Search

Monsanto's 2015 Sustainability Report, released this month, is everything one would expect to see in a corporate sustainability report. It has goals. It has highlights of past accomplishments. It reflects Monsanto's considerable knowledge and research of the planet's endangered water systems, food and climate risks.

And to those ends, the report goes far beyond some companies' self-examination of CSR objectives and accomplishments. It addresses the need for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the need for accountability that is driving business today. In 2015, Monsanto did this by a variety of means that, in and of themselves, provide leadership:

• It cut its greenhouse gas emissions through "crop protection" operations by 16 percent of its 2020 goal.


• It reached just under 9 percent of its 2020 goal to reduce water use in its irrigation projects.


• It educated farmers on how to efficiently use nutrients and, according to the company, helped to "curb greenhouse gas emissions on 1 million acres in the United States," attaining 20 percent of its goal.


• It increased production of its four main crops -- corn, soya, cotton and canola -- by 13 to 37 percent since 2000.


• And in December 2015, made a decision to neutralize its carbon footprint by 2021.

Of course, that's just a shortlist of the things the company has highlighted in its priorities.

Still, the question that is often asked with CSR reports -- and would certainly appear to apply here -- is: Does it go far enough?

Is an 8.75 percent reduction in water expenditure sufficient for an industry that has built its commerce around global water availability? Has it developed ways to replace flood irrigation in soy and other fields with drip methods as companies in places like Israel have? (Monsanto indicated in its 2013 report that it is helping farmers to transition to more effective models, such as drip irrigation, particularly in wheat irrigation.)

Is 25 percent -- the original 2020 goal for reducing water usage -- going to meet the planet's needs in light of climate change?

Monsanto's success in meeting 73 percent of its goal to eradicate 20 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions is laudable. But does that perhaps mean it can do more?

And has it addressed the issues that communities have identified over the past few years? Has it taken on consumer concerns adequately enough to guarantee that their rights are protected and supported by laws and new legislation?

In the past three years, Monsanto has dedicated more than $20 million to defeat GMO-labeling bills in the U.S. In each of the past eight years, it has consistently outspent all other agribusiness entities in political spending. Yet these efforts seem to be in stark contrast to what surveys and polls consistently show consumers want. More than 90 percent of those polled in have said they want GMO products labeled and oppose efforts to limit that transparency. No doubt Monsanto would agree: A huge part of being a responsible company is listening to and supporting its customer base, including the consumers its B2B commerce benefits from.

And of course, another aspect is addressing and supporting resilient communities. Since at least 2015, four cities -- San Jose, California, Seattle and Spokane, Washington,  and South Wales, U.K. -- have taken legal action against Monsanto for pollution of waterways and property from chemicals the company is alleged to have discharged when it dealt in chemical manufacturing.

Although Monsanto has told at least one U.S. litigant that it "is not responsible for the costs alleged in this matter," the company agreed to contribute to cleanup in Wales where chemicals were dumped during that same time-frame. Will Monsanto take steps to dialogue with and meet the environmental needs of U.S. cities as they work to meet the guidelines of the Clean Water Act?

Corporate social responsibility reports have become a platform to show the goodness of a company's actions and intentions. At a time when we are facing the impacts of global warming, however, these reports have also become a gauge by which consumers critique how a company's goals measure up against the risks they and their communities are facing.

If Monsanto wants to hear real applause to its accomplishments, aggressively addressing those things that really hit home for local communities, like controversial legal rights, pollution eradication and water security, would reinforce the value and the message of its next sustainability report. It will be interesting to see how the rest of 2016 shapes up.

Images: Monsanto; Jan Smith; eutrophication&hypoxia; worldwaterweek

In less than 24 hours of living inside the Twittersphere, Microsoft’s newest artificial-intelligence experiment, a chatbot by the name of “Tay,” quickly devolved into a hateful, misogynistic, racist jerk. The bot, which was primarily targeted at 18- to 24-year-olds, was designed to “engage and entertain people” through “casual and playful conversation." But, after a short period of interacting with Twitter users, Tay began to spit out some of the most obscene statements known to man.

Tay’s bio, which coins her as “Microsoft’s AI fan from the Internet that’s got zero chill,” is remarkably accurate. From praising Hitler and disputing the existence of the holocaust, to advocating genocide and calling Black people the ’N word,' Tay was completely out of control. And, although Microsoft has deleted most of her most inappropriate statements, many of us are left to wonder how this sort of thing could happen in the first place.

Microsoft’s programmers dropped the ball

For one, how did a huge corporation like Microsoft neglect to take any preventative measures for this sort of thing? The company could have easily programmed Tay to avoid certain words, phrases or topics which might be deemed offensive to other users. Did Microsoft not learn anything from the backlash Apple received for insufficiently programming its smartphone AI to deal with traumatic situations?

