Search

The Intertubes are positively buzzing with news that the notorious Koch brothers have hatched up a new $10 million scheme to kill off electric vehicles. Apparently the instrument of death will be the addition of yet another new lobbying organization to the brothers' already extensive network. The new group will be tasked with rallying the public around the benefits of petroleum, rather than directly supporting particular legislators.

That's going to be an uphill battle in parts of the country where petroleum has proved to be an outdated, unsustainable and dangerous partner -- for example along the Gulf Coast, particularly in coastal Louisiana. So, let's take a look and see what they're up to.

Koch proposes...

The latest Koch brothers news comes to us from Peter Stone via the Huffington Post, under the somewhat incendiary headline, The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles.

So far, the Koch brothers have not come forth to confirm or deny the so-called plot, but here is the scoop from Stone:

"A new group that's being cobbled together with fossil fuel backing hopes to spend about $10 million per year to boost petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies for electric vehicles, according to refining industry sources familiar with the plan. A Koch Industries board member and a veteran Washington energy lobbyist are working quietly to fund and launch the new advocacy outfit."

According to Stone, Koch-watchers are conjecturing that the group could launch this summer.

However, even if the plot does come to fruition, the only big beneficiaries will likely be the folks on the new group's payroll. Based on the Koch record against clean tech, throwing dollars up against your enemies can slow them, but not stop them.

So far, the Koch brothers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to support fossil-friendly legislators and other policymakers, but they have failed to stop the U.S. solar and wind industries from taking off like rockets.

The Koch brothers also have to face the possibility that their least favorite Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, could nail down the nomination. Bad feelings are mutual on both sides, and Trump has been running circles around the Koch brothers. So, no matter who occupies the White House next January, the brothers probably won't find a sympathetic ear for their fossil-centric agenda.

... Musk disposes...

To make matters worse, the new Koch brothers endeavor is off to a rocky start right out of the gate. Earlier this week EV superstar Elon Musk, head of Tesla Motors, predictably responded to the Koch brothers rumor with his usual panache by sending a one word tweet -- "Sigh..." -- accompanied by a cartoon portrait of the Koch brothers and a link to the Stone article.

Great work, guys: In the wink of an eye, all of Musk's 3.47 million Twitter followers know how silly you are. Musk's 3.47 million fans are also learning more about longstanding subsidies for gasmobiles, as he followed up his initial tweet with a mini-barrage of links to articles about supportive petroleum policies.

That's probably just for starters, so we'll keep an eye on that Twitter account over the coming weeks.

Aside from Musk, the Koch brothers are up against virtually every global auto manufacturer. The auto industry is rapidly transitioning to hybrid and EV technology, as exemplified by Ford and General Motors. Ford in particular has become adept at leveraging EV technology for vehicle-to-grid and microgrid technology, expanding its market to areas that are beyond the capability of gasmobiles. GM is venturing into the fuel cell EV field, which could also support new markets.

Ford is also a good example of the auto industry's transition to a more sustainable, responsible supply chain model. The move has enabled Ford to forge close relationships with Coca-Cola, Lego and other sustainability leaders.

As a group, these companies are moving along a track that certainly does not support the Koch brothers' goal of growing their family business, as recently demonstrated by Ford's recent decision to end its membership in the Koch-funded group ALEC.

... and EV drivers keep drivin'

The Koch brothers are also up against the simple fact that more people are getting behind the wheel of an EV, and more people like what they see.

Don't just take our word for it -- last year Ford commissioned the EV research firm Pluginsights to dig into the EV driving experience. The survey found that 92 percent of all-battery EV owners and 94 percent of plug-in hybrid EV owners will make an EV their next car.

Actually, you can take our word for it. TriplePundit writer Bill Roth has been loving his one-week test drive of GM's popular Chevy Volt gas-electric hybrid. Here's his report as of Day 3:

"I have yet to use a single gallon of gasoline. That is zero gasoline consumption while driving in San Diego’s urban stop-and-go traffic. That is zero gasoline consumption while having fun blasting up highway on-ramps. That is three days of driving the way I enjoy driving while generating zero tailpipe emissions."

