who just bought a Leaf and has been using several of our stations!!! That was great news. You guys did such a great job in organization and it was a pleasure being a part of this years show."

- Dave Hansen, ElectriCharge Mobility (A RTG Sponsor)

3p: What are the results of these large-scale, zero-waste efforts at the sustainability festival?

RTG: We can share some data from the last event in 2012, which was recognized as one of the greenest music festivals in the world by the U.K.-based A Greener Festival organization:

• 93 percent of the waste generated at the event was composted or recycled.


• 100 percent of food scraps were processed and upcycled into fertilizer.


• Only 13 trashcans went to the landfill as opposed to the expected 4+ tons per EPA metrics.


• Each fan produced about 1 ounce of waste -- compared to an EPA projection of 16 ounces per attendee.

3p: How does Rock the Green staff their events and 365-day operations?

RTG: Rock the Green is brought to life because of its many volunteers. These people lend their talents and time to make Rock the Green successful, especially at the festival level. Their dedication and passion for the environment, music and the community is what makes our mission real.

 

What is the best way to help developing communities and nations? Every philanthropist has an idea. There's Matt Damon of Water.org, who sees clean water and improved infrastructure as the basis for a resilient community. Mo Ibrahim demonstrated through his foundation that education is the basis for better governance in African countries. Santana helps enhance communication and cultural tolerance in the Middle East through the Milagro Foundation. And Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr started Hip Hop Caucus to draw attention to climate change and the environmental justice needs of society's poorest members.

And then there is Bill Gates and his Coop Dreams.

Last month Gates announced that he would partner with Heifer International to bring self-employment to some of the world's most impoverished, remote communities. His strategy admittedly may sound a bit odd in context to what we expect to hear from the founder of one of the world's top tech companies. Computers, cloud access, tech education, great. But chickens?

But that's not abnormal for Gates, who has focused much of his recent philanthropic efforts on global health initiatives and points out that a sustainable income is the first step to raising the quality of life for millions of people. And years of research backs up what he says. Improve the earning capacity of a family and you not only raise their access to better services and food, but you also improve their sense of self worth, which ultimately impacts their earning capacity.

In that context, handing out 100,000 chickens to poor communities sounds pretty brilliant.

"They're a good investment," Gates pointed out: five hens and a rooster, and you have a growing business. "Eventually, with a sale price of $5 per chicken — which is typical in West Africa — [the owner] can earn more than $1,000 a year, versus the extreme-poverty line of about $700 a year." Three hundred dollars more a year can mean a huge difference to a family struggling to afford food.

But what happens when one of the countries you earmarked for those chickens doesn't want the charity? And more specifically, what happens when a recipient takes exception to being called disadvantaged?

That's exactly the predicament that Gates and Heifer International faced recently when Bolivia, South America's fifth-largest nation, found itself on the goodwill list for a very large flock of chickens.

"I find it rude," explained Cesar Cocarico, Bolivia's rural development minister. "We don't depend on chickens. We've advanced. Our people have dignity, and they know how to work."

Cocarico has a point. The Bolivia of today is nothing like the Bolivia of the 1980s, when researchers flocked to the landlocked country to study ways to combat malnutrition and rampant poverty. The Union of South American Nations, whose treaty was signed in 2008, helped forge ties in commerce between the Americas' most southern neighbors -- creating the Americas' first successful version of a mini-EU. It also helped fortify political support against countries and companies that have historically paved a well-worn path into Latin American commercial interests.

Today, Bolivia boasts a booming chicken trade (by its standards) of almost 200 million chickens. More than 30 million are exported annually. So, it isn't hard to see why the Bolivian government may seem a bit touchy about its image.

"How can he think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce?” Cocarico queried journalists last month. “Respectfully, he should stop talking about Bolivia."

But that doesn't mean that the Andean country doesn't have its problems with poverty or malnutrition. Although the nation has made huge strides to address poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition in its poorest communities, it still has a way to go. According to 2013 statistics, 1 in 3 children suffer from stunting (in size), a byproduct of malnutrition, reports the International Development Bank. According to the IDB, Bolivia has the second highest stunting rate in Latin America and the Caribbean.

"Poverty and lack of health systems that provide the right supplements are the most commonly cited reasons for the problem, but lack of awareness and behavioral issues related to nutrition are factors as well," the agency concluded. It also noted that today's Bolivian children actually have something in common with U.S. children: a diet rich in empty carbohydrates and poor nutritional choices like snacks and sugar.