Microsoft's bot, which is the brainchild of a team of comedians and developers, sheds light on a deeper issue. The tech industry has become so fixated on amusing and delighting users that it ultimately fails in the areas where we need it the most. While it’s great that Tay can give us all the reasons why her “selfie game in on fleek," what we really need is to not be triggered by offensive words as we scroll down our Twitter feeds.

Human beings are jerks

We can’t in good conscience judge Microsoft’s team of developers for the plight of humanity. The truth of the matter is that many Twitter users are jerks and thus programmed Tay to be a jerk. Her responses were simply a reaction to her interactions.

In most cases, Tay was simply repeating other users’ inflammatory statements, but in some cases she was able to put the pieces together all on her own. Some of her weirder utterances came out completely unprompted. For instance, when asked which races were the worst, she matter-of-factly replied: “Mexicans and Blacks."

Like humans, AI requires good teachers. How can we teach AI using public data without incorporating the worst traits of humanity? Or, as asked in an article posted on The Verge, “If we create bots that mirror their users, do we care if their users are human trash?”

Perhaps Microsoft could’ve learned a lesson from Facebook, which is programming its AI using children’s stories.  Maybe we should just let kids program our AIs, that way they can learn from some of our more mature human beings.

AI has a long way to go

At the present moment, Tay has gone offline because she is "tired," but we can only hope that Microsoft’s team of developers is working through her kinks. Perhaps while they are encoding her to speak flawless ‘millennial’ and educating her on the likes of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, they will teach her to act with a bit of class.

If this incident gives us any insight into where AI technology is heading, then we certainly have a long way to go. And, it looks like within the time it took to write this article, Microsoft has deleted all of Tay's tweets, giving her a fresh new start. Maybe she will have a little more chill this time around.

Image courtesy of Microsoft

In the competitive world of high-technology, engineering and manufacturing jobs, women are still working to close the gap between themselves and their male counterparts in salary, percentage of women in those industries and top leadership spots.

Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "In 2014, 10 percent of women in professional and related occupations were employed in the relatively high-paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 44 percent of men."  While many do better than the woman's average salary that is, per labor statistics, only 80 cents per a man's dollar in earning power, women are still working to overcome a cultural mindset that manufacturing technology is a man's world.

Some women-led tech companies are surging forward with a pure drive for innovation and a determination that women can lead the way in technology.  They are changing the culture in places like Silicon Valley, one accomplishment at a time.

One example of this is Berkeley, California-based Other Machine Co., led by Chief Executive Officer Danielle Applestone.  She directs a team that creates software and hardware for milling machinery that supports the larger manufacturing and retail industry.  The company's featured product, called the Othermill, is a versatile machine that uses digital designs to create objects from various materials from wood to plastic or metal. TriplePundit talked with Applestone about her perspective on women in the technology business:

TriplePundit: Many companies have a high percentage of female employees, but they're not necessarily empowering them like you are. How did you create a corporate culture known for strong innovation and leadership by women?

Danielle Applestone: Interestingly, I don't think it has to do with particular efforts at encouraging women, but rather an attention paid to the careers of everyone on the team.

Startups have a unique position where people can raise their hand and take on levels of responsibility that might not normally be given to them in a larger company. We emphasize learning and are a culture where it is actually safe to be wrong. If people feel safe, they will take more risks, and then each person is growing at a pace that they might not have experienced before in a job.

If your company is half female and everyone is being challenged, then some of the leaders who emerge will also happen to be women, like at OMC.

3p: Does corporate culture in the larger technology world put women at a disadvantage, or is this an excuse for women who haven't found a way to succeed?

DA: People are held back by so many factors, ones external to them and some in their head. I've never worked at a business besides Starbucks, academic research labs and Other Machine Co., so I don't really know what it is like in the corporate world. However, I do know that things like inflexibility with child having, child care and equivalent compensation will hold women back. It's often possible to find a way to 'have it all,' but it comes with great sacrifice unless your employer is more flexible than average.

3p: Were you ever told you couldn't succeed in the technology and business world?

DA: I wasn't. I feel like the luckiest woman in that I had extremely supportive bosses -- all of whom were male. I also managed to find some powerful women mentors who taught me about my value.

3p: How does the act of inventing new products tie into women's empowerment?

DA: If the world isn't providing the future you want to see, you might just have to invent your way to that future. Innovation, invention and entrepreneurship speak to changing the world around you and opening your own doors. Many women struggle for opportunity, and when you can start something new, you are seizing your own destiny without having to ask for permission -- something that by definition is empowering you.

3p: What are you proudest of when it comes to your company's accomplishments?

DA: I feel proud that people are attracted to OMC by who we are as much as what we have built; not a lot of other companies are like that these days. We have been open about our success and failures, and we have increased access to a really powerful tool. Also, this team is incredibly brave and supportive of each other, regardless of background; and that also makes me proud.

