Search

The public is finally getting a glimpse of the mess left behind at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, after the end of a six-week occupation by Arizona businessman Ammon Bundy and his gang of armed thugs. Bundy and two dozen of his supporters are now behind bars along with his father, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has finally been called to account for enlisting an armed gang of his own back in 2014, when federal agents tried to chase his cattle off the Gold Butte public lands in Nevada.

In the latest development, yesterday 14 additional people were arrested by the FBI and indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nevada for felony crimes related to the Cliven Bundy episode, some of whom were also involved in the Malheur takeover. Say, what kind of businessmen are these Bundys, anyway?

Hammer falls on Bundy supporters

On top of the two dozen arrests directly connected to the Malheur takeover, law enforcement has finally caught up with Cliven Bundy and his gang, referred to by one observer as the "parasites of the purple sage" (most likely a reference to the vintage Zane Grey novel set in Utah, "Riders of the Purple Sage").

Here are some snippets from the press release announcing the Bundy-related indictments from the U.S. Attorney's office:

The federal grand jury in Nevada has charged 14 more defendants in connection with the armed assault against federal law enforcement officers that occurred in the Bunkerville, Nev. area on April 12, 2014, over the removal of Cliven Bundy’s cows from public lands...

...The newly-added defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, and at least one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of the due administration of justice, interference with interstate commerce by extortion, and interstate travel in aid of extortion. The indictment also alleges five counts of criminal forfeiture which upon conviction would require forfeiture of property derived from the proceeds of the crimes totaling at least $3 million, as well as the firearms and ammunition possessed and used on April 12, 2014.

Ouch!

The U.S. Attorney's Office reminds us that "the defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Stay tuned for more, because in the press release U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Bogden also had this to say:

"This investigation began the day after the assault against federal law enforcement officers and continues to this day. We will continue to work to identify the assaulters and their role in the assault and the aftermath, in order to ensure that justice is served."

From heroes to thugs

Cliven and Ammon Bundy have presented themselves as the authentic grassroots voice of a movement to transfer federal land out of federal control, ostensibly to create more jobs and foster economic activity in rural areas.

However, TriplePundit has been examining the Bundy's through a corporate social responsibility perspective -- after all, they are both business owners who claim to be acting on behalf of the community -- and from that angle their actions make no sense.

In particular, after Ammon Bundy and his thugs blundered into the Malheur refuge, it became abundantly clear that he lacked support from any local stakeholder group, even though he purported to act in the interests of local ranchers, miners and loggers.

Ammon also ignored the interests of the local Paiute tribe and enabled his supporters to run roughshod over sensitive archaeological areas in the refuge, where they built a new gravel road, enlarged a parking lot, and dug trenches for refuse and human feces during the six-week standoff.

Cliven Bundy's actions were different: He did not take over a federal facility, but he also displayed a similar pattern of ignoring local interests and professional responsibilities. For two decades, Cliven refused to pay the same fees that other ranchers pay for grazing on federal land, letting his cattle run wild on Gold Butte, which is listed among the "areas of critical environmental concern" in Nevada. Now that Cliven is behind bars, the destructive legacy of his actions are coming to light.

Fox News, which is hardly a champion of federal bureaucracy, reported on the situation earlier this week under the headline, "Bundy's million-dollar herd of ornery cattle giving feds a meaty problem:"

"... His 1,000 head of cattle are still roaming federal lands due, in part, to his absence and also to what officials call his 'unconventional, if not bizarre' ranching methods.

"'Rather than manage and control his cattle, he lets them run wild on the public lands with little, if any, human interaction until such time when he traps them and hauls them off to be sold or slaughtered,' said court documents filed by federal prosecutors last month. 'He does not vaccinate or treat his cattle for disease; does not employ cowboys to control and herd them; does not manage or control breeding; has no knowledge of where all the cattle are located at any given time; rarely brands them.'"

Fox also noted that the untended cattle have been trampling Pauite artifacts at Gold Butte in addition to damaging range lands through overgrazing.

A long article in ClimateWire provides many more details on the Gold Butte situation, noting that an atmosphere of intimidation after Cliven's 2014 action has continued to hang over the area, enabling vandalism and preventing conservation programs from being carried out:

"Agency trespass investigations show that cattle have 'trampled' and 'denuded' sensitive soils, increasing the risk of erosion and invasive and noxious weed infestations. Cows have also damaged Native American petroglyphs by 'bedding down and rubbing against these irreplaceable archaeological resources ...'

"Restoration efforts have been stymied.

"BLM forfeited a $400,000 matching grant from the Walton Family Foundation for a $1 million restoration project in 2013 and 2014 that would have benefited the endangered southwest willow flycatcher. The presence of cattle thwarted the project ..."

As reported by ClimateWire, it's no surprise that Cliven Bundy is not a member of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, though in a statement issued shortly after the 2014 episode, the organization expressed sympathy with Cliven's "dilemma" over federal land management.

On the other hand, in the same statement the Cattlemen's Association reiterated its support for the emerging collaborative land management model and distanced itself from the criminal acts of Cliven and his supporters.

