Search

Here’s some news that should rock the clean-energy world. Electric vehicle superstar Tesla just tendered an offer to buy America’s largest solar company, SolarCity.

The announcement, posted Tuesday on Tesla's blog, opens by saying, “Tesla’s mission has always been tied to sustainability.” It then goes on to say, “It’s now time to complete the picture. Tesla customers can drive clean cars and they can use our battery packs to help consume energy more efficiently, but they still need access to the most sustainable energy source that’s available: the sun.” Lyndon Rive, the CEO of SolarCity, also happens to be Tesla CEO Elon Musk's first cousin.

The move would make Tesla “the world’s only vertically-integrated energy company offering end-to-end clean energy products,” the company said.

According to a letter sent to Rive by the Tesla board, the proposed acquisition would involve an exchange of SolarCity stock for Tesla stock. Tesla proposed a ratio of between 0.122 and 0.131 of Tesla stock for each SolarCity share. That would place SolarCity's valuation in the range of $2.5 billion to $3 billion, depending on the final price of the shares. That’s good news for SolarCity shareholders, who would see a 21 to 30 percent bump in SolarCity stocks.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who sits on the board of SolarCity and will recuse himself from voting on the offer, called the deal a “no-brainer.” He explained how a customer can buy an electric car, a battery storage system, and solar to power it all -- all with a few clicks and without leaving the Tesla website.

SolarCity is America’s No. 1 full-service solar provider. Back in 2014, the company decided to expand from sales and installation to incorporate manufacturing as well. The company put plans in place to be build a gigafactory in Buffalo, New York, which is now under construction.

If completed, this will make SolarCity the fourth vertically-integrated solar company, in addition to First Solar, SunPower and SunEdison. Musk said SolarCity's decision to move into manufacturing stemmed from concern that there would not be enough solar production capacity to meet anticipated demand.

At that time the company had recently acquired the racking company Zep Solar, and CTO Peter Rive said: "We will be the most vertically-integrated solar company in the world.”

In solar, cost is king and SolarCity has long seen vertical integration is key to lowering costs.

Now, that integration will extend to an entire transportation energy ecosystem, in which a complete carbon-free automotive solution can be realized.

In the past, some studies found that electric vehicles are no cleaner than fossil fuel-powered cars if the electricity they receive comes from coal plants. Less than a decade ago, more than half the electricity in this country was produced from coal. By combining an electric car with rooftop solar, concerned consumers can eliminate, or at least minimize, the uncertainty as to the actual impact of their driving on the planet, after having spent a considerable sum of money to purchase an electric car.

This addition of solar integration is also an aggressive move by Musk in the race to claim the future of personal transportation for the EV, at a time when fuel cells -- and a variety of other alternative-fuel vehicles -- are vying for a piece of tomorrow’s market.

Image credit: RP Siegel

Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) spent years in the crosshairs of the world’s largest environmental groups over past accusations about how the company’s irresponsible forestry practices affected local communities. But APP, one of the world’s largest pulp and paper companies, changed its tone and approach as of late.

APP had discussions with NGOs such as Greenpeace, and those talks eventually led to the company adopting a zero-deforestation policy. In turn, Greenpeace acknowledged that APP has turned a corner. And the company regularly consults with another NGO, the Forest Trust, to ensure that the zero-deforestation message is spread across its vast holdings in Indonesia and China.

But incidents still pop up that land APP in hot water with environmentalists. The reasons why, however, are nuanced when it comes to solving problems such as illegal logging or the unrestricted draining of peatlands. One problem, claims APP, are palm oil plantations adjacent to the company’s managed forests that start fires or drain peatlands, the results of which spill over into APP’s forests. Such flare-ups can also occur when local farmers burn down some forest so they can grow crops to feed their families and neighbors, and the fires spread out of control.