Image courtesy of Other Machine Co. 

The Walmartization of American workers, as in companies paying their workers such a low wage that they often end up on public assistance programs such as SNAP (food stamps) while receiving publicly-funded healthcare thanks to Medicaid, reaches beyond the world of retail. The food industry also contributes to the fact that at least 31 million Americans are enrolled within some form of federally-funded health care. Many of them work within Darden Restaurants, the largest restaurant company in the U.S. and the operator of the enduring Olive Garden chain.

Because they receive tips, many servers at restaurants such as Olive Garden are paid a minimum wage far below what the U.S. government requires for most workers. One of them is Kelly Ditson, who works at one of Darden’s Pittsburgh-area locations.

Last fall, she penned an open letter about her struggles working as a server in order to support her two young children. In a follow-up interview with Quartz, Ms. Ditson discussed some of the oddities she has encountered while working for Olive Garden. One paradox that stands out is that, while the company says it has donated tens of millions of meals to hungry Americans since 2003 as part of its corporate citizenship agenda, Ms. Ditson claims employees cannot bring home leftover food and many get by on the SNAP program. Meanwhile, she is one of millions of Americans in the restaurant sector whose reliance on public assistance could cost American taxpayers as much as $9.5 billion annually.

Naturally, the industry’s powerful lobbying force, the National Restaurant Association (or, ahem, the NRA), has a knee-jerk response to any form of legislation that seeks to remedy the economic situation in which many restaurant employees find themselves — and it's quick to cite any study showing that raising the tipped-worker minimum wage will do nothing but sabotage jobs while raising prices.

Ms. Ditson was flown to a Darden Restaurants’ shareholders meeting in Orlando last fall, and was told that the company would listen to her concerns and those of her coworkers. Proposals that employee representatives floated to Darden’s board, including the reinstatement of the auto-gratuity (in which a tip is imposed for large meal parties, a typical policy at most restaurants), however, have allegedly gone nowhere.

To that end, Ms. Ditson and other Darden employees have been active with Dignity at Darden, which seeks greater employee representation when the company makes new business decisions, as well as fair wages and improved working conditions. Their activism has been backed up by ROC-United, a nonprofit that was first founded to help displaced restaurant workers in the aftermath of 9/11, but is now focused on workplace justice issues within the restaurant industry.

This is an uphill fight for Darden Restaurants' employees, who are pitted against the other powerful “NRA” and a recalcitrant Congress that will unlikely take any action soon. The National Restaurant Association has a long record of success when it comes to scoring what it wants, or actually, avoiding what it does not want, from Capitol Hill. For example, when former President Bill Clinton suggested reducing the tax deductibility of business-related meals in his 1993 budget, the association fought hard to remove it from the final bill passed by Congress.

It’s time for the restaurant industry to find a way to meet the needs of both restaurant workers and consumers. Many Americans have empathy for restaurant workers — at one point most of us waited on tables and hoarded those gratuities either to save money for education or to support ourselves while we were between jobs.

At the same time, the American tipping culture has become absurd. Chat with a New Yorker or Manhattan visitor and the chances are that they were flagged down for “only” tipping 15 percent, not the unwritten 18 to 20 percent that is expected. Tip jars at places such as bakeries are bizarre (isn’t it that person’s job to put those pastries in that box?), and it is always a head-scratcher why a barista should get a tip but one who cooks burgers behind the scenes does not have that same access to extra cash. Speak to someone visiting the U.S. for the first time, and most likely he or she will mention the ridiculousness of how tips are expected just about everywhere.

But the combination of low-paying jobs and the high cost of living has driven the U.S. to this tipping point. In many countries, restaurant and cafe workers are paid a salary, or establishments impose a service charge, usually 10 percent. It is time for American restaurants to find a middle ground: Pay their employees a livable wage, embed those prices in the cost of food (as servers are not servants and need to be treated with dignity) and eliminate the gratuity. If the National Restaurant Association wants to avoid additional regulations, pushing its member businesses to enact change for the better of its workers would be a strong start.

Image credit: Flickr/Shruti

Food waste is a huge global problem. About a third of the food produced globally for human consumption, approximately 1.3 billion tons each year, is wasted or lost, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Food losses in industrialized countries add up to roughly $680 billion, with $310 billion in losses in developing countries. Produce (fruits and vegetables plus roots and tubers) have the highest rates of waste.

Taiwan has a simple solution to reduce food waste: Feed it to livestock. The Guardian reports that Taiwan is “one of a handful of countries that have institutionalized the practice” of feeding food scraps to livestock. About two-third’s of the country’s food waste is fed to its 5.5 million pigs. Pigs are Taiwan’s biggest source of meat.