But that still doesn't explain why as much as 45 percent of the country's population are below the poverty line (2012). According to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Bolivia's under-5 mortality rate still stands at 60 out of 1,000, with malnutrition and related complications like diarrhea remaining as the major causes of death. And no matter how distrustful the Bolivian government may be of Gates' offer, the fact is that researchers and aid agencies are still knocking on Bolivia's door. Chronic malnutrition is still a problem.

Perhaps Bolivia's biggest gripe isn't the chicken but the chatter: the fact that at the root of every resilient culture is self-pride and, admittedly, how it measures up with its neighbors. Cultural identity and national pride may seem like small issues when it comes to saving lives and boosting the global economy. But it's huge when considering the strides a country and its people have already made and the image they are willing to let others walk away with.

Image credits: 1) UK Department for Internal Development/Russell Watkins; 2) Flickr/3rdParty!

The winning bid for a gigantic new offshore wind farm in the Netherlands came in at 2.3 billion euros less than expected. And the oil company Royal Dutch Shell can take at least partial credit for the final cost of construction and operation. Shell has been dipping more of its toes into the renewable energy field lately, and it was among 38 companies to bid on the project last spring. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs credits the hot competition for driving the final cost far below the original estimate.

How to shave billions off the cost of offshore wind

In a press release announcing the winning bid, the Ministry of Economic Affairs also gives itself a pat on the back. The head of the agency, Henk Kamp, explains:

"... The Dutch system in which companies have to compete with each other while the government regulates all conditions for building the wind farm has proved to be very successful. This reduction of cost represents a major breakthrough in the transition to more sustainable energy.”

The winning bid went to Denmark's Dong Energy. That's no accident, because the company is known for its soup-to-nuts strategy for reducing the cost of offshore wind farms.

Some areas of focus include larger wind turbines with longer blades, reducing the amount of steel used in foundations, and deploying remote cameras to inspect turbine blades. The company also recently invested in two large workships that serve as "floating hotels." The ships drop anchor at the worksite and crews live on board rather than shuttling back and forth to land, saving both time and transportation costs.

One key part of the strategy is to focus on projects where conditions are similar to other locations where Dong has successfully constructed offshore wind farms. The selectivity enables Dong to standardize its operations and supply chain, adding to the cost savings.

The strategy paid off for the new Netherlands project. Called the Borssele wind farm, it clocks in at 700 megawatts. That's significantly larger than the average of just under 338 megawatts for similar projects constructed in Europe in 2015.

It's also larger than the next-largest offshore wind farm in Europe, the famous 630-megawatt London Array.

Also contributing to the low cost is the high efficiency of Dong's turbines. The wind farm will be capable of generating 22.5 percent more electricity than originally estimated.

Dong's winning bid works out to 7.27 euro cents per kilowatt-hour (around 8 cents U.S.). That's 5.1 euro cents less than the previous estimate, according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The difference adds up to a savings of 2.3 billion euros for the life of the 15-year subsidy framework (around US$2.5 billion).

The Netherlands is calling this the world's cheapest offshore wind farm because the next-lowest cost for constructing and operating a wind farm is 10.3 euro cents per kWh. (That wind farm is located in Denmark.)

One thing not included in the cost is transmission, but costs are continuing to spiral down in that area, too.

Four years ago, Dong set itself a goal of limiting the overall cost of offshore wind to 100 euros per megawatt-hour, including transmission. The target date was 2020, and Dong already reached that goal.

Wind farms and oil companies

With the notable exception of ExxonMobil, oil companies are beginning to shed their petroleum dependency and diversify their energy portfolios.

The London Array, for example, was constructed by an oil-saturated partnership that included Norway’s oil company Statoil and its hydropower company Statkraft. Another key partner was Masdar, the renewable energy subsidiary of Abu Dhabi's Mubadala investment agency (as a member of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi occupies one of the top 10 proven oil reserves in the world).

Following in those footsteps, Shell paired itself up with the sustainable energy company Eneco to bid on the Dutch wind farm. The partnership also included Vestas, which is part of an international consortium working on the next generation of ultra-large wind turbines.

Shell has some catching up to do if it wants to keep up with Dong, but we doubt this will be the end of its interest. The company is already ramping up its wind portfolio, leveraging its experience in offshore construction and complex partnerships. According to our friends over at OffshoreWind.biz, Shell has nine wind projects up and running in North America and Europe.

