By Josh Fox

There’s a battle raging for America’s energy future. The fracking industry is flexing its political muscle in a bid to become profitable again, pushing new, unneeded fracked gas-fired power plants like the huge CPV power plant proposed for Middletown, New York, two massive gas fired power plants for Denton, Texas, and about 300 others nationwide.

It’s also pushing for thousands of miles of new proposed fracked-gas pipelines to service them, like the NED pipeline through New England, the Millennium Pipeline expansion in Pennsylvania, the Tennessee pipeline in West Virginia, and related infrastructure including the gas storage facility at Seneca Lake, New York.

The push is happening because the fracking boom, much like the wildcatting days of old, was unplanned and reckless. It over-produced, then went bust. Gas supply exceeded demand, so prices and production tanked. That made gas companies desperate to get their supply glut shipped to new markets. Hence the need for new pipelines to transport it, new compressor stations to push it along, and LNG terminals to export it, which would mean new demand, and new fracking boom.

So, new pipeline proposals are everywhere, and fracking and pipeline companies are using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and eminent domain to strong-arm residents and condemn private property in their way. If you’ve seen "There Will Be Blood," you get the picture.

In Pennsylvania, land taking and pre-emptive, hostile tree-cutting has already happened along the route of the proposed Constitution Pipeline, even though it hasn't been approved and faces considerable citizen opposition in New York. The 124-mile project has been proposed to transport fracked gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale through New York state to a compressor station outside of Albany, which connects to other pipelines servicing New York and New England, and if the industry gets its way, to export facilities.

The pipeline companies, Cabot Oil & Gas and Williams, also wanted to fell a whopping 700,000 trees in New York to prepare for construction, but New York residents fought and delayed tree-cutting and construction at least until 2017. That forced the companies to admit they can’t move forward on the pipeline without permits New York state has yet to grant.

The admission comes late for Pennsylvania residents. In recent weeks chainsaw crews needlessly cut down thousands of trees in the pipeline’s path, including stands of sugar maples that were the livelihood of a family farm. Property owners and activists who objected were charged with contempt, hauled into federal court and warned by the judge not to interfere – all for a project that hasn’t been approved in New York and may never get built.

Serious questions about the Constitution Pipeline’s impact on New York’s water quality and other issues are under review at New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation. The DEC and other state agencies have the power and reserve the right to say “no.”

There’s an obvious moral issue here: New York state banned fracking. New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker stated in 2014 that fracking posed “significant public health risks.” But if fracking is unhealthy for New Yorkers, it’s unhealthy for anybody. Don’t kids on both sides of the Pennsylvania/New York border deserve the same health protections? Why permit a fracked gas superhighway through New York that would engender thousands of new fracking wells in neighboring states?

New York has so far withheld needed permits for the pipeline, but that hasn't stopped FERC from using eminent domain to take Pennsylvania residents’ land in the pipeline’s path, and authorizing pipeline crews to cut down 100,000 of their trees. It’s as if they’re saying, the fix is in: State permits are just a rubber stamp anyway, so why bother waiting for them to be granted?

The Holleran family, owners of a maple syrup farm in New Milford, Pennsylvania, set up a blockade to stop the pipeline crews from destroying their sugar maples. They were joined by scores of activists, and for weeks they kept watch over their trees, occupied their own land and asked tree-cutting crews to leave. On Feb. 19, they had to answer charges of contempt in federal court for it. The judge dismissed the charges, but he granted the police and U.S. marshals permission to arrest anyone trying to stop the workers from cutting down trees. On March 1, crews guarded by heavily-armed marshals took down the Holleran’s trees.

That could become standard procedure across the country. The Hollerans fought for their home, livelihoods and rights, and they lost. But they and those standing with them are also fighting for the planet.

Fracked-gas infrastructure doesn’t just threaten residents and local communities; it threatens the global climate. Methane, the primary component of shale gas, is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas over 20 years than carbon dioxide. The onshore natural gas industry leaks well over 400,000 tons of methane, more than four times the emissions from the recent Porter Ranch disaster, each year. Research by Cornell University’s Robert Howarth shows that production, distribution and burning of shale gas actually produces more greenhouse gases than coal or oil.

The Paris climate agreement set ambitious goals for limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or lower, and fed the perception that natural gas is a ‘bridge fuel’ that would lower emissions while transitioning to low-carbon energy. But natural gas is no bridge; it takes us over a cliff. If the Constitution Pipeline and the rest of the pending fracking infrastructure projects get built, they will lock us into 40 more years of high-GHG fossil fuel use, and shatter any chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

We’ve got alternatives, and communities must deploy them before it’s too late. Places like the Hollerans’ farm are the front lines of that fight. That’s why I’ve made a new film, “How To Let Go of the World (and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change),” about the power of local communities to reject exploitation by the oil and gas industry, and to pull together to determine their own climate and energy solutions. Here’s the trailer.

We’re taking it on a 100-city Let Go and Love Tour to communities across the U.S. that are fighting fossil-fuel infrastructure projects. Tour events screen the film and offer information and practical resources for communities to build clean-energy alternatives, connecting them to engineering, legal and regulatory, and finance expertise they need to make renewables a reality.

Whether you live in the path of the mad dash to build out fracked gas infrastructure – and millions of us do – or you just want a habitable planet to live on, we’re all deeply invested in how this struggle plays out. It’s a race against time: We have to bring embattled communities the resources and know-how they need to build the clean-energy future they want, before the gas companies bring the chainsaws.
Editor's Note: Josh Fox and others from the activist group Beyond Extreme Energy were arrested on Thursday during the Pancakes Not Pipelines protest in Washington, D.C. The demonstration served pancakes while protesting fossil-fuel projects such as the pipeline that cost the Holleran family their maple sugar farm.