“We realized there was a lot of kitchen waste and that if we put it in incinerators it would hamper incineration because it’s wet,” Chiang Tsu-nong, deputy inspector general with the government’s Bureau of Environmental Inspection, told the Guardian. “And Taiwan’s land is limited, so if you build a landfill or an incinerator people will protest.”

Food waste to livestock in the EU and U.S.

Feeding food waste to pigs in the EU could save 1.8 million hectares of global agricultural land, an area about the size of Germany, a study released several months ago by the University of Cambridge found. Feeding wasted food to pigs would provide a use for the 100 million tons of food that is wasted in the EU every year. It would also decrease the costs European pig farmers face, in addition to decreasing the amount of land the EU pork industry needs by 21.5 percent. But there is a problem. In 2001, the EU banned the practice after the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic that same year.

Contrast the EU’s ban with another Asian nation, Japan, that promotes the use of food waste as pig feed. In Japan, over 35 percent of food waste is used as livestock feed, and the label “eco-pork” is marketed as a premium product, according to the University of Cambridge study. South Korea also promotes food waste being fed to livestock and recycles 42.5 percent of its food waste as livestock feed.

“In many countries in East Asia, we have a working model for the safe use of food waste as pig feed,” said Erasmus zu Ermgassen, who led the University of Cambridge study. “It is a highly regulated and closely monitored system that recycles food waste and produces low-cost pig feed with a low environmental impact.”

Not everyone is content to just let a simple solution to reducing food waste in the EU fall by the wayside. The Pig Idea, a campaign by food waste expert Tristram Stuart and the Feeding the 5,000 team, in partnership with chef Thomasina Miers, promotes the use of food waste as pig feed and aims to overturn the EU ban.

Overturning the ban would not only reduce food waste, but also reduce costs to pig farmers. In the U.K., it might increase the amount of domestically-raised pigs. According to the campaign, although the amount of pigs in the U.K. decreased from 8.1 million in 1998 to 4.8 million in 2007, Brits are still eating the same amount of pork. However, about 60 percent of pork is now imported, coming mainly from “intensive farms” in Denmark and the Netherlands. The miles it takes to bring pork from those two countries means increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Some food manufacturers are already finding ways around the EU ban. The Pig Idea cites an example of a food manufacturer in England that saved the equivalent of $142,560 a year after it started selling bread waste as livestock feed rather than pay an anaerobic digestion plant $114 a ton to get rid of it.

In the U.S., there is no federal law regulating food waste as livestock feed. However, some states have banned the practice. As a University of Florida report states, the practice of feeding food waste to pigs used to be common in the U.S. but “has declined in recent years because of stricter federal, state, and local laws regulating animal health, transportation, and the feed usage of food waste.”

Despite the decline in the practice of feeding food waste to pigs, there are examples of food waste being sold to pig farms in the U.S. Rutgers University in New Jersey, which has the third largest student dining operation in the U.S., is one of those examples. Since the 1960s, the school has sold food scraps, collected by dining staff, to a farm less than 15 miles away. The farm charges $30 per ton of food scraps to haul them away, which is less than the approximately $60 it would cost Rutgers to haul a ton of trash to a landfill. Rutgers saved over $100,000 by avoiding hauling costs in 2007 alone.

Photo: Flickr/Nick Saltmarsh

By Ava Kelly

We have entered the era of the global citizen. Thanks to technology, today’s consumers make up an informed, interconnected community that has a heightened awareness of the human circumstance — from Syrian refugees to a lack of clean water in Africa. Impact that was once only possible through the platforms of politicians or business moguls can now be brought about by anyone with an Internet connection.

Consumerism is in full force, but it’s behaving differently, shifting from a focus on economy to consciousness. As shoppers take their hard-earned money to the stores, they’re looking for brands that have also embraced a global outlook. In fact, a majority of them say they’re willing to pay more for an item if the company selling it is attached to a humanitarian cause.

We’re all aware that this is why having a corporate social responsibility statement is so crucial nowadays, but its existence is just the beginning.

For corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts to be significant, companies need an integrated marketing approach that incorporates the story behind their CSR to create consumer awareness and deepen people’s understanding and engagement.

Tell the world about it

Talking about your CSR mission won’t cheapen your efforts; it does just the opposite. Today’s consumers want to support sustainable, responsible companies with their purchases.

How are they supposed to know that your brand fits the bill if you don’t show them that it does?

One study recently revealed that brands see zero economic benefit to having a CSR plan when it’s implemented without an effectively-integrated marketing and communications strategy focused on consumers. However, the study concluded that a well-marketed CSR initiative will increase a company’s stock value exponentially — with an average value increase of more than 3 percent — and significantly reduce its idiosyncratic risk.

The message is clear: Regardless of its existence, if you’re not marketing your CSR, you’re potentially losing out on millions of dollars.