Offshore Wind also noted that Shell is involved in at least two cutting-edge projects:

"Last year, the company became Principle Power’s technology partner for a floating wind energy project off the [coast of] Portugal. Shell is also one of the main shareholders of 2-B Energy, a Dutch developer of a new type of offshore wind turbine which utilizes two instead of three blades," the publication reported.

So, what now ExxonMobil?

Image (cropped): via Dong Energy.

 

Save

Save

https://youtu.be/Aa3gCbWWjFo

Few activities are more relaxing than a lazy boat ride through a fun city like Copenhagen.  The concept is especially sweet when the boat is made of recycled bottles and powered by solar energy.

GoBoat is a Danish startup offering affordable, self-guided boat tours through the waterways of Copenhagen, as well as Malmo and Stockholm in Sweden. The hourly rentals cruise along at a modest pace, but it's possible to see most of the city in two or three hours, stopping at watering holes and picnicking as you go.  For kids, and kids at heart, the company hands out nets to pick up trash. Successful "trash pirates" are rewarded with ice cream at the end of the voyage.

TriplePundit had a chance to take a ride earlier this summer.  After our ride, I spoke with co-founder Kasper Eich-Romme and learned a little about where the GoBoat concept came from and why the idea is sustainable.

TriplePundit: How did the idea come about?

Kasper Eich-Romme: We are three guys who started GoBoat in 2014, and we've always shared a great passion for being on water, sailing and the whole "maritime spirit" so to speak. We missed always being able to get a boat and bring friends or family out on the water, and that's why we decided to start GoBoat. We designed the boat ourselves since there was no boat on the market that was able to provide that experience we want to give.

Sustainability is a big part of the concept. But one of the most important other aspects is the social one -- and that's why we designed the boats with a table in the middle. We want our guests to get a new perspective on the city but also on each other. When you are on the boat, you can't just run away from the conversation or hide behind your smartphone. And that is also one of the reasons why we've chosen electric engines -- so that you can actually have a conversation without a big noisy petrol engine making it impossible to hear each other.

3p: Why did you decide to emphasize sustainability?

KER: We're not fanatics in any way. But we felt that if we expect our guests to treat the surroundings and each other with respect, we need to set an example. That's why every time we need to make choice, we (almost) always go with the sustainable solution -- as long as it makes sense. We also believe that we can show people how sustainability can be a great advantage business-wise.

Right now our main sustainable features are:

• Solar power that charges the boats 100 percent, coming from panels on the roof of our rental building.


• 99.9 percent of the batteries we use can be recycled when they've served their duty.


• All the wood used in the boats and to build our terminals is sustainable Norwegian wood from Kebony.


• The boats are partly built of recycled plastic bottles.

3p: Were there challenges to being so sustainable?

KER: The startup costs gets higher by focusing on bringing sustainability into every part of your company. But in our case, these higher startup costs were rapidly earned back.  Also, we are first-movers on a lot of the technology which caused some challenges in the start.

At the moment, we are working on getting solar panels integrated in the boats themselves -- and not only on the roof of the rental house. We think this will bring people even closer to the sustainability story. We're also working on a new generation of glass fiber for the boats that is more sustainable and made by out of recycled fibers from disused wind turbines.

3p: Are there business advantages to being sustainable? 

KER: There are advantages on different levels.

On the practical level, we can see that by using electricity and solar power instead of petrol we actually save around 200,000DKK ($30,000) a year in Copenhagen alone -- which is remarkable.

If you understand how to use sustainability as a natural part of the values in your company, it can make an impact. But if you want to be sustainable just so that you can brand your company as 'sustainable,' then it can be harder to get an advantage. And furthermore, you will never create a sincere impact on your guests or employees.

In GoBoat, sustainability is a natural way of thinking. And a lot of the things we do ensure that both employees and guests get a good connection with the brand [and] love being a part of GoBoat. A lot of the love comes out of a sustainable and respectful way of thinking.

Hopefully and in the near future sustainability will play a much bigger role and give much bigger advantages than we see today. In GoBoat, we feel confident that we can be a part of this revolution.

Jo Piazza is an award winning journalist and bestselling author. Her latest book How to Be Married will be released in April. 