The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has also issued public statements regarding the Malheur takeover that echoed the sentiments of its Nevada counterpart. In one such missive after the last holdouts at Malheur were arrested, Executive Director Jerome Rosa made this observation:

"... the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association has 'a positive history working with government agencies on both a state and federal level. These trusted relationships are what will allow positive and productive change to occur.'”

The ALEC angle

So, how to make sense of the Bundy's actions? From the beginning, TriplePundit has been among those noting the close connection between the Bundys and the powerful business lobbying group ALEC, which has made the privatization of federal land a legislative priority.

As a Koch-backed organization, ALEC's priorities directly serve the mining, ranching and logging interests of the family business, Koch Industries. Koch Industries is better known for its fossil fuel activities, but the company is also interested in uranium mining, it has dabbled in ranching, and it acquired U.S. forestry giant Georgia-Pacific in 2015.

The Georgia-Pacific acquisition highlights something else about the Malheur takover that doesn't make sense outside of the ALEC connection. The Malheur refuge has been cited as a national model for cooperation between the federal Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and local ranchers and other business interests, so it would seem to be the least compelling choice to make a stand against government intervention. However, take into consideration the enormous reach of Koch Industries in the Oregon forestry sector through Georgia-Pacific, and you can see why the success of the cooperative model is not in the best interests of the family business.

We'll close with a shoutout to the Steens Mountain Brewery, another family-owned business. Located in the town of Burns near the Malheur refuge, the tiny "nanobrewery" was just getting under way when the presence of Ammon Bundy's armed thugs cut its operations down to a fraction.

Steens Mountain owner Rick Roy is also an employee of the Bureau of Land Management. As one of the many local residents who make a living on the government payroll, Roy's interests were pretty low on the Bundy family priority list, and you can read all about Roy's thoughts on the Bundy "idiot parade" in the Portland Mercury.

Meanwhile, keep an eye out for Roy's ambitious plans to expand his brewery (and create new jobs), along with a new brew commemorating true local stakeholders, called Harney County Strong American IPA, along with a new hopless LEO concoction, so named in appreciation for the law enforcement officers who removed Ammon Bundy and his out-of-state thugs from the Malheur refuge.

You can also check out the Go Home campaign, launched by two Oregon brothers opposed to the Malheur takeover, which has been raising funds for the Malheur refuge, the local Paiute tribe, gun control advocacy and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.

Image: via U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

In the wake of the Super Tuesday primary results, what was once a clown car of the Republican presidential nomination race has turned into a gift that keeps on giving, and not in a good way for the GOP.

Of course, the Republican establishment is in full freak-out mode thanks to what looks like an upcoming coronation for Donald Trump in Cleveland this summer. Not that the Democrats should be smug, as anything can happen: This campaign has morphed into the weirdest presidential race since 1940, when a Democratic utility executive became a Republican for five minutes in an attempt to deny Franklin D. Roosevelt an unprecedented third term.

The only reason the 1940 election was not a completely torrid affair was in part because social media and the 24/7 cable news cycle were mercifully non-existent. FDR’s opponent, Wendell Willkie, was reportedly in the midst of a longstanding extramarital affair, but the Democrats said nothing because the party's vice presidential candidate, Henry A. Wallace, was an oddball and Republicans had proof: as in correspondence from a Russian self-described “guru” who in letters preached to Wallace the virtues of Agni Yoga.

Willkie lost that election, but remained on very good terms with Roosevelt, even as World War II dragged on and they were on course to run against each other in 1944. Willkie was denied the Republican nomination, however, and he died a few weeks before the November election.

Such magnanimity and cooperation amongst American politicians is painfully rare today. The life of Wendell Willkie, however, is a lesson many politicians could learn from today, including Donald Trump. One notable difference between these two businessmen-turned-politicians: Willkie actually ran to the left of FDR on civil rights and racial equality issues.

Trump, of course, has reveled in his rhetoric over the past eight months, with his insistence that we somehow find a way to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S., in addition to his comments about Mexico and Mexicans -- including his taunting of black protesters earlier this week, asking with a sneer as they were escorted from a rally, “Are you from Mexico?" Along with his slow disavowal of David Duke and the KKK over the weekend, Trump has shown his critics that he is a demagogue at worst or ignorant at best.

Hence, his recent comments to ABC News that he has “done so much for equality” come as an insult to the long list of Americans who have made a real difference on this front, including Branch Rickey, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Josephine Baker, even swing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy -- not to mention a certain woman who refused to give up her seat on a bus, Rosa Parks.

So, what does Trump insist is evidence of his leadership when it comes to equality? His Mar-a-Lago estate and club in Palm Beach, Florida.

Once the home of a General Mills heiress, the estate was donated to the U.S. government in the late 1970s, in the hope that it would become a “Winter White House.” Trump’s struggle to purchase the property 30 years ago, as discussed in the Washington Post, is in part why he insists he would be the best negotiator with America’s top trading partners and adversaries. After all, if you can take on the City Hall of a town of 10,000 people, that primes you to take on Vladimir Putin and Daesh (also known as ISIS, ISIL or Islamic State).