How to strategize your marketing

Traditional marketing campaigns tend to be narrowly targeted, aiming to sell one particular product to a specific group of people. Additionally, marketing functions are often spread across different departments or even outsourced to marketing agencies, creating disconnected one-off campaigns.

This siloed marketing approach makes it nearly impossible to effectively communicate CSR efforts and initiatives through a cohesive, consistent, and holistic message. This is a common issue: A 2013 study by Cone Communications and Echo Global found that 70 percent of consumers felt confused by the messages brands communicated in their CSR campaigns.

To be most effective, your company’s CSR must become a consistent element in every impression your brand makes. It needs to be embedded in the content and ingrained in your identity.

Here are four tips to help you effectively market your CSR mission:

1. Keep marketers in the loop. Because most marketing departments operate separately from the CSR team, it’s especially important to ensure everyone understands everything your company does daily in its commitment to social and environmental responsibility. Bring marketers into the conversation — especially around strategy — and constantly keep them updated on your efforts and objectives.


2. Communicate everything. As someone who’s immersed in your CSR mission, small developments and happenings might not seem very noteworthy to you. But from a marketing standpoint, nothing is too boring if it’s supporting communities and the environment.I personally would love to see the Gap Foundation do more of this. Though it’s doing work on an unprecedented scale to improve sustainability in textile production, there has been very little marketing to show the public how the company’s strong ethics influence the day-to-day decisions it makes, as well as the impact that has on the product itself and on consumers. (The same goes for McDonald’s and its CSR.)


3. Keep a schedule. Develop a marketing calendar to ensure a consistent flow of CSR-related communication. This will ensure that consumers stay informed and enthusiastic about your brand’s mission. Try to engage them in this process.At Reelio Cares, we have intentionally created key tent-pole events throughout the year that publicize our outreach initiatives. This has really maximized our traction within our target audiences.


4. Don’t forget to celebrate. Do you support only fair-trade products? Is your production now 100 percent sustainable? If so, make a big deal about it!Remember when REI gave all its employees a day off on Black Friday? The company wasn’t shy about that bold decision. Instead, it created an entire #OptOutside marketing campaign around it. REI’s willingness to celebrate led to countless tweets, posts, and articles about its mission — and consumers definitely took notice.

Global citizens are motivated by opportunities to make our world better, and they’re looking to support companies willing to stand up for the causes and issues they believe in.

If your brand is doing the right thing, don’t leave millions of dollars on the table because you want to be modest or because your CSR isn’t part of the next product launch. Make your CSR mission a fundamental part of your marketing efforts.

Image credit: Flickr/Ron Mader

Ava Kelly is an artist, change agent, educator, digital strategist, manager of Reelio Cares, and founder and CEO of Love Notes Records. While working on a project at the YouTube Space LA, Ava met Pete Borum, CEO of Reelio, and knew this was the platform that had the potential to change the way nonprofits and brands marketed their causes in the digital space.

Since coming on with Reelio, Ava has presented at the Creativity World Forum on how to change the world before you turn 30; brought more than 20 nonprofits and 500 people together at the YouTube Space to connect and learn about how nonprofits can leverage the platform; and implemented YouTube campaigns with the biggest YouTubers, biggest nonprofits, and biggest brands to develop a culture of social responsibility in the digital space. Ava believes her generation has an unprecedented capacity for compassion and loves being constantly challenged and inspired by her peers. Check her out on the social media things @AvaKellyMusic.

Barclays has opened its third Eagle Labs space in Brighton after successful pilots in Bournemouth and Cambridge.

The new Barclays Eagle Labs will provide access to resources including expert mentoring, event space, 3D printers and laser cutters – giving UK start-ups and scale-ups a crucial boost.

Through its investment in Eagle Labs, Barclays is encouraging innovation in the future of fast growth sectors, in addition to UK manufacturing and production. Over the coming year the bank will open up to 20 Eagle Labs as part of its wider rollout across the UK, including in Birmingham and Huddersfield.

The spaces are specifically designed around the needs of local entrepreneurs, businesses and communities, and tailored to suit regional economic strength in specific industries. The Labs will feature:

• Barclays Eagle Lab – Incubators – will specifically target high-growth firms and entrepreneurs who are projecting 20% growth or more, giving fast growing businesses the space and resources to help them succeed. They will benefit from collaborating with other like-minded business, and mentoring from Barclays industry experts.
• Barclays Eagle Lab – MakerSpaces – will offer access to 3D printers and laser cutters. This means businesses will have access to the tools they need to rapidly produce and test prototypes without having to import from overseas, and can reduce the time and cost taken from concept to market significantly.

Ashok Vaswani, CEO of Barclays UK, believes that technology is a fundamental component to how start-ups can grow and scale. By giving companies access to a 3D printer, people can now turn a clever idea into a business success overnight. In addition financial expertise and mentoring will be available onsite to help companies grow and succeed.