Images courtesy of the author 

Academy-award nominated filmmaker Josh Fox is artistic director of the International WOW Company. His 2010 film GASLAND galvanized the anti-fracking movement, and his new film "How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can't Change" airs on HBO June 27.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has it in for plastic bag bans and regulation of plastic bags in general. Recently, the Wisconsin state senate passed a bill that prohibits local communities from banning plastic bags and other types of containers.

The bill is based on ALEC’s model legislation which states that “the cost of regulation, inspection, and enforcement should not be borne by local families, merchants, and taxpayers.” It emphasizes the “cost” of “regulating containers” to local communities.

The Wisconsin bill, strikingly similar to the organization's model legislation, limits the authority of local communities “to regulate auxiliary containers” and prevent them from enacting or enforcing “an ordinance regulating the use, disposition or sale of auxiliary containers.” The legislation also prohibits a fee being imposed on plastic bags and other containers.

A few years ago, ALEC wrote a policy brief on plastic bag bans and cited a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis as evidence against them. The report found “no evidence of a reduction in costs attributable to reduced use of plastic bags.” It concluded that in cities “that have adopted bag bans, fees or taxes, there is little evidence so far that banning or taxing plastic bags will reduce waste disposal costs and save money.”

ALEC concluded its policy brief with a dire warning: “Remember the evidence, and reject any measure banning plastic bags, which puts jobs at risk and targets a single product and industry.”

However, there is evidence that regulating plastic bag use does reduce pollution, as a look at plastic bag taxes in Ireland and Washington, D.C. shows. Ireland passed a plastic bag tax in 2002 of about 33 cents per bag. The New York Times reported in 2008 that “within week, there was a 94 percent drop in plastic bag use” and “within a year, nearly everyone bought reusable cloth bags.” The United Nation’s Environment Program (UNEP) said of Ireland’s plastic bag tax in 2005 that it had “reduced the use of plastic bags by 90 percent.”

Washington, D.C. introduced a five-cent per bag tax in 2009 on all businesses that sell food and beverages. The revenue from the tax goes to a fund to clean up the Anacostia River. The Washington Post reported that just during January 2010 the tax “generated about $150,000.”

There is also evidence that an actual plastic bag ban works to reduce use of plastic bags. The UNEP cited South Africa’s ban of plastic bags thinner than 30 microns as helping to decrease “bag litter” and reduce the “manufacture of plastic bags.”

So, if regulating plastic bags actually works, why does ALEC lobby against regulation? A 2014 Bloomberg investigation into ALEC and noted that the organization “doesn't disclose its private-sector members, who pay dues of up to $25,000.” Bloomberg stated that executives from a number of companies met with ALEC, and one of them was from Novolex, a paper and plastic bag maker. In other words, ALEC is doing the bidding of the plastic bag industry, which does not want regulation.

Novolex started a project called Bag the Ban “developed in response to proposed laws that would ban or tax grocery bags.” Novolex makes a point of citing how many people are employed by the plastic bag industry and claims that plastic bags are a “more environmentally-friendly option” than paper or reusable bags. However, what the company and the project it created fail to mention is that plastic bags are actually very harmful to the environment.

Plastic bags, like all plastic products, are petroleum-derived and loaded with toxic chemicals. Those plastic bags end up in landfills where they photodegrade, or break down into smaller and smaller pieces. Plastic bags also end up in the world’s oceans: There is a mass of plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and about 80 percent of it comes from land activities in North America and Asia, according to National Geographic. Marine animals often mistake bits of plastic for food, which is toxic for them.

Clearly, ALEC and Novolex just don't care that plastic bags are harmful to the environment. But some local communities do and want to pass ordinances to reduce plastic bags. Unfortunately, ALEC is trying to make it impossible for them to do so.

Photo: Flickr/Jericl Cat

By Ron Carson

I often meet entrepreneurs who cannot understand why their firms are not growing faster. I like to ask a few questions about the most recent initiatives they have implemented within their company including:

• What was the last big project they finished?


• How long was it forecasted to take?


• How long did it actually take?


• What was the overall result on their business?

As smart as these business owners are, and no matter how high their Intelligence Quotient may be, they almost always have a low implementation quotient of making their goals into reality. In fact, some of them cannot even articulate their goals, be they short- or long-term, personal or professional.

Knowing your goals and making them a reality is the only “IQ” I care about. What is your Implementation Quotient? While you may be busier than ever, are you actually reaching the goals that are most important to you?

The vicious cycle of imbalance

Many entrepreneurs I speak to are on autopilot; they often have no real endgame or succession plan in mind. This lack of focus or clarity can lead to crises at work that, in turn, cause an unbalanced personal life. An unbalanced personal life can lead to poor decisions at work, which can end up perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Some business owners have a high implementation quotient at the office, but not in their personal life. They aren’t clear on what really matters to them at the end of the workday. They are highly productive at work but fail to set or achieve important goals outside of work, like sustaining a happy marriage, sharing a close relationship with their children, or simply taking the necessary time to recharge their batteries.

In my New York Times Bestselling book, "The Sustainable Edge," we present the IQ Grower Process: 15 Minutes a Week to a Higher Business IQ. The process helps readers live in the moment, so they can really enjoy the miracle of life. So often people miss out on the moment because they are caught up in doing what they think they should be doing and not what really matters to them.

Raising your implementation quotient can save you from falling into the rut many Americans are in: They are on an unconscious journey to arrive safely at death. It is so easy to fall into a routine where your days, weeks and months pass you by so that when you reach the end of your life, you find yourself saying, “I wish I had.” We want everyone we meet to be able to say, “I’m glad I did.”

Pinpoint what matters

By pinpointing the activities on which you truly want to spend your time, it will be easier to say “yes” to them and “no” to the activities that drain you and distract you from your goals. If you are not sure what you really want to do with your time, answer the following questions that may help you identify the most meaningful activities for you.