Nevertheless, when such an incident festers, APP is usually blamed. This is despite the fact that its efforts have gained the trust of organizations such as the United Nations, which invited APP to events surrounding last year’s COP21 climate talks. Those efforts resulted in the company becoming a signatory to the New York Declaration of Forests. From APP’s point of view, however, the company cannot just point the finger. So, it launched several projects that it says can boost sustainable development in the regions that are the foundation of the company’s supply chain.

“We’re audited and we’ve shown our commitment to zero-deforestation. But if a nearby palm oil plantation sets a fire, then what?” one APP spokesperson asked rhetorically during a meeting with a group of journalists earlier this week in Shanghai. And that is a fair argument. If APP is going through all of these efforts, only to be blamed when the actions of others cause environmental destruction, then the gut reaction of any company is going to be: What is the point?

Such distractions aside, APP insists that it is doing what it can to prevent such challenges from flaring up in the first place. Late last year, the company announced an initiative that aims to improve the economic development of over 500 villages throughout Indonesia. APP says such programs are necessary in order to show that economic development can continue sustainably while protecting Indonesia’s natural forests.

Such programs include agroforestry, which allows local citizens to grow the fruits and vegetables they need aside the company’s forests. New methods to raise livestock are also taught to those who have been in animal husbandry for generations.

The company also funded business classes to boost interest in other professions that do not lead to the clear-cutting of natural forests and create new paths for economic development. Education programs have also launched in local schools so that students have a greater understanding of how the careful management of forests can contribute to the local economy. According to APP representatives who spoke at the Shanghai meeting, such programs are an important component of its forest conservation policy, and together, these initiatives have a role in preventing the fires and illegal logging that has bedeviled the company in the past.

Some of APP’s challenges in Indonesia are structural. Unlike many developed countries, this island nation of 200 million people has a confusing land ownership registration system that ensnares businesses and citizens alike. In the U.S., for example, one goes to the local county office to register one’s ownership of property. When it comes to land titles, however, Indonesia has a system that is both cumbersome and opaque; a regional government, for example, may have assigned a concession of land to a company, while a local community council has said that land is either owned by a family or has been assigned for a different use. There have been cases where multiple concessions for an area of land have been granted to a paper company such as APP, or a palm oil grower. Meanwhile, local residents are often authorized to burn forests when they feel it is necessary.

The reality is that the Indonesian government needs to be more proactive in streamlining how it grants titles to land, instead of just wagging fingers at companies when fires blaze out of control. And of course, both business and individuals must be held accountable when it comes to tackling the problems of deforestation and environmental degradation.

To that end, APP has instituted policies it says can help the company self-regulate. One such program is the launch of a grievance protocol, which enables anyone to contact the company if they see anything that resembles a breach of the company’s rules. Since APP started its zero-deforestation policy in 2013, the company says it has had two breaches, both of which were investigated and resolved.

APP’s journey over the last few years teaches us that no industry can exist in isolation. We now have organizations that establish sustainable standards for commodities including palm oil, beef, soy and paper. But if the global business community is really going to succeed when it comes to stopping rampant deforestation while enabling more sustainable development, these industries are going to have to work far more closely together if this planet will sustain 9 billion people by 2050.

Image credit: APP China

Disclosure: APP is funding Leon Kaye’s trip to China. Neither the author nor TriplePundit were required to write about the experience. 

Cigars? Rum? Not quite yet. But coffee will be the first Cuban product to come back to the United States after a more than 50-year trade embargo. The U.S. Department of State gave independent Cuban entrepreneurs the green light to begin exporting coffee to the U.S. after updating its list of acceptable goods.

The coffee won’t be sold at a wide-scale range just yet. Nespresso, the Swiss-based coffee company specializing in the sale of individual coffee capsules, will be the first to sell the product in the states. Nespresso’s initial purchase is only a few dozen tons, Quartz reported on Monday, but the company said the goal is to create a steady pipeline between Cuban coffee producers and U.S. shoppers.

Nespresso will feature the coffee in stores, online and over the phone, and it will sell the product as a limited-edition good called Cafecito de Cuba.