The latest Barclays and BGF Entrepreneurs Index revealed the number of start-ups is at its highest in three years, up 3.86% nationally in the first half of 2015. However, the number of high-growth businesses declined, showing more needed to be done to support businesses to thrive and survive.

The great state of Oklahoma has recently found fame as the world's No. 1 earthquake hotspot, and a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey puts the blame squarely on the practice of disposing wastewater from oil and gas operations by injecting it underground. According to the agency, "induced seismicity" from these injection wells is so extreme in north-central Oklahoma that the region is now in league with parts of California that are historically notorious for a heightened risk of damage from natural earthquakes.

Aside from counting this as yet another environmental strike against petroleum, the new USGS report undermines the efforts of the natural gas industry to promote its product as a "cleaner" alternative to both petroleum and coal.

Earthquakes and fracking

The increased earthquake activity in Oklahoma and elsewhere in the U.S. has been linked to the emergence of fracking. Short for hydraulic fracturing, fracking is an oil and gas drilling method that involves shooting massive volumes of a chemical brine underground. It was practiced for decades in relative obscurity until the Bush administration engineered an exemption from federal water-safety regulations, enabling it to increase exponentially and intrude into new areas.

To be clear, so far researchers have tied very few earthquake episodes to the drilling action itself. The main linkage has come about as drillers have pursued underground injection as the most economical and convenient way to dispose of the vast quantities of wastewater that result from fracking.

Conventional oil and gas drilling can also bring up large quantities of wastewater, which also contributes to underground injection sites.

In other words, while there is a fracking connection to induced seismicity in the U.S., the problem is more accurately thought of as a broad lifecycle issue for the oil and natural gas industry.

Assessing earthquakes, induced or natural

The assessment of earthquake hazards is difficult even under ordinary circumstances, and induced seismicity plasters a whole new layer of complexity onto the effort, because it is a human action that can vary considerably depending on changes in public policy, industry economics, technology and other variables that have nothing to do with geological history as previously charted by researchers.

Without federal oversight, regulation of injection wells (and fracking itself) has been left to a patchwork of state regulations. Oklahoma in particular seems to have left the barn door open when it comes to regulating wastewater injection. State policy was quite liberal until last year, when the alarming increase in seismic activity finally compelled state officials to implement a cascading series of controls on injection wells.

That may have been too little, too late. Despite new restrictions, seismic activity in Oklahoma has continued to increase this year and it has spread to new areas.

The new USGS seismic hazard model

In the aftermath of the U.S. oil and gas drilling boom, USGS has struggled to come up with a rational way to assess the totality of future earthquake hazards. Even as late as 2014, the agency was forced to eliminate induced seismicity from its national forecasts.

In the new earthquake report, titled 2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes, USGS lays out a path forward that takes induced seismicity into account for the first time ever. Rather than focusing on long-term projections, the new report focuses on the coming year.

USGS notes that the evidence trail is not yet fully defined from a technological point of view, but since 2010 the circumstantial episodes have added up to a pattern that can no longer be ignored, given a corresponding increase in oil and gas operations. Whether induced or not, certain regions of the U.S. are now in a "high hazard" condition due to increased seismic activity.

That could change almost overnight depending on the evolution of new regulations or shifts in focus by the industry, which accounts for the relatively short, one-year term of the study.

Earthquakes and other stakeholders

Earlier this week, the Associated Press previewed the new USGS report and noted that the Federal Emergency Management Agency drafted several studies for the potential impacts of major earthquakes on Dallas, Texas.

According to AP, the probability of a major quake of 4.6 or higher is extremely low in the Dallas area but still "plausible" according to a USGS researcher, an observation that is sure to catch the attention of local stakeholders.

In more bad news for the Texas fracking industry, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has raised concerns over the impact of gas fracking operations on the integrity of the Joe Pool Lake dam in North Texas. The lake -- a collaborative effort involving USACE and local agencies -- is a relatively young piece of major water infrastructure, having been completed in 1989. It is a popular recreation destination for the Dallas area, and it serves as a water supply reservoir for the city of Midlothian.

In March, USACE announced that fracking would be banned within 4,000 feet of the dam and wastewater injection would be limited within five miles.

In its announcement, USACE noted that the Joe Pool lake sits over the Barnett Shale formation, a major locus of oil and gas activity in the U.S. In recognition of potential hazards posed by that activity, an initial protective zone of 3,000 feet was established when the dam was first completed.

The new rules are based on a study commissioned from the top Ohio-based engineering firm DLZ National, which indicated the need for much stronger protection:

"The study results were then used to inform a risk assessment of the dam, which identified potential failure modes associated with mineral extraction and the consequences of those failure modes on project performance and, most importantly, on life safety."