1. What are your unique gifts?


2. What do you do extremely well?


3. What activities give you a great feeling of satisfaction and fulfillment?


4. When you feel empty and directionless in life, what is missing in your life during those times that is causing you to feel that way?


5. If you received $1 billion what would you be doing and how would you use that money?

Set your Essential Six and Most Vital goals

Once you’ve decided what you should be directing your time toward, it's time to implement. In the Essential Six exercise, you will identify your top six professional priorities for each day; the Most Vital is the big goal you must accomplish for the week.

Before you leave the office at the end of each day, list the Essential Six important things you must accomplish the following day, in order of importance, and add them to your calendar. Doing this the night before allows your subconscious to begin to work on your tasks in advance — to prepare for the day ahead. Begin your day by tackling item number one on your list. Do not move on to number two until you have successfully completed the first task. Repeating this process each week directs your focus and your time toward your passions.

Don’t let a low Implementation Quotient stand in the way of your high Intelligence Quotient. Challenge yourself to focus on your most important goals and make progress towards them every day. By getting clear on what’s most meaningful to you and creating a framework to make it happen, you will find more balance in your personal and professional life.

Adapted from The Sustainable Edge.

The Sustainable Edge: Fifteen Minutes a Week to a Richer Entrepreneurial Life was written for business owners who are seeking a fuller, more rewarding work-life balance. In this easy-to-reference, practical guide authors and entrepreneurs Ron Carson and Scott Ford share personal anecdotes to their own career successes. Each chapter is designed to inspire business owners to define and sustain a competitive edge in the complex, fast-changing world of business. Order your copy now at www.thesustainableedge.com.

Ron Carson is the founder and CEO of Carson Wealth Management Group, one of the largest wealth advisory firms by assets under advisement in the country, serving clients through holistic financial planning, disciplined investment strategies, and proactive personal service. He is one of the most celebrated and respected financial advisors and executives in the industry and is a sought after speaker, thinker, and investment strategist. Ron and his wife Jeanie have three wonderful children and reside in Omaha, Nebraska.

Securities offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC. Investment advisory services offered through CWM, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor. LPL Financial is under separate ownership from any other named entity. Third party content found on this site does not reflect the views of LPL Financial and have not been reviewed by LPL Financial as to accuracy or completeness. For a list of states in which I am registered to do business, please visit carsonwealth.com.

By Ted Rollins

As the U.S. economy continues to shift toward embracing sustainability, senior and assisted-living options are also changing in response to socioeconomic issues. Bold new ideas, innovative “green” products and sustainability breakthroughs are factors necessary to stay competitive in today’s market.

New trends offer a wide range of options for senior Americans including eco-friendly housing and expanded amenities at traditional assisted-living facilities. By embedding sustainability into the infrastructure of these properties, companies can help drive innovation and cater to their residents, while reducing both their overhead and carbon footprint.

Important for the environment

In order to preserve the world around us, companies across all sectors have to start taking responsibility of their role in the environment. For assisted-living facilities in particular, all building materials and features should align with eco-friendly standards and certifications.

Newly-developed properties are embracing eco-friendly construction, in which recycled or local materials are used to build the infrastructure. Ecological building developed in response to the knowledge that buildings often have a negative impact on our natural resources.

Features of resource-efficient, ecological building of assisted-living facilities can include:

• Replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs


• Cleaning with products that exclude toxins


• Serving locally grown produce


• Using bamboo flooring instead of wood


• Recycling


• Replacing regular appliances with energy-efficient options


• Installing rooftop solar panels


• Providing increased insulation


• Adhering to high indoor-air quality standards


• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified (LEED)


• Using native landscaping to reduce water waste

Cost-efficient in the long run

As supply levels remain uncertain and energy costs continue to rise, companies have to look at energy-efficiency programs that aim to reduce energy costs. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy released a report stating energy efficiency is the cheapest method of providing Americans with electricity. Other key findings show the reliability of efficiency as a long-term resource as both electricity and natural gas efficiency programs have remained consistently low-cost resources.

In fact, based on cost-per-kilowatt saved, energy efficiency can be cheap. It can also help to increase your profits by minimizing overhead and increasing your bottom line. Implementing efficiency programs can actually be a low-risk investment because of the accurate projections regarding your anticipated savings.

For existing assisted-living facilities, whole-building audits can calculate energy measurements specific to each building. In addition, instead of costly equipment replacement, upgrades and small improvements can make systems run more efficiently. In some cases, rebates, tax incentives and financing options are available to companies taking advantage of energy efficiency. In summary, we can no longer afford to underinvest in these types of programs that can potentially save money

Attract potential residents

As consumer interest shifts toward eco-friendly lifestyles, assisted-living properties are emphasizing the importance of an ever-expanding variety of amenities. As retirees age and require help with daily activities, they can now choose from diverse settings that reflect their lifestyle choices while still meeting their physical needs.

Residents are now gravitating toward boutique amenities that enhance their quality of life including:

• Interactive meal experiences with multiple spaces and styles of dining


• Resort-caliber spas and fitness rooms


• Entertainment options


• Comprehensive wellness programs that include medical care onsite


• Hotel-type amenities for short-term rehab residents


• Integrated use of technology including Wi-Fi and access to mobile devices such as tablets


• The use of biophillic design: a design revolution connecting buildings to the natural world; potentially reducing the stress and enhancing the moods of the residents

Residents of assisted-living facilities and their families are now expecting these types of creative developments with luxury perks and won’t settle for less. As baby boomers are now shaping the industry, the diversity of their preferences must be taken into consideration. Sustainable properties built with eco-friendly features that provide sophisticated amenities will continue to evolve rapidly in this industry.

Image credit: Pixabay

Ted W. Rollins, Co-Chairman and Founding Principal of Valeo Groupe, is a seasoned real estate entrepreneur with more than 30 years of experience in real estate investment banking, development, structured finance, start-up businesses and construction. He is focused on niche opportunity investing in both real estate and financial service sectors, particularly those that balance economic, environmental and social outcomes.