Prior to Fidel Castro’s revolution and the beginning of Cuba's estranged relationship with the United States, coffee was a booming industry in the island country. With exports exceeding 20,000 metric tons of coffee beans in the mid-1950s, the good was sold at lavish rates and often exported across the Atlantic to European buyers.

The Sierra Maestra Mountains, Cuba’s goldmine region booming with soil perfect for coffee beans, was the site of Castro’s revolutionary activity -- consequently creating a decline in the coffee industry. In 2009, the country had an all-time low harvest, and the government spent more than $50 million on imported coffee.

While Cuba managed to export 1.7 million pounds of coffee in 2014, Costa Rica — a country half the size of Cuba — outshone its counterpart by more than 150 million pounds that year, the Boston Globe reported.

Cuban coffee, although surviving some tough economic times, may finally be on the rise again following the U.S. Department of State’s lift on its embargo. In July 2015, the U.S. and Cuba restored diplomatic relations and lifted the embargo, but goods such as coffee, rum and cigars are still strictly monitored.

Cigars, the symbolic Cuban commodity, are still not sold in the United States. Americans leaving Cuba are prohibited from bringing back $100 worth of cigars. In March, President Barack Obama announced that Americans traveling to other countries around the world are officially allowed to purchase a Cuban cigar.

Nespresso isn’t likely to hold the monopoly on Cuban coffee in America, with competitors eyeing a run at the commodity recently given the okay to enter the states. GulfWise Commerce, a new company created to work directly with Cuba, is looking into roasting, packaging and ultimately selling coffee in the U.S., Quartz reported. 

With Americans drinking an average of 2.7 cups of coffee per day and coffee shops seeing the fastest growth in the restaurant industry, this could be a fantastic springboard for Cuban goods to catch fire on American shelves.

Image credit: Javier de la Rosa/Flickr

Most people want to hold on to their cell phones as long as possible. One poll found that 54 percent of Americans will only upgrade when their cell phones stop working or become obsolete. I am one of them. When my LG G2 smartphone suddenly turned off and wouldn’t turn back on, I was bummed because I wanted to hold on to the phone for at least two years. Instead I had to buy a new one after only 17 months. However, if information was available as to how a phone could be repaired, perhaps I could have found a way to fix it.

A bill introduced by New York state legislators would require electronics manufacturers to provide owners and independent repair businesses with the information needed for repair or to replace parts. And the legislation would include cell phones. Called the Fair Repair Act, the bill continues to languish in committee. And nothing may come of it, as the state legislative session ends at the end of this month. The bill needs to clear committee and pass in both state legislative chambers before the sessions ends.

So, what is the hold-up? In short: Apple is opposing the bill, as recent media reports reveal. As the Huffington Post put it, Apple has “repeatedly opposed right to repair legislation in the United States.” And the Huffington Post “confirmed through government filings that Apple has lobbied on the issue.”

Similar bills were brought up in three other states: Massachusetts, Nebraska and Minnesota. Apple has opposed the bill in Massachusetts. Called the Digital Right to Repair Bill, it would “establish fair and reasonable terms for providing diagnostic, service or repair information to independent vehicle repair providers.” Massachusetts State Rep. Claire D. Cronin co-sponsored the bill. “It has certainly come to my attention that Apple is opposed to this bill,” Cronin told the Huffington Post. She added that “electronics companies are running a repair monopoly.”

Right-to-repair bills would be good for the economy and the planet

If one of the right-to-repair bills passes, it would affect the rest of the country. Take the New York state bill. If state lawmakers pass the bill, it “could open up independent access to repairs across the nation; its legality in one state would free up information and distribution flow to the rest of the country,” Washington Post staffer Karen Turner wrote last week. 

That would be a good thing for the economy. The Repair Association is a champion of right-to-repair bills. The organization states on its website that a “competitive repair market is vital to the economy,” and points out that when manufacturers “own the only repair shop around, prices go up and quality goes down.” Providing repair and product replacement information makes it possible for repair shops to pop up.