[snip]

"USACE has concluded the 3,000-foot exclusion zone at Joe Pool Dam does not sufficiently meet our minimal tolerable risk guidelines and therefore, poses a risk to the dam, the lake, and the public.

"As a result of this finding, USACE has adopted a 4,000-foot exclusion zone at Joe Pool Dam.  Within that zone no drilling will be allowed, regardless of depth.  USACE is also working to protect the project from the effects of induced seismicity by limiting injection wells within five miles of Joe Pool Dam."

The Texas Railroad Commission, which functions as the state's oil and gas regulator, has challenged USACE's authority to make unilateral decisions of that sort. However, given the popularity of Joe Pool Lake with stakeholders outside of the oil and gas industry, it's likely that the commission will have a tough time getting USACE to relax the new restrictions.

Image (screenshot): via U.S. Geological Survey, page 6.

Despite the fact that a woman is highly likely to get the presidential nomination for the Democratic party, a gender pay gap still exists. Several recent articles in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times reveal just how widespread and serious is the problem.

Women's median annual earnings is hovering about 21 percent below that of men’s, the New York Times reported. That statistic comes from a new study from Cornell University. Researchers at Cornell analyzed data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which has collected data from U.S. households since 1968, and the U.S. Current Population Survey, which focuses on full-time wage and salaried workers 25 to 64 years old.

The Los Angeles Times article cited research from a new study by Glassdoor, which keeps a database of anonymous reviews of companies by employees. The study examined gender pay gaps in five countries: the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France and the U.S. It found a gender pay gap in all five countries, and in the U.S. it found that men earn 24.1 percent more in base pay than women on average. Researchers found the largest pay gap among male and female computer programmers, with men making 28.3 percent more than women on average.

The gender pay gap becomes even more disturbing when you consider that women are “almost half of the work force,” as the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) stated. Women are the breadwinners in 4 out of 10 families, and receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, women on average “earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio,” as the IWPR found. The group also found “outright discrimination in pay, hiring or promotions” in the workplace. If change in the gender pay gap continues at its current “slow pace” as it has for the last 50 years, it will take until 2059 (44 years) until women reach pay parity, according to the IWPR.

Last year, a White House report on the gender pay gap and pointed out some interesting facts. The pay gap is more than just wages: It also includes workers’ full compensation packages. Women are less likely overall to have retirement savings plans. However, the gap is concentrated among lower-income women, as women with college degrees are as likely as men to be covered by their employer’s pension plans. But the gap widens when you look at accumulating retirement savings. “Even among those with a retirement account, women tend to have lower balances than men, which is partially driven by the pay gap,” the White House found.

The gender pay gap tends to widen with more education, according to the White House report: The pay gap between men and women with professional degrees is a startling 67 cents. Women are also underrepresented in the three industries that have the highest average wages: information services, mining and logging, and utilities. However, women make up more than half of the employees in the three industries with the lowest average wages: leisure and hospitality, retail trade, and other services.

But there is a bit of good news when it comes to the gender pay gap. Recently, Amazon announced its commitment to gender pay equity, and as a result a shareholder resolution filed by Arjuna Capital and Baldwin Brothers Inc., and co-filed by Pax World Management, will be withdrawn. Amazon also announced it is on track to achieve gender pay equity. Arjuna Capital filed shareholder resolutions at six other technology companies asking them to commit to gender pay equity.

Amazon is not the only company to commit to gender pay equity. Earlier this year, Intel and Apple made similar commitments. The Gap, Salesforce.com and GoDaddy are transparent and accountable regarding their commitment to gender pay equity. But those are only a handful of companies. The majority of American companies have not made commitments to closing the gender pay gap. If they did, perhaps gender pay equity could be achieved in the near future.

Image credit: ING Group

Long after John D. Rockefeller and the oil company he founded, Standard Oil, began refining oil in 1870 (and 40 years later, split into 34 companies), his descendants are overall still very much active in American politics, business and philanthropy. Many of them continued to hold shares in companies that were once part of the Standard Oil empire, including Esso, Socony, Chevron and, of course, ExxonMobil.

But in recent years, Rockefeller's great-grandchildren and their children have been divesting from those energy company stocks. Two years ago, one of the Rockefeller extended family’s philanthropies, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, decided to ramp up its commitment to sustainable development projects by selling off securities related to the oil and gas industry. That decision was an important signal in the growing momentum amongst individuals and institutions to divest from fossil fuels — an amount that reached as high as $2.6 trillion last year.

Meanwhile another family organization, the Rockefeller Family Fund, said it will work aggressively to divest from oil and gas companies. The managers of this philanthropy cited ExxonMobil’s alleged work dating back to the 1980s to confuse the American public about the impacts of climate change. In turn, those accusations have led the Department of Justice to forward a request to the FBI to investigate whether the company failed to disclose “truthful information” about climate change. Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled last week that ExxonMobil must include a climate change resolution on its annual shareholder proxy statement.