According to Trump, while other membership clubs may have restrictions on the acceptance of racial and religious minorities, Mar-a-Lago does not ask about any ethnic or religious background. In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Super Tuesday, Trump declared, “nobody has done so much for equality as I have,” because Mar-a-Lago is “totally open to everybody.”

It may be true that anyone can join Mar-a-Lago, but it comes with a hefty price, though a few years ago the fee was reduced: The cost to join was slashed from $200,000 to $100,000. According to ABC News, annual fees are $14,000 a year, rooms are over $1,000 a night and members must spend $2,000 on food annually.

If you think it is tough to become a member, it is also difficult to find employment at Mar-a-Lago: The New York Times alleged that out of the 300 U.S. residents who were referred there for a job, only 17 were hired; during that time, over 500 visas for guest workers were granted for foreign workers to work at this estate-turned-club.

Equality, indeed -- when it’s convenient for Donald Trump.

Image credit: 1) Michael Vadon, 2) HABS Project

By Barbara Bramble

Critics routinely dismiss the future of biofuels but, at the same time, fail to offer an alternative to fossil fuels.

Their arguments – that the cultivation of bio-energy crops should not compete with arable land, burden consumers with higher food costs or drive further loss of wildlife habitats – are the same markers used by advocates who are guiding the development of sustainable biofuels. And of course, biofuels must also play a significant role to reduce carbon emissions.

In short, we cannot let critics condemn the promise of all biofuels, when many segments of the industry are aggressively rethinking previous, unsustainable approaches.

At a time when the world is confronted with the realities of climate change – compounded by skyrocketing demands for energy, water and food – we must find commercial solutions to develop a future beyond fossil fuels. And biofuels can be part of the equation.

In fact, biofuels certified as sustainable, already offer a cleaner alternative to burning fossil fuels in our skies, as commercial flights use renewable fuels derived from biological oils and fats, agricultural waste and other sources. Experts have also found that biofuels approved for aircraft use are technically superior, as they have higher-energy content and a lower freeze point.

A fair question is: Can sustainable biofuels offer a counterbalance to petroleum-based fuels? Early-stage research not only suggests the answer is “yes,” but also promises to turn a land and water resource scarcity problem on its head.

The National Wildlife Federation is closely tracking research in the United Arab Emirates – the small Gulf state synonymous with oil exportation. Here, a team of researchers from the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology are growing plants on desert land – irrigated by seawater – to produce both bio-energy and food. That’s right: The harmonious creation of bio-energy plus food, without competing for arable land or relying on fresh water.

This research presents an entirely new paradigm: Can we grow sustainable fuels, reduce emissions and help feed the planet, while preserving forests, wildlife habitats and freshwater resources? The prospect of utilizing arid land to simultaneously grow food and fuel using salt water could be truly game-changing.

Considering that 20 percent of the world’s land is desert and 97 percent is covered in seawater, this research poses a future where 25.5 million square kilometers of arid regions worldwide could become productive farmland, while protecting delicate ecosystems.

While the research is nascent, the potential is very real.

The facility is an integrated system using coastal seawater to raise fish and shrimp for food and to irrigate salt-tolerant plants rich in oils that can be harvested for fuel. A cultivated mangrove forest filters and eliminates nearly all the remaining nutrients – while providing valuable carbon storage in the root and soil system – before the water is discharged back into the ocean.

In a resource-constrained world – where energy, water and food are interlinked – we must advance innovations that promote economic growth and environmental stewardship. With continued research and cross-sector cooperation, biofuels may prove to be a viable part of a sustainable future.

Perhaps no industry has as much at stake in creating sustainable biofuels as the aviation sector.

Unlike ground transportation, which is undergoing an unprecedented transformation with the advent of electric cars, air travel requires high-energy fuels. And no, we won’t be passengers on solar-powered planes anytime soon.

In order to ensure commercial flight remains affordable, while reducing its footprint, aviation depends on a low-carbon fuel supply. That’s why the aviation industry supports the research project in the UAE, as well as others such as a pilot in South Africa, which is testing nicotine-free energy tobacco as a feedstock, and a test lab in the United States that is converting waste gases into commercial, sustainable fuels.

And this is just the beginning, as the science community enters into unexplored territories, where discoveries may go far beyond renewable fuels. This field of research may yield other valuable products, such as chemicals, nutrients and pharmaceuticals from degraded land, taking the pressure off of arable soils, as well as forests, wetlands, native prairies and other habitats.

These are innovative ideas the world needs more of – solutions that stabilize the planet’s atmosphere and preserve valuable ecosystems, while meeting the economic and social needs of our growing populations.

Image credit: Flickr/Adam Jones

Barbara Bramble is senior director of the National Wildlife Federation.

Almost three months have passed since the COP21 climate talks in Paris. While much of the world seems to have already forgotten or moved on, many businesses and organizations are still aggressively moving forward. One of them is the World Bank, which has taken a forceful stance on various means of climate finance this decade. Among its various projects are auctions of carbon credits, including one series that is specifically focused on reducing methane emissions globally.