The Repair Association cites three things that indicate Americans are in favor of right-to-repair laws:

• 86 percent of voters in Massachusetts passed the Automobile Owners’ Right to Repair Law in 2012.


• 114,322 signed a petition to legalize cell phone unlocking.


• One million people have joined open-source repair groups like iFixit to learn how to repair their stuff.

Repairing cell phones instead of trashing them for the latest model is also better for the environment. Although plenty of recycling options for cell phones exist, many cell phones still wind up in landfills. In 2010, mobile devices, including cell phones, only had an 11 percent recycling rate. That same year, 135 million cell phones were trashed.

Being able to have our cell phones repaired would be good for our pocketbooks, good for the economy and good for the planet. It's a win-win-win situation. It is time for companies like Apple to stop opposing right-to-repair bills while trumpeting their environmental initiatives.

Image credit: Flickr/Jay Tamboli

By Jesus “Chuy” Garcia and Marc J. Lane

Cook County is taking a page out of the social enterprise playbook. The county’s new Commission on Social innovation is chartered to incubate actionable policy recommendation that would create and sustain innovative solutions to increasingly daunting social problems. And if a social enterprise is defined the way Social Enterprise Alliance sees it — as an initiative that marries the social mission of a nonprofit or government program with the market-driven approach of a business — the Commission on Social Innovation certainly qualifies.

While public- and social-sector programming has improved the lives of countless people, increasingly so have market-based strategies. So the commission — as thought leader, convener, collaborator and catalyst — will empower social-purpose businesses, impact investors, nonprofits and philanthropists, each defining success in terms of both financial and social returns.

The commission’s tools include all those that social enterprises customarily put to work. It will catalyze impact investment. It will leverage philanthropy. It will be guided by empirical data. It will hear from subject-matter experts and will seek to apply models that have been effective elsewhere. And it will scale those solutions that prove out.

The commission has its work cut out for it. The nation’s second largest county, serving 5.25 million residents including all the residents of Chicago, is under enormous stress. The Cook County Department of Public Health recently reported that the county’s south and west districts suffered an unemployment rate of around 12 percent. Nearly 30 percent of the population lives at less than 20 percent of the federal poverty level, and roughly 26 percent of adults over the age of 25 in the Department’s jurisdiction don’t have a high-school diploma. Violent crime plagues the county, particularly in its poorest precincts where too many people are incarcerated and too few rehabilitated.

Yet the commission has good reason to believe its efforts will effectively drive positive social change. Its members are visionary disruptors. And the county’s resources are rich; its talent pool abundant; and its nonprofit, business and investment communities deeply committed to social progress. So, multi-stakeholder and cross-sector social ventures are well within the commission’s reach.

Among the commission’s targets are the Illinois Medical District, the largest in the nation, which the commission plans to help spawn mission-driven, health-related business; and the Illinois International Port District with which the commission intends to collaborate to revitalize the Port of Chicago, collateral damage of de-industrialization. The goal is not only to maximize its commercial potential in concert with other Great Lakes ports, but also to maximize its social potential as an engine of economic development in the distressed communities it borders.

The commission will evaluate opportunities to help county residents in food deserts band together to build and maintain neighborhood stores. They might adopt membership models, connect with local businesses or nonprofits, and even rely on newly sanctioned crowd-funding opportunities.

The commission also intends to work constructively with the Cook County Land Bank Authority, supporting the efforts of social entrepreneurs and investors eager to redevelop and reuse vacant, abandoned, foreclosed and tax delinquent properties throughout the county in an effort to promote affordable housing, economic development, conservation and job creation.

And in conjunction with the Chicago chapter of Social Enterprise Alliance, the commission will soon offer capacity building workshops for nonprofit leaders throughout the county.

These initiatives and others the commission considers won’t be zero-sum transactions. The commission’s aim is nothing short of transformation.