Immigration and innovation have long driven U.S. economic growth, and it's clear those two factors are intertwined and dependent on each other. True, much of the innovation in the U.S. is related to technology, and a majority of the new patents, ideas and investors are foreign-born. But if we are to define the term “innovation” broadly — and let’s face it, just about every corporation or nonprofit loves to hurl that word haphazardly — then innovation is underway in all sectors of the U.S. economy. This includes the immigrants who may not come here to launch the latest Silicon Valley company or enroll in a top university. They are innovating in the sense that they are launching new businesses doing work that no one else wants to do; or they are opening stores and services in neighborhoods in which many Americans would never venture.

Nevertheless, U.S. immigration policy is focused on an outdated model -- one that categorizes people into two groups: those from Mexico and “other than Mexico.” And despite the calls of politicians, including Donald Trump, to get tough on immigration and “build a wall,” the fact is that illegal immigration from Mexico is declining. Stronger immigration enforcement tactics on both sides of the border, along with changes in the U.S. economy, have together caused the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. to decrease while the repatriation of Mexican nationals has increased.

And despite the hysteria over Syrian refugees coming into the U.S., the plurality of refugees who come to the U.S. to seek asylum are from Burma. According to the Migration Policy Institute, asylum-seekers from Burma outpaced those from Iraq for the first time last year. In fact, last year the number of refugees from Bhutan, with its population of 750,000, was more than triple those from Syria (with an estimated population of over 4.8 million living as refugees).

Meanwhile, illegal immigration from Central America continues to surge. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) considers these people economic migrants. But the reality suggests many of these citizens, especially those under the age of 18, are fleeing violence and crime in the “Northern Triangle” of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. In recent years, the number of apprehensions from those three countries kept pace, and even exceeded, the number of people from Mexico stopped at the borders in 2014.

The CBP launched an aggressive campaign that purports to discourage Central American citizens from entering the U.S., and Mexican authorities are determined to deport them. But so far this year, just about as many Central American citizens as Mexicans have been detained at the U.S.-Mexico border. And when it comes to families and unaccompanied minors, the number of those stopped at the border this year has skyrocketed. A U.S.-funded program trying to improve economic and social conditions in the Northern Triangle has made little difference. And advocates say more immigration judges are needed to cope with, and find and answer for, the ongoing crisis.

The U.S. needs a fairer and more streamlined way to cope with its complicated immigration process. Communication with U.S. citizens are certainly necessary. Even if Trump’s candidacy (or wall) eventually fails, the facts on who is coming in, and why, need to be clearly explained. On that point, plenty of evidence suggests that encouraging high-skilled workers to come to the U.S. is more of an economic and long-term investment boost than a scheme that steals jobs.

Nevertheless, not every immigrant is going to create the next Facebook or Bloom Box, and those workers are important to the economy, too. A fair and transparent system to allow immigrants, including Mexicans, to work in jobs that U.S. nationals are unwilling to do has long been part of this debate. And it is an argument that of course needs to be settled.

But when looking at immigration pragmatically, and not emotionally or even morally, there is a strong business case for admitting refugees into this country. The U.S. has a proud history of accepting those who were discarded and unwanted by other countries -- whether they came from Armenia in the years after the genocide; refugees from post-World War II Europe; or those fleeing Communism and other forms of totalitarian oppression from regions such as Eastern Europe, the Balkans, or Southeast Asia. Now, the U.S. is missing out on an opportunity to accept a new group of citizens who will contribute economically -- and, yes, spiritually and patriotically -- to this country.

In a world that is increasingly reliant on cross-border trade with the emergence of growth areas as diverse as South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, this economy would benefit from welcoming these people — including many Syrian refugees who are living in purgatory with no recognition of their human rights throughout the Levant, Turkey and Europe.

The largest factors explaining America’s immigration mess are not necessarily the immigration laws themselves, but instead, the system's process and structure. More staff, including judges and social workers who can vet why people are fleeing their homes for the U.S., need to be hired, resulting in an investment that will partly solve the current backlog of immigration cases. But our current immigration system is also flawed as it is one designed for the mid-20th century and does not leverage the power and speed of technology.

The Obama administration corralled several agencies to develop a roadmap toward immigration reform that relies on streamlined processes and the use of current technology — which, believe it or not, starts with computers. Such a system, if correctly implemented, would be more transparent, fairer and indeed, Mr. Trump, would go further in keeping those terrorists out. Business, which is far ahead and is far more rational on immigration than government, has an opportunity to use its influence as a force for good on this issue.

Image credit: U.S. Customs and Border Patrol/Flickr

The health research is conclusive. Too much salt in our diet increases the risk of stroke and heart attack. How big a deal is this? One of us will die of heart disease every 40 seconds!