Central to this effort is the Pilot Auction Facility (PAF), which the World Bank has started in an effort to invest in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions that maximize funds donated from both the private and public sectors. Backed largely by Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States, the PAF currently has a target market capitalization of $100 million. Countries that have the potential to benefit from such an auction includes the Philippines, one of many developing nations that has struggled with both its carbon and methane emissions but can potentially benefit from the World Bank’s various carbon credit programs.

The second PAF auction will occur this year on May 12, though bidders interested in participating must send an application by April 8. Projects that could qualify include those that address emissions that emanate from landfills, wastewater processing sites and locations where animal waste has been a persistent problem. While the PAF’s funding may seem small at global scale, its long term impact is promising, especially when considering that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that pound-for-pound over a 100-year period, methane is 25 more times more potent than carbon emissions.

For the May auction, the PAF will offer a strike price of $3.50 a ton, with the initial bid starting at 6 cents per ton. Bids can be small as 200,000 tons per CO2 equivalent with the maximum bid up to 2.5 million tons. Organizations with the winning bids will be required to purchase a series of put options for four years. According to Reuters, that high of a strike price is in start contrast to currently traded prices, which are hovering around 38 cents per ton.

In the World Bank’s view, there is precedent for this May’s auction, as the first auction held last summer specifically for methane-related projects attracted 28 bidders, with 12 companies scoring winning bids. That auction, held online, resulted in price guarantees for 8.7 million tons of CO2 at a price of $2.40 for each credit.

The World Bank insists that its effort is critical as 1,200 methane reduction projects currently on the books are threatened with decommissioning due to the current low prices of carbon credits. In order to raise awareness, this month the World Bank will soon start the equivalent of a “road show” around the world to tout the potential benefits the PAF can reap for these carbon credit buyers. The first such consultation will be held next week, with additional meetings scheduled in India, Switzerland, Colombia, Brazil and finally, Washington DC. Two online seminars are also on the World Bank’s agenda. Should the World Bank find success with this approach, look for other global organizations to follow suit as they seek more innovation solutions to avoid risks associated with climate change.

Image credit: Flickr (World Bank)

By Malika Baruah

Yoga has been practiced for more than 3,000 years and is rooted in the aim to bring its practitioners’ bodies and minds into harmony with the universe. In this fast-paced modern world, more and more people are turning to this ancient practice. However, the explosion in popularity and commercialization has pulled yoga away from its roots -- particularly with the yoga workout wear you see both inside and outside of yoga class. Yoga pants are part of the growing $13 billion athleisure market thanks to brands like Lululemon, Athleta and Fabletica.

In reality, these yoga-wear makers also have a little known secret they don’t want consumers to know – many of their products are toxic. Proyog research estimates that 9 out of 10 yoga pants are made from plastic, which is in direct conflict with yoga’s philosophy of “do no harm” – not only to oneself by placing toxic chemicals next to the skin, but also to the environment.

This trend shows no sign of slowing down. This booming athleisure apparel market is expected to quintuple in the next five years, making up to $83 billion in sales by 2020, according to Morgan Stanley estimates. And while the majority of designer and commercial brands have openly promoted synthetic, plastic or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) yoga-wear, it’s now more important than ever that consumers are aware that plastic is toxic.

A 2015 Greenpeace report found that sportswear from most major brands contained known hazardous chemicals, like Phthalates, PFCs, Dimethylformamide (DMF), Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) and Nonylphenols (NPs). Nylon and polyester garments are essentially made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate), the same plastic use to make disposable water bottles.

So, why the push for synthetic fabrics in yoga-wear? Ancient yogis used to wear their comfortable, everyday cotton clothing during practice, allowing them the free flow of movement and energy. However, today’s popular yoga clothes are tight and constricting, and more suited to showing off the physical form.

The physical exertion of yoga opens the body to the elements, and if those elements come in the form of synthetic fibers, the skin absorbs toxins that are detrimental to the practitioner. When you combine constricting designs and synthetic fabric, naturally-occurring bacteria and unnatural chemicals can get trapped close to the skin, potentially causing acne and rashes. Wearing organic clothing made from natural materials such as cotton, bamboo and hemp provide huge benefits to the body by letting air in and out and harboring fewer bacteria.

Also, every time a pair of synthetic yoga pants go into the washing machine, tiny plastic fibers known as "microfibers" drop off and are washed away in the drain only to join other microplastics that make up the majority of the 8 million metric tons of plastic that pollute the world’s oceans. Microplastics are easily ingested by marine life. A 2014 study by the Marine and Environmental Research Institute found a large number of these fragments in oysters and mussels with oysters having the highest number – an average of 177 pieces of plastic per animal. Numerous studies and reports have been published about how these fibers have negatively affected bodies of water and their surrounding environments.