The Cook County Commission on Social Innovation hopes to serve as a model for other government units throughout the nation. May our success inspire others.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Steve Hardy; 2) and 3) Courtesy of the authors 

Jesus “Chuy” Garcia is a member of the Cook County Board of Commissioners and Chair of the Cook County Commission on Social Innovation.

Marc J. Lane, Vice Chair of the Cook County Commission on Social Innovation, is a business and tax attorney and financial advisor whose clients are stakeholders in the evolving Social Impact Ecosystem. Marc is the author of The Mission-Driven Venture. Mlane@marcjlane.com.

By Megan Wild

Donald Trump is perhaps best known for a series of failed business ventures, a short-lived stint on reality television, awful hair and, of course, his bid for the U.S. presidency. In a story we all know well, the real estate mogul offended yet another group of individuals during a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

According to Mr. Trump himself, he "was the one that really broke the glass ceiling on behalf of women" in construction. His pointed and ill-informed statement went on to place himself ahead of everybody else when it comes to equal pay and employing women in the construction industry.

To say that Mr. Trump's proclamation is laughable is certainly an understatement.

You see, Donald Trump definitely did not break the glass ceiling for women in construction. In fact, he didn't have much to do with it at all. Mr. Trump has a record of hiring women in executive positions, including his first wife, but a recent report claims that his presidential campaign provides higher pay for men than women.

With a track record like that, it's hard to see how he could truly care about the state of women in society today, let alone those in construction-related positions.  

An equal opportunity industry

Despite some preconceived notions, the construction industry provides plenty of opportunities for both men and women. Studies show that women account for less than 10 percent of the construction workforce within the United States, but that number has improved when compared to some past figures.

For some women, however, a full-time career in the construction industry simply isn't worth it. Apart from the constant threats of sexual harassment, misogynistic remarks and unfair treatment, women in construction still suffer from unequal pay.

Female construction workers in the U.S. receive 93.4 percent of what their male counterparts receive, on average. This is significantly better than the average pay rate discrepancy in general, but there is room for improvement.

A number of barriers prevent more women from entering the construction sector, but certain advantages attract both men and women to the industry.

With a wide availability of work both domestically and around the globe, many construction workers can choose whether to travel or stay at home. Highly competitive salaries, bonuses and benefits may also be available, depending on the company and your exact position.

For example, employers such as MacAllister provide a number of benefits to their workers, including medical, dental and vision plans, 401(k) plans, student tuition reimbursement, profit sharing, and more.

Notable women in the construction industry

Donald Trump hasn't impacted the status of women in the construction industry today, but many individuals have. You might be surprised to discover that a good number of these individuals were women.

Anna Stern serves as vice president of Tri-North Builders in Wisconsin. A privately-held company founded in 1981, it's safe to say that the Tri-North team knows the construction industry inside and out. Some of its most recent projects include the Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wisconsin; Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln, Nebraska; Discovery World Museum in Milwaukee; and Comerica Bank in Forth Worth, Texas.

The construction industry suffers from a lack of female workers in general, and the role of the modern-day contractor is certainly dominated by men. However, one woman, Beverley Kruskol, has been laughing in the face of that trend for years. The owner of California-based M.Y. Pacific Building, Inc., Beverley Kruskol's business of commercial construction and general contracting services is highly successful throughout the region.

Another female pioneer in the construction industry is Lynn Gastineau, founder and owner of Gastineau Log Homes in New Bloomfield, Missouri. Though the family business originally started as a sawmill in the 1950s, Lynn took over in 1977 and immediately transformed the company into a builder of custom-built log homes. The Gastineau family hasn't looked back.

Keep a close eye on that glass ceiling

Once you consider the facts, it's easy to see that Donald Trump had little to no effect on the construction industry, its glass ceiling or any of the women in construction-oriented jobs. Despite the fact that he has no rightful claim to such a proclamation, his deceit should be taken seriously, if for other reason than to track the false information he continues to spread.