Once the darling of both Wall Street and sustainability advocates, that rare admiration from both constituencies for Chipotle has gone down in flames over the past year. Outbreaks of E. coli and norovirus at scattered locations across the country have scared off customers, and the jury is out on whether free food coupons are going to lure them back.

Last August, after some food-safety scares, Chipotle's stock roared back to hit an all-time high of almost $750 a share. But additional foodborne illness episodes have sunk the stock’s price again, down to almost $400 a share before rebounding to its current price hovering around $475.

Now, some investors are saying that they have had enough. The financial advisory firm Clean Yield Asset Management, which focuses on securities issued by what it deems are socially responsible companies, has partnered with Arjuna Capital, another investment advisor, to pressure Chipotle to change its corporate governance practices. In a 10-page filing submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Clean Yield is urging Chipotle’s shareholders to vote in favor of a resolution that will tie executive compensation to the company’s sustainability performance.

Pointing out the fact that the $4.5 billion company has yet to issue even one sustainability report, the letter asserts such disclosure would only be the start of the company taking real steps to mitigate future risks.

In comparing Chipotle to some if its competitors, including Panera Bread, McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, all of which have committed to sustainability reporting, the resolution asserts that “a commitment to delivering a sustainable product should not be confused with possessing the means of delivering it.” Linking sustainability metrics to sustainability performance, asserts Clean Yield’s managers, could incentivize all employees, not just executives, to take sustainability more seriously, while reducing ongoing risks that have had taken a large bite out of the company’s financials.

Even before foodborne illnesses at its restaurants rocked the company, Chipotle had received criticism for its executive pay packages. A few years ago, a survey included the company’s co-CEOs within its list of the top 100 overpaid CEOs. Furthermore, the same report asserted that, within the restaurant industry, Chipotle’s Steven Ells and Monty Moran were the most overpaid CEOs due to their combined 2013 compensation of $49.5 million.

A year later, shareholders responded to that assertion by rejecting a proposed pay package in an overwhelming 77 percent “no” vote. While Chipotle kept preaching about its “food with integrity,” many shareholders and investment holders felt the way in which executives were paid lacked any integrity at all — and, in turn, they were not swayed by lofty rhetoric, cool paper cup designs or deep thoughts on to-go bags.

So far, Chipotle’s board of directors is refusing to acquiesce to any such demands over sustainability reporting. One proposal on the company’s most recent proxy statement, issued in anticipation of its annual meeting this May in Denver, is asking shareholders to approve a mandate for an annual sustainability report, which would be issued for this first time in October. Insisting that the company has made a “deliberate decision not to report in this fashion, preferring to devote our resources instead to taking actions,” Chipotle’s board is urging shareholders vote against it.

And as for Clean Yield’s proposal to integrate sustainability performance with executive pay, which is also up for a vote on the same proxy statement, the board is also recommending that shareholders check the “no” box. Saying that revamping its executive pay structure would hamper the “responsible, long-term growth of our business,” the company maintains that its current business practices are a strong enough incentive.

Are Chipotle’s executives and board tone-deaf? Perhaps. Is this a foolish stance to take considering the cutthroat nature of the restaurant industry? When it comes to its long-term success, the company’s stubbornness definitely risks alienating its stakeholders and shareholders even more, and the I-told-you-so’s will mount, especially if another outbreak occurs in the near future.

Image credit: Aranami (Flickr)

If you've been following the debate over labeling standards for genetically modified organisms (GMO) in foods, you've probably heard the latest: The so-called DARK Act (deny Americans the right to know) was defeated in the Senate last week. It's done. Dead. Finally gone.

Well, sort of. Actually ... No, it isn't.

The supposed demise of the Senate bill that would have had blocked states' ability to independently regulate GMO labeling has been lauded by environmentalists as a win for consumers' right to know. So is General Mills' announcement that it would  start disclosing GMO ingredients on all of its U.S. products. With a new GMO-labeling law about to take effect in Vermont, General Mills' decision (and a similar announcement by Campbell Soup Co. last January) aren't much of a surprise.

But when it comes to the battle over GMO-labeling regulations, it seems details can often be as difficult to summarize as the fight is to wage. A House bill (HR 1599) advanced to Senate and would have lent strength to voluntary GMO reporting, but it eventually stalled and was later replaced by a Senate bill that's received a fair amount of push-back from opponents. The Senate vote that occurred last week wasn't to determine whether or not to pass the DARK Act, but an attempt by its proponents to halt contentious debate and move to a vote.

And that's where the story gets interesting.

Senate Bill 764: Marine conservation and women's reproductive rights

What was actually being voted on was a Senate bill called S. 764, a hugely popular perennial success formally called the National Sea Grant College Program Act. S. 764 was a bill to amend a 40-year-old marine sciences conservation and fisheries act that gleaned remarkable bipartisan support, year after year. But last year, Senate Republicans decided to rename this unfailing champion the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015.

Last week, that union took one more weird turn with the introduction of an amendment that would regulate laws on genetically modified organisms. By March 14 a bill that, on the surface, was designed to provide much-needed funding for education had been linked to a contentious amendment to defund a private healthcare organization along with another amendment (SA 3450) that would remove the state of Vermont's ability to enact its GMO-labeling law in July of this year.

But the March 16 vote had nothing to do with whether GMO legislation, women's reproductive rights or marine conservation funding should be passed into law. It had to do with cloture -- whether the Senate had heard enough debate on whether these three remarkably separate topics should be lumped together and speedily passed into law.

One gets the impression that there must have been an awful lot of spirited debate in Senate that week, but the end result was that, in accordance with Senate Rule 22, which requires 60 votes to invoke cloture (cap discussion) on the matter, the vote didn't pass. Debate, and objections to the effort to marry two highly unpopular amendments (Planned Parenthood and the GMO-labeling act), waged on.