This year the U.S. imposed a federal ban on microbeads, plastic beads smaller than 5 millimeters in personal care products, and cities have worked to ban disposable plastic water bottles and bags to reduce their waste and carbon footprint. But not much has been done about microfibers. Consider this: If you could count all the yoga pants worn in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is the top city for yoga in the U.S. according to marketing firm GfK MRI, with its residents 59 percent more likely to practice yoga than the general population, it would equal about 500 tons of plastic annually.

I simply urge all yoga practitioners to think about how their choice of yoga-wear can impact them and the world around them. Check product labels to ensure that the fabric is organically grown and ethically produced. Say “no” to recycled plastic garments for yoga because both the cost and eco-foot print of recycling these plastic fibers are immense. Remember that yoga isn’t just a way to fine-tune the body, but to embrace becoming absolutely one with the universe.

Image credit: Pixabay

Malika Baruah is Product Head and Co-founder of Proyog. From her early days of pattern-making under Pierre Cardin, to heading design at Levi Strauss India, Malika Baruah has been in the fashion retail business for over 20 years. As a design head, Malika has conceptualized and successfully launched nine brands in the India. Her experience is nothing if not remarkably diverse. Drawn toward natural and sustainable design, her Indian roots seem to find a quiet expression in everything she does. She believes that design in the fashion realm unites beauty with form and comfort, eventually reflecting one’s personality.

Over the last few years, Malika has had her sights set on the online world. She runs Binary Bulb, her own a digital design agency in Bangalore. She is also a partner at Fisheye Creative Solutions, a specialized marketing communications company. Her love for yoga began in 2001, and she has been practicing ever since. Proyog is the inevitable realization of her personal and professional passions.

Morningstar has introduced a new sustainable investing initiative, the Morningstar Sustainability Rating for funds. This rating will help investors evaluate mutual and ETF funds that invest in companies incorporating ESG factors in their strategy. Over 20,000 global funds will be rated on Morningstar Direct, a research platform for asset managers and wealth management professionals, and on Morningstar Office, the practice management system for independent financial advisors. ESG metrics—separate Environmental, Social, and Governance scores—will be included along with the ratings.

Steven Smit, CEO of Morningstar Benelux, will be responsible for leading the company’s initiative to bring the new ratings and metrics to investors.

“Given the widespread and growing interest in sustainable investing around the world, investors need better tools to help them determine whether the funds they own or are considering adding to their portfolios reflect best sustainability practices,” said Smit. “Our Sustainability Rating and related metrics will provide investors with an ESG lens they can use to evaluate funds and, eventually, other managed products. Creating more insight into sustainability investing is a passion of mine and of many others at Morningstar. This initiative will help us better serve investors who place particular importance on incorporating ESG factors into their investment decisions.”

Morningstar’s initial analysis of the ratings reveals that funds with explicit sustainable or responsible mandates are generally practicing what they preach. Nearly two out of three such funds received the highest ratings, more than double the percentage of funds with Sustainability Ratings overall.

In the future, Morningstar plans to expand the number and types of investments that receive Sustainability Ratings as well as add additional sustainable investing analytics and research.

For more information about Morningstar’s Sustainability Rating, visit the press kit and website.

Wind energy is getting big – really big. What started as small-scale wind farms scattered across the world have now become billion-dollar investments, showing the staggering potential of clean energy.

The latest news comes from Norway, which just announced a 1 billion euro (US$1.2 billion) wind project that would be one of the largest in the world. According to Climate Action Program, this means 1,001 megawatts of clean wind energy will be installed across six wind parks. When finished, it will be Europe's largest offshore wind farm.

Vestas, a Danish manufacturer, installer and servicer of wind turbines, will manage the project as part of a 20-year deal.

“This 1 gigawatt project, which is Vestas’ largest order to date ... affirms that wind power provides an attractive long-term energy investment that goes well beyond its climate and sustainability benefits. Investing in wind power simply makes economic sense," Klaus Steen Mortensen, president of Vestas Northern Europe, said in a press statement.

Wind energy is already providing vast amounts of clean energy in Europe. In Denmark, wind provided 50 percent of the country's electricity in 2015. In countries like Norway, with its long, windy coastline, there is huge potential to blow Denmark's figure away. Studies show that offshore wind alone could provide more than 20 times Norway's energy needs, and this project will be the latest and biggest step as the country marches toward a clean-energy economy.

Moreover, the rapid drop in prices and increasing feasibility of energy storage mean that, in the future, wind energy can power homes even when there is no wind. In Germany, some turbines are now being equipped to produce hydrogen fuel to be be used in fuel-cell vehicles during low energy-demand times, another way to close the loop and ensure that clean energy is not dependent on when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

Wind is the big play in Europe, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. In 2015, wind accounted for 44 percent of new power installations in the 28 European Union member states. That's 13 GW, including 9.7 GW offshore.

“These numbers show that wind is the driving force behind the EU’s energy transition,” Giles Dickson, CEO of the European Wind Energy Association, said in a press statement. “It makes economic sense and is contributing significantly to Europe’s energy security and competitiveness goals.”