It's hard to argue with that. On the other hand, the Koch brothers are known for going to ridiculous lengths in order to protect their image -- their "healthy formaldehyde" campaign comes to mind -- so anything is possible.

Image (screenshot): via chevrolet.com.

The Syrian refugee crisis is a daunting one. An estimated 13.5 million people in Syria are in need of humanitarian assistance. The number of Syrian refugees now stands at around 4.6 million, and 6.6 million more are displaced within Syria, half of whom are children. Those children are at risk of illness, malnourishment, abuse or exploitation. Millions of them have had to stop going to school.

Why are Syrians fleeing their country? Since the Syrian civil war started, 320,000 people have been killed, including almost 12,000 children, and about 1.5 million people have been wounded or permanently disabled. The infrastructure within Syria is collapsed, including healthcare and education. Safe drinking water is getting harder to come by as the average availability has decreased by half. In other words, the situation in Syria is an utter living hell.

One company wants to do something to help. Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics joined with the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a nonprofit organization that responds to humanitarian crises around the world, to send a clear message that Syrian refugees fleeing a war-torn country are welcome in the U.S. “This is the largest humanitarian crisis of our time,” Lush proclaims on its website.

The campaign runs from Feb. 15 to Feb. 28, with the goal of raising $350,000 from the sale of the company’s Hand of Friendship soap. All proceeds from the soap throughout the duration of the campaign will go into the Friendship Fund created by Lush, and the funds will be distributed to groups in North America that help settle Syrian refugees.

Lush decided to start the campaign because “we are, and always have been, a campaigning company,” Carleen Pickard, ethical campaigns specialist for Lush Cosmetics, told TriplePundit. Lush has a long history of campaigns, including fighting animal testing, banning dog-sled races and tours in British Columbia, Canada, and banning plastic bags.

“The current situation in Syria, and the journey for those forced to leave their homes seeking safety from the violence, is heartbreaking,” Pickard said. Lush wanted to “ensure, in a way that we could, that refugees arriving in North America are welcomed with love and friendship.” In addition, the company wanted to use its over 230 shops in North America “to inform our customers and give them a meaningful and impactful way to take action to show their support.”

Lush is doing several things as part of the campaign to get the message across that Syrian refugees are welcome in the U.S. One of those things is decorating its store-front windows with welcome signs in Arabic. Another is engaging customers to extend a welcome by signing welcome postcards to refugees who have just arrived and using the hashtag #refugeeswelcome on social media. The response has been “overwhelmingly positive” so far, Pickard said.

Lush’s campaign couldn’t come at a better time. Back in September, President Barack Obama told his administration to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees. After his announcement, some lawmakers were less than thrilled. “Our enemy now is Islamic terrorism, and these people are coming from a country filled with Islamic terrorists,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “We don’t want another Boston Marathon bombing situation.”

Then, in November, terrorists with ties to the Islamic State attacked Paris, and the voices against welcoming Syrian refugees into the U.S. grew louder. Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said: “Anyone with an ounce of common sense would say, 'No, we shouldn't be bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.'”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), another Republican presidential candidate who has since dropped out of the race, even introduced legislation to stop the U.S. from issuing visas to refugees from countries with high terrorist activities. Clearly, some Americans have hung out a “not welcome” sign for Syrian refugees. But not all. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote a letter with 14 other Democrats asking President Obama to take in an additional 65,000 refugees. Durbin praised Obama’s pledge to take in 10,000 refugees as “a step in the right direction.”

Pickard contrasted the attitudes in Canada concerning Syrian refugees with those in the U.S. “In Canada there has been an outpouring of public support for the arriving refugees since Prime Minister Trudeau announced that Canada would increase the number of refugee arrivals to 25, 000 by the end of this month,” she told 3p. “In the United States the context is a little different. The political conversation is more diverse with opinions split. And President Obama has faced opposition to his pledge to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States this year.”

But Lush thinks education about the situation in Syria will help Americans understand. As Pickard said, “We believe that once people see and understand the violence and fear Syrian refugees have experienced, they will take action to lighten the suffering of the Syrian people.” 

Image credit: Flickr/Freedom House

The battle between free data access and personal security, which has been raging quietly in the background for years, grabbed headlines this week, around the iPhone belonging to San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook.