But as I said, that's not the end of it.

The DARK Act and Planned Parenthood's unseemly marriage to continue

On March 16, Sen. Mitch McConnell "motioned to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the on the motion to concur the amendment to the bill" with the contentious GMO amendment. Two Democrats, Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), withdrew their support a day after Republican senators announced they planned to embed the GMO amendment in the Sea Grant Act.

At this point, a long list of questions come to mind -- the first of which, of course, relates to this unlikely marriage and its success. Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kan.) proposed adding SA 3450 (the GMO-labeling standard) to the renamed Planned Parenthood Act. According to his office, adding amendments that may not appear to have anything to do with the original bill is "very common," and "the majority of bills that pass" are done this way. "It's been done throughout American history," I was told.

And yes, his office confirmed, the up-down vote last week failed to support cloture of the topic, so as the records show, discussion on the GMO-labeling standard "will continue to be discussed in Senate."

The GMO-labeling standards: Is this what consumers want?

Manufacturers who support the federal GMO-labeling bill insist that its purpose is to standardize procedures so both manufacturers and consumers will know what to expect. Doing so saves money for consumers as well as manufacturers.

"We can’t label our products for only one state without significantly driving up costs for our consumers and we simply will not do that," wrote General Mills' executive vice president and chief operating officer for U.S. retail, Jeff Harmening.

"With the Vermont labeling legislation upon us, and with the distinct possibility that other states will enact different labeling requirements, what we need is simple: We need a national solution."

But is this an economical solution -- bills that follow circuitous routes through Congress, don't allow consumers to follow and interpret their progress, and cost taxpayers even more money?

Last week, on the heels of the cloture vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) made a lengthy attempt to argue the merits of a practical, transparent GMO bill that would provide uniformity to standards and give consumers the ability to know whether GMO ingredients are in their food. In a succinct demonstration, he illustrated to senators why SA 3450, which would allow manufacturers to funnel manufacturing information through 1-800 numbers and online databases, not only won't keep consumers informed, but could also endanger children and others by delaying access to allergy risks regarding gluten, peanuts and other product exposures.

"I am standing here in the aisle. I want to compare these three products. I have to call three different 800 numbers. I ask, can anyone on this floor stand up and say this is a consumer-friendly way to answer the fundamental question as to whether there is a GE or GM -- genetically engineered or genetically modified -- ingredient? No. This is absurd," Merkley said.

Much money has been spent and will continue to be spent by food manufacturers to contest laws on the basis that states shouldn't be regulating this debate, the federal government should. For all the controversy on this issue, however, one question that General Mills and other food manufacturers have not answered is why they did not initiate voluntary labeling of GMO-containing products themselves? As General Mills has already demonstrated with its efforts to improve supply chain transparency, standardization often doesn't need government regulation. It just requires companies to take the lead before governments do.

Images: 1) Flickr/Nicholas Raymond 2) Flickr/Frankieleon

Actor and longtime environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio is burning up the headlines this year. Film-lovers applauded as he received his long-awaited Best Actor Academy Award for his role in "The Revenant." And environmentalists cheered when he used his Oscars acceptance speech to call on world leaders to combat climate change.

DiCaprio continued his calls for climate action during a trip to Beijing this week to promote "The Revenant," and praised China's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

At a press conference in the Chinese capital, DiCaprio said: “As we all know, the United States and China are the two biggest contributors, and I think that China has made radical movements forward as far as alternative energy and ways to be sustainable,” the U.N. Environment Program's Climate Action blog reports.

The actor who first captured America's hearts in "Titanic" and evolved into a critically-acclaimed powerhouse through films like "The Departed," "Django Unchained" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" added: "I really think that China can be the hero of the environmental movement; they can be the hero of the climate change movement."

China is the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter, but the country of nearly 1.5 billion people is taking serious strides to change up its energy mix. Chinese President Xi Jinping shocked the sustainability set in 2014 when he announced a partnership with the U.S. government to help both countries cut emissions. (The U.S. is the world's No. 2 greenhouse gas emitter and surpasses China in per-capita emissions.)

Through the agreement, China committed to reach peak carbon by 2030, with emissions declining after that date. Xi Jinping added that renewable energy sources such as solar and wind would constitute 20 percent of China’s total energy production by 2030.

And these aren't just empty words. China already started a rapid shift to renewables before entering into its agreement with the U.S. -- growing its installed solar capacity 20-fold between 2009 and 2013 -- and the pace only increased from there. The Chinese government originally planned to install 17.8 GW of new solar capacity last year. But it blew past its target by October and increased it by 30 percent.

DiCaprio called out this shift to renewables specifically, saying it's a big part of why China is on the cutting edge: "They have an opportunity to change the world, and I have all the confidence in the world that that is their intention."

The country's shift toward renewables is, of course, driven by more than a desire to curb climate change. China's cities face a deadly air pollution crisis that kills more than 4,000 people every day. The crisis has spurred some good-natured silliness, such as the unveiling of couture smog masks at China Fashion Week and a Zhangjiagang City restaurant charging for clean air. But it's also the source of serious and consistent backlash from civil society, including lawsuits from citizens, and rightfully so.

More clean-energy adoption, along with a reduced dependence on coal, can go a long way in helping the heavily industrialized nation curb pollution. The government also adopted new urbanization guidelines this year to encourage walking and public transit, as well as historical and natural-resource preservation, in its booming cities and improve quality of life for residents.

But that's not say China doesn't take climate action seriously. The government proved it's ready to step up -- and put its money where its mouth is -- at the U.N. climate talks in Paris last year. Heather Coleman, who manages Oxfam America’s climate policy work, told TriplePundit all about it:

"One of the biggest issues we used to have was that China would be unwilling to step up as one of the largest economies in the world," Coleman told us in December. "In the last year, they've gone leaps and bounds. We've had incredible breakthroughs with China. In the U.S. bilateral agreement, they've moved forward on their mitigation commitments and where they're headed. They're taking those issues very seriously now.