What is the government doing to protect us from food companies putting too much salt in their products? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the agency established to protect our food supply. Its policy for controlling salt in our food is to engage in “…a dialogue with the industry.”

Why is government not doing more? It can be explained in one word: lobbying. Big Food is actively lobbying to protect its ability to load our food with salt because this is a proven path to higher sales and profits. Salt sells!

The issue of salt and Big Food lobbying is not an isolated incident. For example, the senate just passed GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling legislation that was heavily shaped by Big Food lobbying. Big Food does not want to show on its food and drink labels that it's using genetically modified ingredients. The state of Vermont passed the first law requiring them to do so. Big Food lobbyists ran to Congress for protection. The result is federal GMO-labeling legislation that says Big Food has to reveal its use of GMOs, but not on their labels! Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy labeled this legislation a “farce.”

Big Food sells addiction to grow sales and profits

My diet research concluded that addiction is at the very foundation of Big Food’s sales growth model. Big Food’s sales success is directly linked to its ability to addict us to ever larger quantities of sugar, salt, fat and caffeine. The more we eat or drink, the more we need to eat or drink to satisfy our addiction. These chemicals are the “new tobacco” in terms of their ability to addict us to a damaging lifestyle.

Selling ever higher amounts of salt, sugar, fat and caffeine is the sales strategy that has made companies like McDonald's and Coca-Cola global food suppliers. Their sales success has made us fat. Their sales are directly tied to our national weight gain epidemic.

Big Food is using tobacco company tactics

Tobacco companies wrote the book on how to use lobbying and mass-media campaigns to protect profits at the expense of public health. Their strategies are premised on denial, misinformation, and delay tactics to stop or retard public health actions that would curtail product sales.

Big Food is using these proven tactics to advance its profits at our health expense. For example, the Salt Institute, a salt producer trade association, calls the FDA’s salt guidelines “malpractice.” The Grocery Manufacturers Association, representing food and beverage companies, calls for more scientific investigation on the optimal salt level for human health. The bottom line is that Big Food is blunting government action by lobbying for more studies, or questioning even the need for action, despite the overwhelming evidence that its food promotes weight gain that has now reached health crisis levels.

Lose Big Food to lose weight

A proven best practice for achieving sustained weight loss is to stop eating Big Food. For most of us that is easier said than done. We have been eating Big Food for most of our lives. We are addicted to the chemicals.

I fought against myself in trying to stop eating Big Food. I loved my McDonald’s fish filet sandwich. Starting my morning with a cold Diet Coke was heaven. And what is better than eating barbecue potato chips?

But once I stopped eating Big Food, I started to see measurable weight loss. And I have lost over 30 pounds. This scale of success was not achieved just because I stopped eating Big Food. But it was a major factor.

Boycotting Big Food is now our last line of defense against weight gain and damaging health impacts. We have no other choice. Big Food lobbying is successfully overcoming public health legislation. Their lobbying has successfully made profit health more important than public health. Government will not provide us with transparent food labeling. It will not curtail the use of addictive chemicals like salt that underpin Big Food sales.

Our only health-repair course is to recognize that we are addicted to the huge quantities of chemicals that Big Food inserts into its food and beverages to grow sales. If you want to lose weight, stop going to Big Food restaurants. Lose weight by not buying their sodas and juices. Avoid the center isles of your grocery store. Better yet, don’t go to the grocery store. Go to your local farmers market. Do what our millennials do. Stop watching commercial TV with their massive amounts of Big Food advertising. These are the proven best practices for losing weight, because Big Food lobbying has blunted our government from taking meaningful actions to protect public health. It's up to us to protect ourselves by saying no to Big Food at the cash register.

Image credit: Pixabay

It turns out the world’s addiction to cheap Chinese goods, which in part drives China’s huge contribution to global climate change, will not doom the world after all.

Instead, it will be the country’s penchant for hacking, accelerated cyber warpath and the theft of intellectual property that could have consequences for the global economy, according to a report issued on Monday by a Washington, D.C.-based cybersecurity think tank.

According to researchers at the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology (ICIT), China’s 13th five-year plan reads as a modern-day sequel to the 2001 espionage movie "Spy Game," a CIA-Chinese film starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. But instead of bombings and kidnappings, ICIT’s report paints a picture far more dramatic. China’s “criminal culture of theft” includes “state sponsored smash and grab hacking” and “techno-pilfering,” ICIT says. The group also cites China's reliance on organized crime syndicates such as the Triad in order to bolster its standing on the global stage and become less reliant on Western technology and innovation.