Investigators have the phone, but they have not been able to access internal data. Each iPhone contains sophisticated encryption technology specifically for privacy protection. The FBI, claiming that it has not been able to access data on the phone due to this encryption, asked for Apple’s help unlocking the phone. Information on the phone could help investigators learn more about the shooters and their contacts, the FBI says.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has held firm in his insistence that maintaining the privacy of Apple’s customers must be his top priority. He therefore refused to help the government. In a statement sent to customers, Apple said: “The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.”

The company goes on to say that it will do everything it can to help with the investigation, short of building a “backdoor” into the phone.

“When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal," Apple said in its statement.

"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.”

Doing so, argues the company, would ultimately do more harm than good, exposing millions of iPhone users to the prying eyes of hackers and thieves. It would also, says the statement, set a “dangerous precedent.”

This is, to be sure, a gnarly subject, and while some feel that Apple should cooperate more fully -- especially given the possibility that the shooters could have been part of a larger network -- others feel that privacy should be paramount.

According to a recent survey by Pew Research, 47 percent of iPhone owners say that Apple should unlock the phone, while 43 percent feel it shouldn’t. It’s a small majority, which gets larger when you move away from iPhone users.

Could there be a third option to break this apparent deadlock?

Enter John McAfee, swaggering in like the Han Solo of the cyber world: the renegade, the outlaw, who can get the job done even if it means bending a few of the rules. McAfee steps boldly up to the plate in an editorial on Business Insider, to make the following claim:

“With all due respect to Tim Cook and Apple, I work with a team of the best hackers on the planet. These hackers attend Defcon in Las Vegas, and they are legends in their local hacking groups, such as HackMiami. They are all prodigies, with talents that defy normal human comprehension. About 75 percent are social engineers. The remainder are hardcore coders. I would eat my shoe on the Neil Cavuto show if we could not break the encryption on the San Bernardino phone. This is a pure and simple fact.”

Who is this team of elite crackerjacks, and why are they not already on the job? To hear McAfee describe them, they are about as out-of-the-mainstream as anything you’re likely to find this side of Mos Eisley cantina.

“And why do the best hackers on the planet not work for the FBI? Because the FBI will not hire anyone with a 24-inch purple mohawk, 10-gauge ear piercings, and a tattooed face who demands to smoke weed while working and won't work for less than a half-million dollars a year. But you bet your ass that the Chinese and Russians are hiring similar people with similar demands and have been for many years. It's why we are decades behind in the cyber race.”

No word yet on whether this crack team has been given a shot at this, but it sounds to me like it might just be the best option the FBI has if it wants to gain access to the encrypted data.

Image credit: Flickr/George Panos

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is almost 100 years old and has long been a leader when it comes to the organization and distribution of scientific research related to geophysics.

And like any trade or advocacy organization, the AGU has a huge conference that brings out the best and the brightest for events centered around the latest trends in the field. Last year’s AGU Fall Meeting, in fact, boasted over 24,000 attendees, and there is no reason to think that this December’s gathering in San Francisco will not be an even larger event.

One of this event’s -- and the AGU’s — sponsors over the years has been ExxonMobil. For an organization that holds several core values, including “the generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge,” as well as “unselfish cooperation in research,” the AGU’s acceptance of checks from ExxonMobil would surely rankle some of the union's membership. Many AGU members and their research have been savaged by the oil giant’s allies in business and government.

America’s largest energy company, ExxonMobil leads the way when it comes to climate change denial, and has been quick to nix any such discussion amongst its shareholders. So, it is easy to understand why more than a few eyebrows would be raised over the relationship between these two organizations.

To that end, over 100 geoscientists sent a letter to the AGU’s president, Margaret Leinen, and asked that she and the governing board end ExxonMobil’s sponsorship of the organization -- and more just have signed on.

The letter outlines a long list of grievances: the company’s continued support of the lobbying group ALEC; the public criticism ExxonMobil’s CEO, Rex Tillerson, has lobbed against the validity of climate change models; and the energy giant’s impact on the debate over climate change policy within the U.S. Congress.