"They recognize that they have a greater role to play globally. They're now putting real money on the table: They committed $3.1 billion to vulnerable countries ... They just made a massive commitment to African nations. These aren't small potatoes."

In addition to monetary commitments for developing nations, China pledged to reduce its own carbon intensity by 60 to 65 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. It also committed to modernize its coal power plants by 2020 so as to cut their pollutant emissions by 60 percent. The move would save around 100 million tons of raw coal and prevent the discharge of about 180 million tons of CO2 each year, according to an official communiqué quoted by the New China Press Agency.

So, will China emerge as a climate action hero? Only time will tell. The country is already feeling the growing pains. Due to slowing growth, it issued layoffs to around 15 percent of its coal and steel workers this week -- impacting 1.8 million people, roughly equivalent to the entire population of Nebraska. Such an enormous hammer is undoubtedly devastating for citizens, but the onset of renewable energy will mean new jobs -- likely in safer and less toxic working environments. And the numbers show renewables are poised to fill the gap.

China employs 3.4 million people in the renewable energy sector, making it the largest green-energy employer in the world, according to the most recent data from the International Renewable Energy Agency (PDF). More than 1.5 million Chinese citizens have jobs in the solar photovoltaic sector alone, and these numbers continued to rise in 2014. Last year's employment numbers from IRENA are expected this spring, but with the country's booming renewable capacity, we only expect bigger gains.

Leo has certainly proved a reliable trend-spotter in the past. (The man bun? Come on, he totally saw that coming.)  But whether he's right or wrong about China's superpower status, it's safe to say the world should be watching as the country evolves from an environmental bogeyman to a post-COP21 leader.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Karen Borter 2) Flickr/IBM Research

The cascade of legal fallout from the occupation of Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is rippling over to Nevada, where participants in the notorious 2014 Bunkerville armed standoff are now feeling the heat. Bunkerville leader Cliven Bundy is behind bars along with his son, Ammon, who spearheaded the Malheur episode.

In the latest development, last Friday Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-District 4) dropped word that many more arrests may be on the way, potentially targeting anyone who brought a weapon to the Bunkerville standoff -- a figure that could climb into the hundreds.

TriplePundit has been following the exploits of the Bundy clan from a corporate social responsibility angle, since both Cliven and Ammon are business owners who purport to act on community-benefit principles. However, both of these men and dozens of their supporters are behind bars without bail. They are facing serious felony charges as a result of their weaponized protests, and Assemblywoman Fiore, a longtime supporter of the Bundys, certainly has some interesting things to say on that score.

From Burns, Oregon to Bunkerville, Nevada

For those of you new to the topic, back in 2014 Nevada rancher and melon farmer Cliven Bundy came into the national media spotlight when he called upon a gang of armed thugs to help him scare federal agents away from federal land near the town of Bunkerville. The agents were finally trying to get Bundy's destructive trespass cattle off public land after a 20-year legal battle over refusal to pay grazing fees among other abuses. However, with Bundy's snipers taking up positions on high ground, the agents were forced to back down.

Bundy argued that his actions where justified, based on an offbeat -- and conveniently self-serving -- interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in which the federal government has no property rights outside of Washington, D.C.

In taking up that position, Bundy has served as a grassroots champion for the "states rights" legislative agenda of the powerful Koch-funded lobbying organization ALEC, which through its affiliates seeks to transfer federal land to the states in order to intensify resource extraction and development.

Until last month, Cliven Bundy remained free -- and his cattle remained on the taxpaying public's dime -- while law enforcement tried to figure out how to reach him without provoking another potentially violent episode.

Meanwhile, this past January, Ammon Bundy gathered his own group of armed thugs at the Malheur refuge in Oregon, near the town of Burns in Harney County. Like his father, he claimed to be acting on behalf of local economic interests, though local stakeholders were almost uniformly opposed to Ammon and his gang.

As things turned out, Malheur was the beginning of the end for Cliven. Ammon and most of his cohorts were eventually arrested and jailed without bail in Oregon. When Ammon issued a jailhouse plea for support, Cliven answered the call. He left his safe space in Nevada and flew to Oregon. The decision to fly assured law enforcement that they could safely arrest Cliven, unarmed and harmless, on arrival at Portland International Airport.

Things have only gone downhill from there. An original indictment for Ammon and two dozen of his followers was superseded last week by a fresh indictment with a raft of new, more serious charges along with more arrests, including several persons involved in the Bunkerville episode.

The Michele Fiore connection

One common denominator in all this is Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore. She has been a consistent and vociferous supporter of the Bundys and the "states rights" land privatization movement. Like the Bundys, she is also involved with or supported by groups connected to ALEC.

A number of other public office holders have issued statements in support of the Bundys, but Fiore stands out because she has taken a very active role in their goings-on. She is widely credited, for example, with talking down the last four Malheur holdouts over the phone, resulting in their peaceful surrender.

That seems commendable, and she was praised by pundits on both the left and right for helping to bring the whole mess to a close. However, Oregon Public Broadcasting dropped a bombshell last week in the form of a 90-minute audio recording of a meeting that suggests Fiore helped to breathe new life into the occupation early on.

The meeting was between Harney County officials and members of a Fiore-backed "states rights" group called the Coalition of Western States (COWS), with Fiore patched in by phone. It occurred on Jan. 9, about a week after Ammon Bundy took over the Malheur refuge. At that time, law enforcement noticed signs that the occupation was quickly petering out.