This is quite the contrast from what the Chinese government has publicly disclosed. According to China’s official news agency, this five-year plan reads similarly to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and includes initiatives such as agriculture reform, land rights and next-generation transportation.

ICIT’s stark assessment of the Chinese government’s agenda also conflicts with a study issued by the cyber security firm Fire Eye. That study alleges that cyber attacks coming from the world’s most populous country have fallen dramatically, with fewer breaches reported by U.S. technology firms, government agencies and military officers. Almost a year after U.S. President Barack Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping agreed to a crackdown on cyber espionage, Fire Eye says such breaches have collapsed to only a handful a month — a fraction of the 65 to 75 such attacks that happened monthly only three years ago. Furthermore, Fire Eye suggests that the decreased frequency of such events started a year before the 2015 U.S.-China summit.

To back up its claim, ICIT offers a long list of Chinese cyber warfare initiatives. They include the PLA 61398, long accused of hacking the systems of U.S. companies and government agencies. Deep Panda, Hurricane Panda, Gothic Panda, Goblin Panda and a host of other eponymous directives also make the roster. A complex spy structure, from networks embedded in consulates to Chinese student and scholar associations, join front companies and Chinese community associations in what ICIT insists is a broad, covert attack on Western industry.

The solution, says ICIT, is more sharing of threats between governments, increased public awareness and not cutting-edge, but bleeding-edge technology in order to counter these threats for the rest of this decade.

Formidable, indeed, one would think while perusing the study and list. Yet at the same time, ICIT also mentions China’s other problems, which it dismisses as it showcases China’s supposed nefarious agenda. ICIT suggests we overlook the human rights violations, poor manufacturing quality (Apple may dispute that), “fifty-cent trolling army propaganda,” and spats between the government and military. And that's to say nothing of the U.S. military advantage despite China’s investment in military training and technology.

While China has made impressive strides the past generation, this is a country that is lodged between Ecuador and Thailand on the United Nations’ Human Development Index -- and ranks equally to its northern and far poorer neighbor, Mongolia. Businesses worried about attacks from China may instead want to focus on their own operations in that country, as the nation is still a basket case when it comes to human rights.

So based on this report, is China a challenge or even threat to the U.S. and its allies? Of course. Should this report be part of Donald Trump’s playbook? That is up to debate. Nevertheless, the ICIT report and its hyperbole reads as more of a very good sales document pitching its research services, and those of the cyber security industry at large, rather than as a responsible directive on how to conduct America’s economic, military and diplomatic policy.

Image credit: Philip Jägenstedt/Flickr

By Emma Bailey

World governments must begin to reckon with the worsening climate crisis. Certain nations have taken broader steps than others to implement measures designed to mitigate the effects of our current greenhouse gas pollution trajectory. Canada has been a leader in these efforts, and the province of Ontario is no exception. The cabinet of Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne solidified a five-year action plan to promote clean energy and support the long-term shift to a low-carbon economy.

Critics, of course, came forth with statements saying the estimated $7 billion Climate Change Action Plan is unduly expensive and will devastate the economy. But a close examination of economic data suggests that the expenditures will represent much less than 1 percent of the province's GDP. For this minuscule investment, the plan aims to cut CO2 emissions by 15 percent below1990 levels by 2020. By 2050, the province projects its emissions will be 80 percent below the 1990 baseline.

Even given the penchant for politicians to perhaps overestimate the positive consequences of their proposals, these results -- even if only partially or fractionally achieved -- are nothing to sneeze at. They are a solid beginning to meeting Canada's obligations under the Paris Agreement, which was adopted in December 2015 and signed by 177 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change this year.

In early June, the Ontario government passed the Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act. This core piece of legislation stands as a foundational text for putting the broader climate change strategy into action. The law sets up a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that is expected to go live early next year and raise almost $2 billion annually for the government of Ontario. This revenue won't just come out of thin air; pundits predict that the additional costs imposed will amount to about $13 per resident, per month.

Progressive Conservatives, while accepting the need to lower emissions, contend that this scheme will increase the cost of living while giving politicians additional financial resources to possibly misuse. The law also saw opposition from the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which objects to government intervention in industries such as automobile production and energy, as well as the household heating decisions of millions of homeowners.