In response, the AGU promised to “carefully review the information” and consult with the organization’s stakeholders before its next board meeting. To its credit, the AGU welcomes comments as well as emails over the controversy. So far (and in fairness, this is a small sample size), the sentiment is tilted toward severing the relationship between the two organizations.

This is not the first time the AGU has had its relationship with ExxonMobil questioned: Last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists, long a vocal critic of ExxonMobil, submitted a letter that questioned the association and asked AGU to reconsider its acceptance of sponsorship money. At the time the AGU’s board claimed that, after conducting some research, it decided that ExxonMobil’s public statements and activities “were not inconsistent” with the organization’s positions and scientific consensus, and the union has continued to receive sponsorship money from the company.

Indeed, when perusing through AGU’s site, one would hardly assume that it has been adversely influenced by ExxonMobil’s public stance on climate change. Recent posts include how Dubai’s boom has affected the local climate, the slow disappearance of a glacier in Wyoming and copious other articles related to climate change. The AGU is far from a mouthpiece for the $269 billion oil and gas company.

Nevertheless, as the scientists’ letter outlines, the AGU’s policy states that “AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.” Considering the massive ExxonMobil sign that greets attendees at the organization’s annual conference, that visual -- at the very least -- comes across as awkward.

Don’t expect this spat to die anytime soon. ExxonMobil and its allies are out in full force, alleging that some signatories of this letter have benefited from the company’s cash in the past as they conducted their own research. But of course, people can change their views and companies can change their policies. ExxonMobil may be winning this public-relations battle now, but market realities are showing that it's losing the long-term war. Despite the fracking boom here at home and the low prices of oil worldwide, renewables are booming in the U.S. while more corporations are investing in clean energy.

Image credit: SERC Media

Stockholm may not be the city that comes to mind when you think of going fossil fuel-free by 2050. But that is the Swedish capital’s goal. “The city is well on the way to achieving its goal,” proclaims Stockholm’s action plan called Vision 2030. 

Formed in 2007, the Vision 2030 plan outlines the city’s goals, one of which is to be the green capital of the world by 2030. Meanwhile, Stockholm’s population keeps growing. In 2008, the population of the city hit 808,600 residents, and it's expected to be 1 million by 2030.

That means that, with a population forecasted to be over 200,000 more than today, Stockholm still expects to be the world’s green capital. Or as Vision 2030 declares, “The region’s population increase has had little or no effect on the local environment, making Stockholm an international role model.”

Clean transportation and energy must expand

What is Stockholm doing to achieve its environmental goals? The simple answer is plenty. Transportation is a key element of the city’s plans. Many Stockholm residents drive what Vision 2030 describes as “clean vehicles,” which includes hybrid and electric cars.

The city’s increasing embrace of clean vehicles coincides with Sweden’s goal of having a fossil fuel-free vehicle fleet by 2030. In 2014, 12 percent of Sweden’s vehicle fleet was fossil-free. Alternative fuels will likely play a part in Sweden reaching that goal as the country is pumping money into research and development, including $1.5 million in ethanol.

The city has already reduced emissions with “smart traffic solutions and information technology,” Vision 2030 states. One of those solutions is a congestion tax. Driving into Stockholm’s center during rush hours means paying about $4, Public Radio International reports. Residents who drive past a control point are automatically registered and a bill is sent to the vehicle’s owner. Introduced in 2007, the congestion tax reduced traffic by 20 percent from 2005 levels even though the city’s population is increasing.

Many residents of Stockholm use public transportation. But the capacity will need to be increased if the city is to cope with the 350,000 new journeys the predicted population increase will create, according to the Roadmap for a Fossil Fuel Free Stockholm 2050. And public transportation will have to be clean. Already, trains in Stockholm are running on electricity that is produced mostly from fossil fuel-free sources (hydro-power, nuclear and wind).

Energy needs will have to be met from fossil-fuel free sources, and that means phasing out fossil fuels. Coal from a plant near Stockholm is one source that is used for heating and electricity. The energy company, Fortum Värme, is “striving to gradually replace the coal with biofuels,” the Roadmap for a Fossil Fuel Free Stockholm states. The Roadmap estimates that the coal plant will be decommissioned by 2050.