The COWS group included elected officials, and they were advised not to visit Ammon at the refuge for fear of emboldening the group and drawing in more support. That advice was ignored. The group met with Ammon, apparently egged on by Fiore. Oregon Public Broadcasting highlighted this exchange:

… Finally, over the phone, Fiore tried to turn the meeting into a call to action.

“The BLM has become a bureaucratic agency of – basically – terrorism,” she said. “So at what point do we band together as elected officials, and say, ‘Enough is enough of the BLM’? Can we divert this conversation? At what point are we going to actually do something for our citizens?”

Fiore speaks out

In a video interview posted on YouTube last Friday, Fiore made it clear that she has been, and will continue to be, involved with the Bundys on a very active level.

After his arrest, Ammon Bundy and his supporters have tried to portray the Oregon occupation as a peaceful act of civil disobedience undertaken by "cowboy campers," and Fiore has also adopted that strategy.

In the interview, she hinted that a national labor union is on board to provide pro bono legal counsel to the Malheur defendants, who she described as "our cowboys" and "political captives."

According to Fiore, the as-yet-unnamed union is supportive of the Malheur occupation as a legitimate First Amendment protest, similar to stopping traffic. This is how she describes the heavily-armed group that took over and lived in a working facility in a public park for weeks, forcing out the employees, damaging sensitive lands, interfering with conservation work and barring entry to the public:

"... When they saw our cowboys camping in the middle of NOWHERE not arguing or yelling at people and all of a sudden 40 of our cowboys are in jail ... "

Fiore claimed that the notoriously litigious lawyer Larry Klayman will represent Cliven Bundy, and at her behest about half of the Malheur defendants have signed documents enabling the unnamed union lawyer to represent them. She used the interview to issue a call for others to help her gather signatures from the other half, portraying the effort as a similar to the union movement:

"I don’t want to say ‘unionizing’ the cowboys but definitely pulling together to make sure that our voices as Americans are not shut down."

Fiore also defended the COWS group:

"COWS … looks to represent the citizens across the nation, we’re actually enrolling some eastern legislators as well, and we basically fight tyranny … They don’t want any of us pushing back and there’s not enough elected officials turning around and saying enough is enough."

Near the end of the interview, the host and Fiore discussed word that a new round of "mass" arrests related to the Nevada standoff is immanent, potentially sweeping up "anyone in Bunkerville in 2014." With the interview as a platform, Fiore advised those persons “absolutely” to not talk to law enforcement without an attorney:

"... A lot of us, we want to be friendly and we want to help because we don’t have an issue with law enforcement, but their intention is to entrap and their intention is not pure so I would highly suggest no-one speak with the FBI or the police without your attorney, because they do not have good intentions at the moment."

[snip]

"I just want to make sure that no American allows themselves to be beat down, suppressed, or fear our government, because the moment we fear our government and stop preparing to defend ourselves is the moment of weakness and that’s the moment of conquer so I’m just going to have to say to our fellow Americans out there, is do not fear your government. That’s not the way this is supposed to work. We’re law abiding citizens, and we need to stand our ground."

More violence on the way?

If that last bit seems to be egging on the situation rather than calming things down, we could be in for a replay of the Oregon pattern in Nevada, with Fiore again helping to strike the spark.

As in Oregon, the Nevada situation appears to be winding down. Cliven Bundy has only been in jail for a few weeks, and his appearance in court no longer draws a throng of supporters.

Andrew Davey of Let's Talk Nevada visited the Las Vegas court last week to attend Cliven Bundy's bail hearing, and in a March 18 post he noted that the crowd had thinned considerably:

"Unlike last week, the Bundy family and their supporters didn’t muster all that large of a crowd. There were some protesters outside, but it wasn’t the kind of spectacle we witnessed last week."

Public interest is waning, even among Bundy's more passionate supporters, and with good reason. As more charges come down and more details about the Nevada standoff emerge, more of Cliven Bundy's scofflaw behavior has come to light, described by Davey at last week's hearing:

"... Judge Hoffman guided the courtroom on a tour of Bundy’s 20-year history of defying federal court orders that was capped by the April 2014 armed insurrection in Bunkerville. 'I do not believe, Mr. Bundy, you would comply with my court orders any more than you would comply with the other court orders.' On that note, Judge Hoffman denied Cliven Bundy any sort of release agreement for the duration of his criminal trial."

Public support or not, Fiore appears determined to fan the flames.

Image credit: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

There's more than one way to run a mission-driven business in the U.S. Benefit corporations are allowed in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Two of those states (Maryland and Oregon) also allow benefit limited liability corporations (BLLCs). Social purpose corporations (SPCs) are legal in four states; low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs) are legal in eight. And we're not even talking about Certified B Corps.

Sorting this out is the mission of Social Enterprise Law Tracker, a free website created by two members of New York University's Law and Social Enterprise Fellowship program.   "People are approaching the task of running social enterprises in different ways. Several different forms are available in the U.S., and other countries have even more," says Rob Esposito, an attorney at Drinker Biddle Reath who launched the site with Shawn Pelsinger in May 2015.

It's like iPhone vs. Android, VHS vs. Betamax or alternating vs. direct current.  Whenever a big idea emerges, it's common for several variations on the theme to compete before the market chooses a standard format. Until that happens, there's a lot of confusion. And social enterprise laws are new: Vermont passed the first L3C law in 2008, and Maryland was the first to allow benefit corporations in 2010.

The site features an ingenious interactive map (above) that shows how states have passed, considered, failed and repealed social enterprise laws each year from 2009 to 2016. It has separate maps for benefit corporations, L3Cs, SPCs and BLLCs, and each map connects to spreadsheets containing detailed information and links for each law. The site also includes links to resources in the field.

Benefit corporations are the most common legal form for social enterprise, but the debate is far from over. The states of Washington and Texas allow SPCs but do not allow benefit corporations. Georgia and Ohio allow neither, but their lawmakers are considering both. Wisconsin's legislature is currently considering an L3C law. But North Carolina has repealed its L3C law, and this legislation has failed in 18 other states.