Making the proposals seem more sinister is the fact that they were first revealed to the public at large only when the Globe and Mail newspaper got its hands on confidential cabinet papers earlier in May. However, it is necessary to point out that Quebec already has a cap-and-trade market running, and Manitoba is expected to join shortly. So, this paradigm has supporters all across Canada (not to mention within the United States of America).

Ontario expects to generate approximately $1.8 billion to $1.9 billion Canadian (around US$1.4 billion) per year in proceeds from its cap-and-trade program, storing them in a new "Green Bank." The province will use C$100 million in cap-and-trade proceeds over four years to support the introduction of "renewable" natural gas. A source from Alberta Oil Magazine has commented saying that this is a type of biofuel which harnesses the energy from by-product gas that would otherwise be vented - landfill gas, sewage gas, etc. "Renewable" natural gas is therefore more sustainable than gas which comes from fracking. EnergyTrendsInsider has spoken on the subject as well saying, "That's a good use of waste, but the supply is pretty limited. Natural gas, period, helps. [But] I wouldn't limit it to renewable natural gas."

Many of those who feel that natural gas has a place in a well-balanced, clean-energy mix are disappointed. While these new rules will likely lead to reduced levels of emissions across both private households and commercial facilities, concerns about energy costs remain paramount. Some estimates contend that it will cost ordinary families at least $3,000 per year more to heat their homes under the provisions of the plan.

Alberta, which produces and sells significant quantities of natural gas, isn't happy. According to figures from a researcher at the University of Calgary, Ontario residents now use about 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day for heating purposes – about the same amount as Alberta sells to Ontario daily. Billions will be spent to expand the use of solar, geothermal and other electric heating solutions. New buildings will be heated by means other than fossil fuels by 2030, and by 2050, this rule will be extended to all buildings, new or old.

The province will also use cap-and-trade proceeds to attempt to drive the adoption of electric vehicles with a program of tax breaks and rebate incentives of up to $14,000 per qualifying vehicle. At the same time, the government will pay for the construction of charging stations. The goal is for 12 percent of new vehicles sold in Ontario to be electric by 2025. Thus, the Liberal government of Premier Wynne has its sights set on transportation, one of the leading contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and indeed the entire planet. The amount of money being thrown around means that the auto industry in Ontario will see dramatic changes -- leading to additional worries about governmental interference in the free market system.

Ontario's new plan to manage its carbon footprint has garnered widespread acclaim along with pockets of criticism. This is perhaps inevitable; the broad, sweeping nature of the agenda almost ensures that plenty of people and organizations will find bones to pick with certain parts of it. It's important to not become distracted by trivialities or the claims of special-interest groups. Taken as a whole, the Ontario Climate Change Action Plan is one of the most ambitious and serious efforts to conserve the planet that has ever been issued by any provincial government.

Image credit: Flickr/Tony Webster

Emma Bailey is a freelance writer and blogger from the Midwest. After going to college in Florida she relocated to Chicago, where she now lives with a roommate and two rabbits. She primarily covers entertainment topics and issues pertaining to the environment.

By David Schwartz

Now more than ever, companies are conscious about the environmental impacts of their policies. Though commuting to and from an energy-guzzling office has long been the norm, many forward-thinking companies use remote work to decrease their carbon footprints and increase employee satisfaction.

For environmental and efficiency reasons, health insurance provider Aetna is a longtime proponent of remote work. Telecommuting helped the company save significantly in real estate costs, and Aetna estimates that eliminating commutes for many of its workers reduces carbon emissions by 23,000 metric tons every year.

Businesses all over the world are beginning to see how remote work options create happier employees and a healthier world -- and boost profits, too. With fewer absences, higher productivity and lower costs, remote work could be the solution to many of the modern workplace’s most persistent challenges.

How to program your remote policy

While remote work isn’t right for everyone, the benefits can be significant. From lowered environmental damage to improved employee retention and larger talent pools, remote work lets companies use the resources of the world to grow without damaging the Earth in the process.

Still, making this transition isn’t easy. Even a part-time remote workforce needs strong leadership and clear policies to keep the operation running smoothly. If you’re considering a remote-work policy for your business, follow these guidelines to guarantee that telecommuting prolongs your company’s growth.

1. Nobody is above the law

Rules should be the same for everyone, whether they’re in the office, on the road or at home. Holding different employees to different standards could lead to resentment, poor collaboration and employee attrition -- precisely the opposite of what remote work is supposed to do.