Although oil for heating is used only in a limited capacity, it will also need to be phased out. About 600 multi-occupancy dwellings and few thousand single-occupancy dwellings now get their heat from oil-fired boilers, according to the Roadmap's estimates. Over the past 20 years a good portion of the heating oil has been phased out, and it is estimated that it will “probably be phased out by 2050.” Gas is another fossil fuel that is used in a limited capacity as energy in boilers. Biogas can be used to replace gas, which necessitates a big expansion of biogas production. 

Stockholm, and Sweden in general, serve as models for the world. Sweden, the first country to pass an environmental protection act, reached its 2020 goal of 50 percent renewable energy use in 2012. As Stockholm and Sweden meet their environmental goals, they set an example for other cities and countries to follow.

Image credit: Flickr/Thomas Fabian

Volkswagen is still struggling to move past the emissions-software scandal that has plagued its reputation for the better part of a year. Ever since the news officially broke that an array of its diesel passenger cars were outfitted with deceptive software, VW's reputation has been pretty much at bottom ratings.

It's not like the company hasn't tried to regain public trust: To disgruntled consumers who bought one of the affected cars, it's offered a combo of Visa cards and credit at dealerships. To dealers stuck with stock frozen by the publicity, the company offered to buy back used vehicles at full price.  And in response to hundreds of class-action suits coming up on the horizon, the company recently suggested that it may be willing to buy back those vehicles that can't be fixed. Fixing, VW lawyer Robert Giuffra explained in court in January, requires coming up with new software, and that may still be a long way off -- too long for some earlier vehicles caught in the debacle.

"The question ... is one of timing," Guiffra stated in the court hearing.

The idea of buying back cars wasn't new. It was initially proposed to the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resource Board in early January, but was turned down by CARB. It wasn't embraced by the EPA, either, which said that the litigation and hefty federal and state fines that were levied against the company was all part of "bringing VW to justice." What that process would entail, however, the EPA didn't say.

But according to a recent story from Reuters (which quoted the German publication, Welt am Sonntag), the EPA may be finally closing in on a deal. And no, it doesn't appear to include more fines. If anything, it's evidence that the EPA may have its ear close to industry sources and is willing to strike a deal that could conceivably benefit both the U.S. auto industry and the administration's ongoing effort to control carbon emissions on the road.

The idea (which neither the EPA or VW is willing to confirm yet), is that Volkswagen would ramp up its production of electric vehicles and make its Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant a possible hub for EV production. The company would also help create a suitable network of charging stations across the country -- a win-win addition for a company that has the resources to build EV vehicles.

Pressed for information, a VW spokesperson would only say, "Talks with the EPA are ongoing and we are not commenting on the contents and state of the negotiations."

The concept, sketchy as it is at this point, has some interesting similarities to a suggestion that Elon Musk made last year when environmental agencies were initially negotiating with VW. Musk and his associates -- a lengthy list of tech and environmental experts -- suggested a multi-step process that could entice/require VW to apply its considerable talents toward coming up with a truly emissions-free vehicle -- one that changes the automotive map. And, in recognition of the fact that a significant share of the emissions-cheating vehicles were purchased in California, (where VW has wracked up state violations), that the company be required to build factories to enhance California's auto industry.

While it's encouraging to think that the EPA may actually consider proposals that don't just amount to more fines, will handing VW an incentive to ramp up its EV stock really solve problems?

Studies have shown that while electric vehicles are a far sight better for carbon emissions, they aren't the end-all when it comes to resolving our environmental problems. And having a "grid" of electric charging stations (something the U.S. needs) would help, but their green legacy goes only so far as the local electric network's source.

"Grid-powered electric cars have carbon emissions four times greater in countries with coal-dominated power generation than in those with low-carbon power supplies," says the environmental research group Shrink that Footprint in its report, Shades of Green: Electric Car Emissions Around the Globe.

While many U.S. cities are converting to greener power generation, the overall environmental efficiency of EVs depend not on the vehicle but on how that power is generated in each state. These days, Tennessee ships its coal to other states rather than using it to provide most of its own electricity. But when it comes to "zero emissions," Tennessee's coal production, and sale to other states, can't help but undercut those accomplishments of EVs.