L3Cs are faltering because tax laws are unclear, Esposito explains. They are for-profit corporations, but they can also accept grants from private foundations in order to advance their social missions. The grants are given under an Internal Revenue Service category called a Program Related Investment (PRI). But the IRS has not published enough detail about which kinds of giving qualify as PRIs, making it difficult and risky for foundations to give in this way. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) has introduced a law defining PRIs (S. 2313), but so far it has not passed. In the meantime, Esposito says, "Benefit corporations are sort of like Facebook, and L3Cs are like Myspace."

The next step for the site is mapping social enterprise law in other parts of the world. "By doing the U.S., we've finished about half the work," says Esposito's research partner Shawn Pelsinger. "But there is a tremendous amount of activity in Europe." You can see hints of what's going on in Greece, France, the U.K., Spain and other countries at the site of The European Social Enterprise Law Association (ESELA), which was founded by the European Commission three years ago. But SocEntLawTracker.org is easy to understand, and the ESELA site is not."

Esposito and Pelsinger have built and maintained the site with support from NYU's Law School, using their own network of contacts to keep up with what's going on in social enterprise law. They are eager to expand the network by accumulating tips and leads from interested visitors — so check it out.

Image courtesy of Social Enterprise Law Tracker

HR Magazine reported last month on a study carried out by culture consultancy Kin&Co, revealing that “for younger employees, especially those so-called millennials, working for an organization whose values they genuinely believe in is critical.”

According to the study, almost 80 percent of young millennials (18-24 years old) “would be more motivated and committed at work if they felt their employer made a positive impact on society,” compared to 46 percent of baby boomers, for example.

Sounds great, right? If millennials (people born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s) prefer companies with purpose, then companies might take their impact on society more seriously and hopefully this would lead to a positive change. And they have the scale to do so -- millennials are expected to be about 50 percent of the global workforce by 2020. So, if they could bring purposeful approach to the workforce, change is possible.

While I really wanted to believe what I read, I kept asking myself – is this actually true or nothing but wishful thinking?

The Kin&Co study is not the only one making this claim about millennials. According to the 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey, millennials believe that the most important values a business should follow if it is to have long-term success are employee satisfaction/loyalty/fair treatment and ethics/trust/integrity/honesty.

In addition the study found that “millennials want to contribute to the positive impact they believe business has on society, but in so doing, they wish to stay true to their personal values.” Millennials also walk the talk when it comes to saying no to a job offer in a company that is not aligned with their values – about half of them have done so, according to the survey. This increases to 61 percent among millennials in senior positions.

Another survey by Net Impact reached similar conclusion. According its 2012 Talent Report, 59 percent of working millennials said it is essential or very important for them to “have a job where I can make an impact on causes or issues that are important,” compared to 49 percent of GenXers and 52 percent of baby boomers. Interestingly, when college students were asked to respond to this statement, the percentage increased to 72 percent.

“Survey after survey,” Jenna Wortham wrote in the New York Times last month, “shows that millennials want to work for companies that place a premium on employee welfare, offer flexible scheduling and, above all, bestow a sense of purpose." I like this description as it contextualizes purpose as part of the tension in millennials between the ‘me’ and ‘we.’ It is also a manifestation of this generation’s perspective, which is greatly influenced by the Great Recession, and its quest for meaning and for ways to redefine itself in contrast to its parents’ generation.

In this spectrum between the ‘me’ and the ‘we,' there are some indications that the ‘me’ is somewhat more dominant. For example, in the Net Impact study, students were asked to rate the importance of 16 job attributes as either “essential,” “very important,” “somewhat important” or “not at all important”. The six attributes that received the highest ‘essential’ rating were: work-life balance (51 percent), positive work environment/ culture (45 percent), having interesting work to do (42 percent), job security (41 percent), good compensation (38 percent) and growth opportunities/earn new skills (34 percent). At the same time, only 16 percent of the students rated ‘working for a company that prioritizes CSR’ as an essential attribute.

This is also supported by PwC’s global report, Millennials at work Reshaping the Workplace. Participants were asked: "Which of the following things do you believe make an organization an attractive employer?" The top responses were: opportunities for career progression (52 percent), competitive wages/other financial incentives (44 percent), excellent training/development programs (35 percent), and good benefits packages (31 percent). These are, of course, all ‘me’ replies. The first ‘we’ reply was ‘good reputation for ethical practices,' which was rated No. 7 with 15 percent.

Let’s assume though that companies will believe that millennials are equally interested in promoting their ‘me’ and ‘we’ agendas. Will this realization help make the companies better in terms of their impact on society?

I believe that this is up to the millennials. If millennials will embrace a passive point of view and will expect organizations to deliver them values and an ethical approach, we’ll end up with incremental changes at best, as business will probably adopt top-town, consultant-based recommendations, such as this one:

“Tying values to processes also makes the role of HR that much more important," said Kin&Co CEO Rose Warin. “The organization’s leader has to champion this work, but HR is the most important factor in embedding values and purpose. This is HR’s opportunity to shine.”

Substantial change in companies won’t happen in a top-down fashion at scale, though we could see some companies that manage to do it well like Unilever or Jet.com. In most cases it will be bottom-up change, led by millennials assuming a posture of activist manager (mid-level management) with the understanding that what they need is to redesign the corporate experience, not the employee experience.

Millennials’ sassy "f*ck you” attitude and very strong feelings against “old boys club” sh*t" could eventually lead this generation to focus only on the ‘me.' But it could also easily be developed into a mindset balancing between the ‘me’ and the ‘we,' where not only organizations, but society overall, could benefit. We can’t make this choice for the millennials, but hopefully we could share with them a series of ideas that will help them find a more impactful path in the corporate world.

Image credit: Flickr/ITU Pictures