Policy played a strong role in Europe's burgeoning wind energy market. It is the same thing that we're seeing here in California, where incentives have played a huge role in the state becoming the national leader in solar energy. Norway is, despite its wealth in fossil fuels, well ahead of the game, showing that even dirty energy economies can transform into clean-energy havens.

Expect to see more announcements like this in the coming year. Clean energy is where the money is, finally.

Image credit: Andy Dingley via Wikimedia Commons

A study released last week by UCLA found that commonly-used pesticides, which are known to be harmful, can be even worse when mixed, as is commonly done in farms all across California. Until now, these impacts were not being adequately tested by state officials.

The three fumigant pesticides tested in the study -- chloropicrin, telone and metam salts -- are often mixed, either in how they are sold or how they are applied on farms. Amazingly, these combinations were never properly tested by regulators. Thanks to the University of California, Los Angeles, we now know how these combinations impact human health – and it's not good.

“[Our] research shows that pesticide mixtures can interact to cause larger-than-anticipated impacts on public health,” said Timothy Malloy, faculty director of the Sustainable Technology and Policy Program at UCLA and one of the report’s authors, in a statement. “Farm workers and local residents are especially at risk, given that they may be exposed to two or more pesticides simultaneously or in sequence.”

Here's the scary part – these pesticides are found even near schools. That's right – children, who are often more prone to adverse health impacts from chemicals, could be exposed to dangerous pesticide combinations all across California. That is why, in response to the report, a coalition of parents, health professionals and food advocates is calling for the state to implement new restrictions on pesticide use.

“We face a growing epidemic of cancer and other threats to children’s health and learning potential,” said Emily Marquez, a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network, in a press statement. “Just like prescription drugs, when used in combination pesticides can grow in potency. The only difference is that state officials aren’t paying attention to these interactions.”

The report calls on the state to make three big changes: test pesticides that are sold as part of a mixture for interactive toxic effects before approving their use; require evaluation of products that are not used as part of a mixture but are used in combination or sequentially with other pesticides; and consider pesticides’ interactive effects when performing risk assessments and establishing management requirements.

This is only the latest in a long series of research showing the harmful impacts of traditional agriculture. I believe we have to change our approach to pesticides. Currently, we allow them to be used indiscriminately until we learn about a negative impact, and even then, big agriculture's lobbyists do all that they can to resist change.

How about, from now on, we ban all pesticides unless their manufacturers can prove, without a doubt, that they cause no harm to both the environment and human health, either in isolation or, as this study finds, in combination with other pesticides? Let's shift the burden of proof onto big agricultural companies, and let's promote organic food with the same subsidies that now benefit pesticide-intensive agriculture. It's time to change our food system to protect us, our children and our environment. Enough is enough.

Image credit: TSPDave via Pixabay

By Jonathan Hanwit

Over the course of history, factors like politics, geography and economics have shaped the personalities of regions throughout the world – leaving each one with its own distinct and unmistakable flavor. Germans, for example, are systematic, organized and efficient – whereas the neighboring Italians, just two countries over, are famous for passion, love of life and general la dolce vida-ness.

Companies are remarkably similar in this way: They have distinct cultures that make them unique. Many of the roots of company culture come in the places you’d probably expect – things like industry and geography. A software engineer in Palo Alto, California, for example, craves and creates a different company atmosphere than a mill worker in Biloxi, Mississippi. Such considerations are more or less the foundation of a company – and they aren’t easily changed or moved.

However, there are other factors that go into creating a company’s culture – and these things are possible to adjust in order to meet the changing needs of the world and workforce. A recent PwC study found that a whopping 88 percent of young professionals and grad students say that they examine prospective employers’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) position and track-record when making a career choice. As sustainability and corporate responsibility become ever more important parts of doing business, it behooves strategically-minded organizations to take notice of this shift and evolve their culture to meet the needs of today’s workforce.

What follows are seven ideas relating to healthy workforce culture, starting from big-picture thinking down to the nuts and bolts of developing a rich, engaged workforce. Whether your organization was started yesterday or has a long, storied history of corporate responsibility, any of them could apply and help elevate your culture.

1. Defining why culture is important

Plainly put, a company with a rich culture is a place where people want to work. Evidence abounds on this subject, so I won’t belabor it. But, in broad strokes, a good company culture has been linked to employee retention, boosted productivity, lower absenteeism, fewer safety incidents and the like, as mentioned in this Harvard Business Review article. Pretty compelling stuff.

Outside of the cold, hard metrics behind an engaged work culture, there’s also some anecdotal evidence that is pretty hard to argue with. Passion spurs teams to reach for greatness – and you can usually “feel” that in a way that’s larger than facts or data. If you take a moment to think of a truly innovative, game-changing product from the past decade, I’d bet that you also have a pretty good idea about the culture of the company that created that product. Company culture is infectious like that. It draws you in, makes you want to be a part of it and (ultimately) motivates purchasing decisions – a pretty big reason to invest in an engaged culture.