Yahoo scrapped its remote work policy for just this reason. To avoid getting in a bad situation, make policies uniform for everyone regardless of location.

2. Talk it out

Whether an employee is working two towns over or halfway around the world, daily, in-person chats are hard to come by when you’re not in the same building. Communication is key when people are physically separate.

Schedule regular virtual meetings with remote employees. Ensure everyone uses the same communication software, and pay visits to remote workers from time to time so they feel like valued parts of the company.

3. Allow gray areas

Some employees want to work in the office, some want to work from home, and many want to spend time between the two. Build your system with every type of person in mind. This allows your employees to balance their professional and personal lives without having to go through tedious setup processes every time they change locations.

So many people today benefit from incorporating remote work into their schedules. Companies that neglect to offer the option fail to capitalize on all their available resources.

4. Offer incentives to keep work green

If you want to begin remote work to help the environment, incentivize your employees to help you do it. Electricity bills in America keep rising, and employees who work from home use more electricity than those who leave the lights off all day.

Look for group discounts on energy savers such as energy-efficient light bulbs and smart thermostats. This shows your employees that you care about both their personal work environments and the environment as a whole.

As more companies follow Aetna’s example on remote work, entrepreneurs will have to become more familiar with managing remote employees than ever before. Consider introducing a remote work policy at your company. Employees will happier, and the environment will be healthier.

Image credit: Farrel Nobel via Unsplash

David Schwartz is the founder and president of The Water Scrooge, which offers maintenance-free, tamper-proof water conservation tools to landlords and homeowners. The Water Scrooge is based in Lynbrook, N.Y.

by Antonio Pasolini — Wind power is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to renewable energy. It currently accounts for 41.1 percent of all energy produced in Denmark (2015 data) while in the UK in the same period wind power generation accounted for 11 percent of the total. In other northern European countries such as Germany wind is also making steady progress.

Granted, wind power is far from being perfect and impact-free, despite being a renewable energy type that is preferable to fossil fuel, which by nature is finite and it needs to be replaced. Wind power can kill birds that risk being chopped up by the turbine blades (mind you, one billion birds die every year from collision with window glass panes , according to the American Bird Conservancy ); as an intermittent energy source it needs to be stored and storage needs improving.

Many people also consider wind turbines an eyesore, with the potential to devalue property and holiday spots in their vicinity. Some people blame turbines nearby for health problems, especially sleep disturbances and headaches . The suspicion is that the noise and vibrations that emanate from them cause the trouble .

Green Builder Media has a thought-provoking article asking whether this type of antagonism to wind turbines is based on evidence or an “example of the nocebo effect”. The article does mention a study carried out at the University of Oxford 's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, which looked into possible health consequences of living close to wind turbines. The study included 2,433 participants and did find some evidence of health disturbance, which was proportional to the level of exposure (the higher the exposure, the more likely to get sleep disturbance).

However, the author of the study, Igho Onakpoya, highlights the studies were not designed to make a clear cause and effect link and were of moderate reporting quality. Besides, most of the outcomes measured were subjective, making it impossible to assert scientifically that the exposure is causing the symptoms.

Granted , wind turbines can be improved to become smaller and even blade-free. In northern Europe some of the biggest farms are off-shore, far away from the backyard of those with a distaste for it. Massive offshore farms are in the pipeline right now.

Noise depends on the size and speed at which the blade cuts through the air. Much of the research carried out to find out the sonic impact of turbines has been with large models.

The good news is that there are researchers working on new models that should make wind power design even more environmentally friendly and less risky to humans. The Green Media article also mentions that Henry Rice, a professor of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering at Trinity College Dublin (Ireland), along with his team, is working on three prototype turbines whose design was mainly informed by the research team’s computer modelling of noise.

The turbines will be built and tested next year with support from the SWIP project in Europe. The project aims at creating a new generation of wind turbines with less noise, turbulence and vibration. In other words, wind turbines that could be even suitable for urban areas, although more research on noise needs to be done and legal hurdles overcome.

There's no doubt that wind energy is here to stay and has an important contribution to make to help us transition to a green economy. It is happening and it will happen more safely, efficiently and aesthetically. In regards to the aforementioned Oxford research on possible links between wind turbines and human health, one interesting fact the study revealed is that people who benefit financially from the presence of wind turbines were less likely to report annoyance. Now, that may be an interesting angle to explore in discussions about window farm planning and permission.

Image credit: Green Builder Media