Image credit: Pexels

Megan Wild is an advocate of women in construction roles. She is a home improvement specialist and writes on her blog, Your Wild Home. She tweets ideas and inspiration @Megan_Wild.

By Diana Kander

Every year, companies are losing upward of $450 billion, all because employees aren’t actively engaged with their positions. These employees are content to simply clock in and clock out, doing what is necessary to avoid losing their jobs.

Employee interests tend to fall into two categories: innovation or preservation. Employees focused on preserving their jobs are simply trying not to get fired, never acting outside their job descriptions or coming forward with new ideas for fear of being noticed as having failed. Innovators, on the other hand, are focused on creating value for the organization. They’re constantly developing their skills, seeking opportunities to help the team and making themselves irreplaceable.

Despite the name, employees with a preservation mindsets are killing your business. And their fears of failure, risk, and change are taking your company down with them.

Exploring the paradox

Recently, while consulting on a software project, I found myself face-to-face with a glaring example of the huge financial impact of a preservation mindset. With overwhelming evidence pointing to the software’s failure, the project’s leader confided in me: “I can’t tell my boss it’s failed! We have 18 months left of funding, and I don’t want to lose my job.” Classic preservation mindset — terrified of drawing attention to himself but fully prepared to continue working on a project despite knowing it was doomed to fail.

Innovation employees are the engaged ones, taking initiative to make themselves more valuable and their teams more successful. They offer solutions and ideas and actively contribute, rarely worrying about their employment status.

Preservation employees, on the other hand, worry they may be more easily replaced — making them anxious about their positions within the company. As many as 68 percent of employees are disengaged and just trying not to make waves.

How to buckle up and drive value

An innovation mindset is not genetic; it’s a learned skill — one that even the most fearful employee focused on preservation can develop. As a leader, it’s your responsibility to encourage and guide these employees in developing the skills they need:

1. Self-awareness: Innovators know their shortcomings and actively work to improve. They crave constructive criticism and are much more invested in getting better than receiving affirmation. You can teach someone with a preservation mindset the value of self-awareness by emulating it yourself.

2. Coachability: While self-awareness helps you figure out what needs improvement, coachability helps you actually make the necessary changes. Innovators believe that they can always be better. And it’s not enough that they just want to be better: They use deliberate practice to get there.

3. Collaboration: Innovators don’t come up with big ideas alone; they seek mentors and collaborative relationships to access the expertise they need. And in challenging times, while those with the preservation mindset craft excuses for why they aren’t at fault, innovators assemble teams to help overcome whatever challenges stand in their way.

You can help those with a preservation mindset address their fears by encouraging them to connect with others who have the experience to mentor them through troubled times.

4. Strategy: It’s not enough just to work hard. Those with an innovation mindset prioritize their tasks to provide true value to the company. They’ve learned the invaluable skill of saying “No,” working only on the tasks that will prove most valuable for the organization.

Help preservation mindset team members prioritize their tasks by setting out the key criteria for which work will create the biggest impact to the organization.

5. Creativity: Those with innovation mindsets have no shortage of ideas for creating new opportunities within the organization, but this can be difficult for employees who are just getting started.

Help preservationist co-workers turn their idea muscles into idea machines by prompting them in the right direction. Can they write down 10 ways they can change their job to save five hours every week? How about 10 skills they can learn in an online class that would provide value to the organization? There are hundreds of these prompts, but the key is helping those with preservation mindsets ease into the creative process.

6. Resilience: True innovation means more uncertainty, greater risk, and potentially higher stress as a result. While the benefits greatly outweigh these drawbacks, aspiring innovators may need help managing these stressors to become the lean, mean, value-creating machines they aspire to be.

As a leader, your job is to notice stressful situations, help innovators improve their resilience, and make it clear that they shouldn’t be afraid to suggest or try new ideas.