Speaking from experience, our passion for travel and new experiences led thinkPARALLAX to create our own employee engagement travel program, called Parallaxploration, where we send employees around the world to find inspiration. Our goal from the start was simple – we wanted to invest in our culture by doing something unique for the people that we rely on to create amazing work. The results of Parallaxploration have been incredibly positive. Employees return from their trips engaged, refreshed, and ready and willing to create amazing work.

But along the way, a few less expected things happened: First, it led to a ton of unexpected press – which is like stumbling into a goldmine for a small agency like ours. Additionally, we’ve seen a spike in the number of people who want to work here. Since the launch of Parallaxploration, we get three to four times as many applicants for every new position we post. Oftentimes, those applicants could work at other agencies, doing similar types of work for similar pay – but they are drawn to thinkPARALLAX by our culture.

2. Integrating purpose into business

Making boatloads of money is no longer a cause that attracts top talent. Imagine, for a second, the movie "Braveheart" with Mel Gibson in blue face-paint shouting, “But they’ll never take our MONEY!” The image is laughable. When compared with a larger cause – like “freedom” or any one of the deeper motivators that resonate with modern (millennial) workforces – the health of an organization’s P and L is insignificant. Sure, financial objectives can be motivating, but they usually are not the best motivator. Companies should get on board with what most people already intrinsically understand – and stop broadcasting to employees that their sole purpose is to make more money.

As the business climate changes and organizations realize that intrinsic value holds more weight that monetary gain alone, organizations need to develop an integrated corporate responsibility strategy that aligns business goals with a deeper, larger purpose. Not only will this help steer the direction of the organization, but it also impassions employees in their work. Working toward a bigger, more impactful goal is deeply rewarding, and passion impacts employees across the board – transforming individuals, teams and entire organizations.

3. Shareholders don’t come first

As stated by Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce: “The business of business isn’t just about creating profits for shareholders — it’s also about improving the state of the world and driving stakeholder value.” This sentiment is nothing new. Management gurus through the decades – from Peter Drucker to Simon Sinek – have repeatedly stressed that employees, communities and the world at large should be at least as important to a company as the bottom line.

However, in our experience, the reality of business practice often flies in the face of such a sunny, feel-good leadership quote. Company culture often isn’t a high-priority budget item for the majority of companies. Granted, this idea represents a shift in attitude that ultimately has to come from the top (we’re looking at you C-level execs), but we’d argue that when this many thought leaders agree on something, it’s probably sound advice. Put your employees and the community at the center of your business, and it will transform your business in a surprising, unforeseen ways.

4. Creating a wellness program

On the surface, wellness programs are a no-brainer. CFOs love them, as they keep health care premiums at a minimum and reduce overall healthcare cost. But their contribution to the culture of an organization is an often overlooked benefit.

The key to creating a successful wellness program lies in making it more than just a program – and turning it into something that is all encompassing. Everyone has heard the stories of Google’s gourmet snacks, flexible work hours, free rides and massage credits. The list continues with other organizations and, as research shows, it can even lead to increased productivity.

While the benefits on paper can be a selling point, it’s the interactions created by many of these programs that truly give such programs value. Wellness programs cause engagement between employees – which benefits culture. An intramural volleyball league, fun run or ride-sharing program all add to the cultural connectivity that is part of developing a complete wellness program (which leads to an engaged workforce).

5. Volunteering and giving back

Here’s a new term you can add to your business lexicon: prosocial behavior. (Drop that one at your next work happy-hour and rest assured that you’ll appear well-versed in the jargon d’jour.)

It’s a new phrase, but it encapsulates an old idea: doing something for the benefit of someone else – such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating and volunteering. Prosocial behavior positively affects the people participating in it and, in turn, the whole workplace. While it’s not normally touted as a pillar of employee engagement, a 2011 Deloitte Volunteer Impact Survey revealed that millennials who participate in workplace volunteer activities are nearly twice as likely to be very satisfied with their employer and career path.

It’s a clear piece of the engagement puzzle and the benefits of such a program (discussed at length in this Huffington Post article) are:

• Increased productivity when employees work toward a common goals.


• Pride and engagement when being part of something bigger than themselves.


• Gratitude toward your employer for allowing you to be part of a company culture that provides an answer to their prosocial wanting.


• Ethics. Doing the right thing often results in a behavior change of being more ethical and making the right choices within the workplace.

When developing volunteering and giving programs, make sure to keep your purpose and mission (discussed above) at the forefront of your efforts. Programs and events should have an obvious tie-in with your sustainability strategy and other parts of the company. Company goals, employee interests and commitment to the community should all relate back to a strategic, purpose-driven framework.

6. Giving employees some responsibility

For the most part, employees understand their job, tasks, roles and functions better than anyone else in an organization. However, it’s relatively rare that an employee is allowed to make decisions without being second-guessed or forced to jump through hoops. Empowering employees (as discussed at length in this article in the Harvard Business Review) means giving them the tools and information needed to make quality decisions and then (barring a potential catastrophe) getting out of the way.

This can be hard for management to put into practice, but it’s an essential part of building a culture of engaged employees. So, set your micro-managing tendencies aside and empower your people.