The developments inspired Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, a great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller, to donate energy company shares, including those of ExxonMobil, to the Rockefeller Family Fund’s environmental program, a decision she explained last month in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. The Wall Street Journal has long credited her with uniting four generations of Rockefellers to pressure ExxonMobil to acknowledge climate change risks and invest in more clean-energy technologies.

To gain more insight on her thoughts on how the U.S. can transition toward a low-carbon economy, TriplePundit interviewed Dr. Goodwin last week by telephone while she was in her Boston office.

When it comes to taking real action on climate change, “the U.S. right now is like a weightlifter running with cans of soup,” Dr. Goodwin told us.

Arguing that the U.S. can do far more to foster sustainable development and clean-energy investment, she added: “We have the muscle, and we can make change. But a small number of rich energy companies addicted to profits from the past are just unwilling to let us meet the needs of the future, so we as a society have not been able to show what we can do.”

Indeed, more companies, state and municipal governments, and even the U.S. Department of Energy have done more on the climate change front in recent years — but many of these initiatives have long-term aims: The year 2030 is seen as the goal date on many such announcements and press releases.

That doesn’t satisfy Dr. Goodwin. “2030 is much too late,” she insisted, “as I believe more serious research in renewable energy research and development -- along with policy changes such as the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies — are needed if we are going to see a rapid decline in carbon emissions by 2025.”

So, what is necessary in order to make these changes occur even more rapidly? Dr. Goodwin wants to see a large mobilization of resources similar to what the U.S. government launched in the 1940s to hasten the end of World War II. “Something on the scale of the Manhattan Project,” Dr. Goodwin explained. “It wouldn’t be monolithic and not a one-size-fit-all project. But we must have a patchwork of big and small solutions, along with conservation efforts -- even ExxonMobil says they are open to conservation.”

While Dr. Goodwin believes the U.S. needs to do more to further research and investment in renewables, she insists even more can be done when it comes to environmental conservation.

“The other crucial thing to remember is that this is not only about energy, but it’s about the health of our ecosystems and ability to sequester carbon,” she said. “Advancing eco-agriculture, and the preservation and planting of forests, are just a few examples of what we can do to increase our ability to absorb carbon. The fact is that more restoration and conservation can make a big difference.”

Dr. Goodwin and relatives from her Rockefeller side of the family have been integral in the movement to divest from conventional energy companies and keep those reserves of hydrocarbons in the ground. But she also made the point that individuals -- and, of course, individual investors -- can do their part as well. So, what if you only own a relatively few number of shares in these companies? “So hang on to those ‘sin stocks’ and vote on your proxies,” Dr. Goodwin replied, “that is one way to go about making a difference.”

Taking a cue from what analysts are saying about stocks in particular industries is also a way to approach divestment in the long term. “Let’s suppose that in 10 years, it's widely agreed that your oil stocks will be worth a whole lot less and are not coming back,” Dr. Goodwin posited. “If you’re a smart investor, you’ll think to yourself, ‘I’d better sell my shares.' Well, since this knowledge is widespread enough, instead of waiting in 10 years, maybe I sell in six years.”

But don’t jump into that hot solar or clean-technology stock, however. “There are no safe havens in investing today, with too much money chasing too few places to invest,” Dr. Goodwin continued. “Investment funds with carbon-free portfolios would be my recommendation, but if you go with one of those, move cautiously, only a little at a time.” Such has been the approach of the foundations affiliated with the wider Rockefeller clan, as they have made it clear their divestment strategies will unfold over the next several years.

But this is not just a "sooner is better than later" argument. Overall, Dr. Goodwin believes taking such action now is better than soon.

“The time to get out is now,” she Dr. Goodwin told 3p. “Since I began thinking about doing this, I just came to the conclusion that these stocks are really not good long-term bets.” Hence her donation of her shares to the Rockefeller Family Fund, which promptly sold them in order to fund climate change-related programs.

Much work can be done on the local level as well. One example that Dr. Goodwin pointed out during our interview is the Oberlin Project, a joint effort in Oberlin, Ohio, which involves its famous liberal arts college, city government, and local private and nonprofit partners to bolster the city’s long-term resilience and prosperity. “Certainly going local is often the solution when the larger picture is riddled with politics,” Dr. Goodwin added.

Overall Dr. Goodwin’s tone during this conversation was optimistic, thoughtful and pointed, but it turned somber when it came to wider U.S. politics. “When it comes to climate change, money and politics, those that care about the future and the earth will have to face the fact that government is essential,” Dr. Goodwin said. “Government is broken as long as it's ruled by a few wealthy corporations, so working on overturning Citizens United, and supporting laws like that of Maine’s that work on getting money out of politics, is important if these changes are going to happen.”

Image credit: Neva Rockefeller Goodwin