It’s easy to understand those with the preservation mindset: They have worked hard to get where they are, and they are worried about losing their positions. But this fear is counterproductive; it forces individuals to suffocate rather than protect their opportunities. If you can help your employees transition from preservation to an innovation mindset, you’ll significantly increase engagement and watch your company reach heights you never imagined.

Image copyright: DianaKander.com

Featured image: Pexels

Diana Kander is a New York Times bestselling author and innovation coach. She serves as a consultant and professional speaker for clients and audiences across the country. Connect with Diana on Twitter.

Business in the Community, whose president is HRH The Prince of Wales, has appointed Amanda Mackenzie as the fourth Chief Executive in its 34-year history.

Mackenzie has worked at a senior level for FTSE 100 firms across a range of sectors including retail, insurance, energy and technology. Most recently, she was Chief Marketing Officer for Aviva, where she led Aviva’s rebranding from Norwich Union and was the first woman to be appointed to the Group Executive of the insurer. Mackenzie sits on the Board of Mothercare and The National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain, and was a member of the Davies review to get more women on boards.

Commenting on her appointment, Mackenzie said: "For over 30 years Business in the Community has been lighting the way in helping companies conduct responsible business. I feel very privileged to lead this organisation. Their work is needed now more than ever before. I see our job to help businesses serve the communities around them that have helped them be successful.” 

Mackenzie succeeds Stephen Howard, who will continue to work through projects which represent his passion for social purpose including Chair of the National School Partnership, Chair of the independent charitable trust Power to Change and Director of The Big Society Trust. He also continues as a member of the London Enterprise Panel and Director of Big Issue Social Investments.

Mackenzie will assume her position 3 October.

Last March the government of Alberta, Canada, learned the dirty news: It isn't just injection wells that raise the chance of an earthquake in quake-sensitive zones; hydraulic fracturing of shale does as well.

In fact, say researchers, "nearly all" of the quakes magnitude 3 or larger to hit either side of the Canadian Rockies were a result of fracking.

Over the last few years, researchers at the University of Calgary studied the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity. Their investigations, for the most part, received little attention from media. But after 4.4-magnitude earthquake registered in Alberta's oil belt last January, those findings reached the front page.

The fact that British Columbia's populous west coast is at risk for earthquakes and tsunamis is common knowledge and built into city and architectural planning. But man-made earthquakes in Canada's remote regions like Fox Creek, where populations are now on the increase, was another matter. And it didn't escape politicians' attention that the area of concern comprised Canada's largest and most sought-after natural gas reserves, the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.

Since the report's release, one BC minister called for an immediate moratorium on fracking and a "comprehensive and cumulative scientific review" of the risks of the process.

"Now we have the scientific evidence showing a clear link between fracking and earthquakes, but we really have no idea what the risks of this increased seismic activity amount to," said Andrew Weaver, MLA for the Vancouver Island district of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. "We are flying blind."

Alberta's traditionally conservative government was initially more cautious in its response. It directed the province's energy regulator to speed up the agency's own report on the relationship between fracking and quakes.

And many in the progressive party now want change. With more than 400 seismic events in the Fox Creek area of Alberta since January 2015, towns where fracking is a booming concern are beginning to demand more information. Residents unsettled by the quakes are seeking new places to live, and communities are feeling the impact.

But the greatest evidence that change may be on the way for Alberta's oil and gas industry can be found in the results of last year's provincial elections. Not only did voters elect the first New Democrat Party (progressive) premier in its history, but they also put gas royalties and fracking concerns squarely on the list of issues to address. This month's NDP convention saw more than 60 calls from local constituencies for changes or investigations regarding fracking, including at least one call for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing within Alberta's borders.

So, will earthquakes spell the end of Alberta's gas boom? Unlikely, at least for now. The NDP shelved the resolutions calling for changes to fracking regulations and dropped any discussion of a moratorium on the industry. Earthquakes or no, the oil and gas industry still offers the best injection of revenue there is for a prairie province with limited industries. The question is, however: Will it continue to be enough?