7. Having any fun?

While it’s not written in the Harvard Business Review or a McKinsey report (at least not anywhere I’ve found), I believe that “fun” is a pretty good indicator of the health of a company’s culture. When we are having fun at work, our work tends to sparkle. When work feels like a grind, everything feels like it’s off. I realize that this observation could easily spiral into a chicken-or-egg debate: Does a healthy business create a fun atmosphere, or does fun lead to a healthy business? But such a debate isn’t really the point; the two are intrinsically related and should be closely monitored.

A “fun” atmosphere can be defined in a multitude of ways, but ultimately a company’s culture will define what fun should look like. For thinkPARALLAX, it means doing yoga as a group once a week at lunch and surfing when the waves are good. For the fitness clothing company down the street, it means going on a daily run during lunch. In any case, the seriousness of the work is offset by camaraderie and banter. And this allows for more interaction and a vibrant, engaged culture.

And in the end

In a contemporary business context, organizations can no longer afford to regard corporate responsibility as an afterthought. The days of “checking your values at the company door” (to quote Kevin Wilhelm’s “Making Sustainability Stick”) are behind us. In order to recruit and retain top employees, CSR must be built into your company’s culture. Whether you are a business of seven or 70,000, the benefits of an engaged, purpose-driven workforce speak for themselves. Create a culture that fits with who you are and what you value most – and watch the benefits start to blossom.

Image credit: Pixabay

Jonathan Hanwit is a partner and CEO at thinkPARALLAX, a creative communications agency working at the intersection of business strategy, corporate responsibility, and communication

When images of California come to mind, icons often include the Golden Gate Bridge, Hollywood, Yosemite, and the red, white and yellow In-N-Out sign.

Dating back to 1948 with its first burger stand in Baldwin Park, its small menu of made-to-order burgers and fries has long fostered a cult following. Los Angeles traffic, the hideous drive along I-5, or a nightmarish politically-correct vegan meal in Berkeley can be forgotten thanks to a few moments of decadence at one of its stark white restaurants. Once inside, customers can order from its long-adored secret menu, going crazy as they request a Flying Dutchman-Animal Style-3x3 or 4x4 burger, protein style or mustard grilled, or all of the above.

But not everyone has been enamored with In-N-Out, because unless you order a “wish burger” (as in, wish there were meat, or just veggies between the bun), the company has long sourced its beef from suppliers that regularly use antibiotics. Many environmental advocacy groups, including Friends of the Earth, urged the $575 million chain with 300-plus locations to commit to a transition away from beef that had been injected with antibiotics.

Such a letter to that effect, signed by more than 50 groups, was delivered last week to In-N-Out’s headquarters in Irvine, California. The company, privately owned and one to disclose little information publicly, had long resisted such requests, but it suddenly changed its policy this week. In a recent announcement that was picked up by many trade publications, the company replied to a Reuters reporter’s question about this matter by saying it would cease sourcing beef “that is not raised with antibiotics important to human medicine.”

So far, some groups that are part of this coalition have reacted optimistically. "In-N-Out is known for its high-quality, fresh ingredients,” said Jason Pfeifle, a public health advocate with the CALPIRG Education Fund, one of the consumer advocacy groups that urged the company to change its beef-sourcing practices. “It's good to see the company living up to that reputation with its recent antibiotics commitment. With a clear timeline, this commitment can help move the beef industry to do the right thing for public health."

In-N-Out’s shift will increase pressure on its competitors in the fast food industry, many of which received failing grades from a study last fall that evaluated the use of antibiotics within many of these companies’ supply chains.

Only Chipotle and Panera Bread were given an "A" by this coalition that included Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Food Safety. McDonald’s claims that it enacted a policy related to the use of antibiotics in food since 2003 and has pledged to not use chicken raised with antibiotics. Wendy’s claims that the “appropriate use of antibiotics” has long been a policy, while Burger King does not publicly broach the subject at all — hence both companies were dinged with failing grades. In the wake of that report, “F”-earning Subway has promised to eliminate any meat treated with antibiotics from its restaurants.

How far In-N-Out will take this more sustainable beef policy presents a huge question mark. "We are currently asking In-N-out Burger to provide a sustainable, humanely raised, grass-fed alternative on the menu as the best way forward for moving quickly to implement this policy,” said Kari Hamerschlag, Friends of the Earth’s food and technology program senior manager. “If In-N-Out follows through on its commitment, this is a big win for public health that will force significant change in in its supply chain on the West Coast, particularly among mega feedlot suppliers like Harris Ranch that will need to focus on improving conditions in order to prevent the animals from getting sick in the absence of routine antibiotics."

For In-N-Out to embrace that quality of beef for its hamburgers would mean higher prices, risking its popularity with clientele. Chipotle, for example, sources grass-fed beef, but some of it comes from Australia, which has earned it more than a few barbs from the blogosphere. Nevertheless, Americans’ eating habits, and demands, are changing. With its devoted following, In-N-Out has an opportunity to upend the fast food industry’s way of doing business, and it could even earn more fans, or should we say, fanatics, in the long term.

Image credit: Flickr (Divya Thakur)