Which brings us to VW, a company that has for years touted the concept of breaking the mold in its business approaches. Say what you may about the company's diesel scandal, VW's yearning to move outside of the norm and to be recognized for that is part of what brought about the first LEED-certified automotive plant in the U.S., innovations in water conservation in the Chattanooga plant and, most importantly, its ability to help rewrite Tennessee's education certification processes for auto industry professionals.

Offering VW the option to invest more heavily in the EV industry and network seems to be missing the point when it comes to innovation and falling short in our aspirations to move the environmental mark for today's automotive industry.

Image: FaceMePLS/Flickr

When Pedal Forward was founded in 2012, “the original idea was to build a bicycle,” said co-founder Matt Wilkins. Being an engineer, naturally his main interest was to build something.

But then, noticing the burgeoning “one-for-one” business model of companies like Toms shoes -- whereby the company donates a pair of shoes in a developing country for every pair sold at home -- Pedal Forward quickly became inspired to provide a similar social value as well.

Today, with the recent completion of a successful Kickstarter campaign, Pedal Forward is ready to start production of its U.S.-built bamboo bicycle. And while the company realized the one-for-one model was not the way to go for its business, far from abandoning its social value proposition, its founders instead devised a model that will help disadvantaged communities both here at home as well as abroad.

Wilkins explained to me that Pedal Forward has both a short-term and long-term vision. Firstly, choosing bamboo as a material was not a gimmick, but a carefully considered choice based on the fact that the plant can be grown pretty much anywhere in the world, while having ideal properties, such as strength and weight, making it an ideal frame-building material. Furthermore, the choice of material was made with an eye on future expansion of manufacturing into developing countries.

Initially, though, the bikes will be built in the U.S., and Pedal Forward has partnered with Back On My Feet in New York -- an organization that helps homeless people reboot their lives. The company will employ labor obtained via this organization to build its bicycles, thereby helping homeless people start to earn an income and improve their lives here in the U.S. At the outset, all bikes will be sold in the domestic U.S. market.

Though initially the Pedal Forward team thought they also wanted to donate a bike overseas for every bike sold in America, they soon realized there were too many hurdles with this one-for-one model. Firstly, shipping bikes would be too expensive, which would result in a significant monetary loss, and secondly, even if that were feasible, they realized there would be unintended consequences: shipping bikes would disrupt the local markets in those developing countries and potentially hurt the livelihoods of existing independent bike dealers; not what they were looking for!

So, instead, for every bicycle sold, Pedal Forward will retain 10 percent of each sale in the U.S., and by working with organizations in Tanzania and Uganda, will use that withholding to help fund bicycles for individuals who have no access to transportation.

Pedal Forward is working with existing organizations in these countries: the Tumaini Fund, and Bicycles Against Poverty, both of which have established bike distribution models but have to contend with the ongoing hurdle of funding. Wilkins told me that, via these organizations, aid will go to high-performing students in Tanzania, while in Uganda, the funding will help provide transportation to local entrepreneurial farmers.

In the long term, Pedal Forward hopes to grow and expand into other developing countries and hopefully, at some point, reach the stage where its bamboo bikes can be literally “locally grown” in the markets in which they serve, and be sold through those independent bike dealers the team didn’t want to disrupt. The company envisions in the future that it will still retain a percentage of sales to help subsidize locally-built bikes to make them price-competitive with mass-produced and cheap bikes from China and India.

Reaching the future goal is some way off from now though. In the short term, Pedal Forward, which is a registered benefit corporation, will fulfill its initial orders from the Kickstarter campaign by June of this year. By the end of the year, the team hopes to be produce 100 bikes per month.

Image used courtesy of Pedal Forward

The European Commission has announced the 2016 edition of the European Social Innovation Competition. This year’s theme is ‘integrated futures,‘ and the EC is requesting ‘creative approaches that realize the potential of refugees and migrants, enabling them to contribute to the social, economic, cultural and political life of their host countries.’

Building on the significant grassroots response to the recent arrival of over a million refugees and migrants to Europe, the 2016 Competition aims to tap into the creativity of Europeans to come up with new ideas to foster integration through a bottom-up, citizen-led approach.