Image credits: 1) Wikimedia Commons; 2) Wikimedia Commons

Last week, Ford published its 2015 sustainability report entitled “Accelerating Today for a Better Tomorrow.” This report is an expansive survey of Ford’s global efforts in sustainability and technology.

It is also a candid and realistic summary of where the automaker is today and its future goals for technology innovations that will advance environmental and human sustainability.

Ford is transparent in recognizing that its efforts still have “one foot in today and one foot in tomorrow.” Executive Chairman William Clay Ford summarizes the challenge as "reinventing this company to make it incredibly relevant for the next 50 years.”

Ford’s focus on electrification, mobility and autonomous driving

Ford’s historical sustainability focus was on reducing tailpipe emissions. And the company succeeded. Today we can buy Ford’s technology advances at dealerships selling Eco-Boost engines and the lighter, more fuel-efficient F-150 pickup.

Ford is expanding its technology focus into vehicle electrification and mobility. Its commitment to these technologies are so strong that it now describes itself as a mobility company. Its pivot toward mobility has three key components:

1. Vehicle electrification. Ford targets spending $4.5 billion to launch 13 new electric vehicles by 2020. Its 2020 goal is for 40 percent of vehicles to have some electric element.


2. Autonomous driving technology. Ford plans to triple its test fleet of autonomous cars. To accelerate its autonomous-driving research, the automaker opened a new facility in the heart of Silicon Valley.


3. Creating customer-facing engagements that sell mobility as a service. In London, Ford is successfully implementing a program that serves customers with on-demand mobility solutions. They are easier to use and lower in cost than renting, leasing or owning a car.

Ford’s focus on human rights and working conditions

Human rights and working conditions are a primary focus in advancing Ford’s goal for an ethical global supply chain.

The automaker is to be commended for developing Policy 24, a detailed commitment to protecting human rights and basic working conditions. Ford will execute this policy statement through the following five-step process:

1. Analyze risks related to human rights and working conditions


2. Train suppliers to build capabilities


3. Perform compliance audits of its largest and most strategic Tier 1 suppliers


4. Enter into multi-stakeholder collaborations and initiatives to advance industry standards


5. Proactively seek to expand actions that boost program effectiveness

I spoke with Ford’s Mary Wroten, senior manager of supply chain sustainability, at the 2016 Sustainable Brands conference. In the following exclusive video interview, she further outlines Ford’s efforts on human rights:

The challenge of reshaping a global company

Companies the size of Ford, with a global supply chain, confront challenges tied to the pace of change. To Ford’s credit, the company has made progress -- and recognizes that it has much more to achieve.

However, questions are raised by Ford’s sustainability report. In 2012, Ford focused on its role in limiting global CO2 levels to 450 parts per million (PPM). At that time the climate science community warned of human and environmental impacts if the world reached 350 PPM. We are now at 400 PPM. Damaging climate impacts are now numerous, measurable and growing. This raises real questions for companies like Ford about whether their efforts are truly relevant in a world that is rapidly warming to damaging levels.

The pace of innovation is a second question for Ford. In less than a year, Tesla plans to launch a four-passenger vehicle with a 200-mile, all-electric range. Priced at $35,000, the Model 3 now boasts $14 billion in pre-orders.

And GM starts production on its all-electric Chevy Bolt this year. The model, which turned heads at the 2016 North American International Auto Show, also promises a 200-mile range. The Bolt will sell for less than $30,000 after government incentives and seat four passengers.

This begs the question: Where is Ford?

To Ford’s credit, its Fusion Energi was ranked No. 5 among the top-selling electric cars in 2015. But Tesla sold almost three times as many vehicles, and the plug-in electric Chevy Volt outsold Ford almost 2-to-1. Would Ford accept these results for the Mustang or F-150?

We need Ford’s sustainability leadership. This is a company that defined innovation in the 20th century. We need it to maintain this role in the 21st century. Based on its sustainability report, that is the company's goal. But the road ahead may be rocky.

Image courtesy of the author