The Competition hopes to receive innovations in products, technologies, services and models that support the integration of refugees and migrants.

The Competition is open to individuals, groups and organisations across the European Union and in countries participating in the European Horizon 2020 programme. Applications that are led by or have been co-created with refugees and migrants are particularly encouraged.

The Competition will help the most innovative ideas to turn into real projects and achieve sustainable impact. Thirty of the most promising applications will be chosen as semi-finalists and will be invited to a social innovation mentoring academy in Berlin in July to progress their ideas.

The three best projects will each be awarded with a prize of €50,000 at the awards ceremony to take place in Brussels in October 2016.

Applications are open until Friday 8 April 2016.

The competition is organised by the European Commission, supported by Nesta, Kennisland,Shipyard, Impact Hub and Matter&Co.

For full details please visit: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/social-innovation-competition

For questions about applications please contact: info@socialinnovationprize.eu.

Follow on Twitter: @EUSocialInnov #diogochallenge

 

 

When the Chevrolet Volt is running on electricity, it is a world-class car. When the batteries are exhausted and the car shifts to its gasoline engine, there is a sense of disappointment. Not that the Volt is a disappointing car while running on gasoline. But rather, the Volt is so smooth, quiet and quick in electric mode that as a driver you feel like you are taking a step back when it is running on its gasoline engine.

This last article in this four-part series on my experiences test-driving the Volt looks toward the future of electric cars. History may look back at the Volt like we do 20th-century Apple products. Those Apple products were cool at the time, but when the iPhone arrived it made everything from computers to tablets appear constrained by a lack of mobility. That may be the next step for the Volt with the anticipated launch of Chevy’s all-electric Bolt with a 200-mile range priced at less than $30,000 after tax incentives.

Driving to Palm Desert in the Volt

Palm Desert/Palm Springs in the winter may be one of the world’s most beautiful locations. I drove the approximately 90 miles over the mountains from San Diego to Palm Desert to test the Volt on a round-trip of over 200 miles.

Palm Desert is a valley filled with stunning palm trees, vibrant flowers and abundant succulent landscapes. Palm Springs adjoins Palms Desert. A tourist would have a hard time figuring out where one town begins and the other ends.

Here is a two-minute video of my experience driving the Volt into Palm Desert:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TXgzg6AaGfk

A major Palm Springs tourist attraction is its colony of mid-century modern homes. A fun activity is to buy a map of the town’s most famous mid-century modern homes, including Frank Sinatra's, at the Palm Springs Tourist Center and then do a self-driving tour. Do it on a Saturday and you can visit open houses of mid-century modern homes for sale.

Palm Springs trip reveals Volt’s split personalities

None of Palm Springs/Palm Desert’s beauty should be there. This is a desert made to bloom through irrigation from water pumped out of a massive aquifer created by mountain snow runoff. This area’s ability to sustain its water needs is at risk from climate change that is threatening California with a prolonged drought. This sense of fragility has made Palm Springs a pioneer in adopting rooftop solar energy and using property taxes to finance solar.

Now the city is exploring water-saving innovations to address a daily water use per person of 221 gallons that is three times the statewide average of 77 gallons per person.

This same duality is evident in the Volt. The Volt running off electricity is a fun, smooth and quiet driving experience. That ended as I entered the high desert on the way to Palm Desert. The batteries were exhausted, and the gasoline motor took over. The driving experience was less smooth, less quiet and less quick.

Fuel efficiency also dramatically changed. Driving just in urban San Diego for less than 56 miles resulted in the Volt achieving 250+ MPG. By the time I arrived in Palm Desert after a 90-mile trip, the Volt registered 70 MPG. By the time I arrived back in San Diego, the MPG for the round-trip was 50 MPG.

50 MPG achieved by the Volt in over 200 miles of driving is more than TWICE the MPG of the average new car sold in America. So, this is not a bad result. And driving the Volt in gasoline mode is still a pleasant experience. It is just not as pleasing, exciting, cool or fuel-efficient as electric.

Will the Bolt be our car technology future?

My experience driving the Volt on electricity has generated a strong lust for the future launch of the all-electric Bolt. The Bolt promises 200+ miles of all-electric range compared to the Volt’s 56. That is over 3.5 times more electric miles in a car that is anticipated to be as smooth, quiet and quick as the Volt in electric mode.

Please GM, sign me up for a test drive of the Bolt as soon as it is launched! I can’t wait to drive the next big step in car technology. Wouldn't it be cool if the Bolt was as pioneering as the iPhone in 2007 by fulfilling the electric car’s promise of lower costs, zero tailpipe emissions and acceleration at the speed of electrons?

Image credit: Bill Roth

It's been a nerve-wracking week for residents of Southern California's exclusive Porter Ranch community. On Monday, after state officials confirmed that the methane gas leak that forced some 10,000 residents to move out of their homes was now fixed, homeowners began the difficult process of moving back to Porter Ranch. Many, however, have expressed deep concern that the natural gas wells just outside their community haven't been maintained and are unsafe.

"I am very terrified to go home,” one homeowner told a California state assembly committee on Monday.

Hearing that concern, this week the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee took the first of several steps to ensure that the 115 wells at the Aliso Canyon natural gas facility would not be reopened until the state was satisfied that they were safe. In a 13-0 vote, the panel moved to extend a moratorium on the operation of the Aliso Canyon facility.

In January, state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) proposed a bill to close the wells until "a rigorous safety review of all wells" could be conducted. SB 380 received wide support from residents, some of whom were calling for the facility to be closed altogether.

On Monday, Pavley agreed to amend the conditions of the closure so that those wells that pass review can be reopened.

At the heart of the issue Monday was the question of what impact the potential closure of Southern California Gas' 3,600-acre facility might have on the state's power grid. SoCal Gas has operated the facility since the 1970s. It considers the wells to be an important part of its power supply for California electricity plants and says that if the facility were to be shut down, supply would have to be shipped in to California. In a Jan. 20 San Diego Tribune opinion piece, SoCal Gas' senior vice president of gas operations and systems integrity, Jimmie I. Cho, said the Aliso Canyon is the "backbone" of the company's regional supply network. Cho is also a senior vice president of San Diego Gas and Electric.

"SoCal Gas has operated the Aliso Canyon facility safely and reliably since the facility was opened in 1972," Cho said.

Well, sort of.

An LA Weekly article on the leak in December notes that the reason the company had such a difficult time stopping the leak was because, according to two former SoCal Gas employees, the safety valve had been removed from the well in 1979 because it had not been working properly. And the leaking valve hadn't been replaced, SoCal Gas' vice president of customer solutions, Rodger Schwecke, told LA Weekly, because regulations exempted it from having to be replaced.

"If SS-25 were a 'critical' well — that is, one within 100 feet of a road or a park, or within 300 feet of a home — then a safety valve would be required. But it was not a critical well, so it was not required," the Weekly explained.

Which is what led to the State Assembly's consideration of an urgent moratorium and "rigorous safety review" of Aliso Canyon's 115 wells, and why natural gas storage is now a front-and-center debate in more states than just California.

Meanwhile, the fall out from what has been termed by environmental groups as "the worst environmental disaster since the BP Oil Spill" is far from over. Lawyers have been lining up to represent residents, businesses and others affected by the spill; homeowners are eyeing the prospect of returning to a series of gated communities that lie at the southern edge of Aliso Canyon, and guestimates are still being averaged as to the long-term impact of a methane leak that hasn't been quantified.

"What if the chemicals which spewed unabated into the atmosphere for so long have settled into porous materials like carpet and upholstery? What about the exteriors of houses and vehicles that are now speckled with oil and tar? What about pets that were outside during this period? What will be the impact on lawns and other plant life?," asks environmental attorney Bradford Gilde. Gilde is best known for a landmark suit against a hydraulic fracturing drilling company in Texas. "How do you accurately assess and clean up all these types of damage? And what happens if a good rain causes these chemicals to seep into the area’s groundwater and, eventually, the municipal water supply?"

As to quantifying the amount of methane that actually dispersed into the air during the four-month-long leak, SoCal Gas isn't sure it can tell. The company is apparently fighting regulations that would require it to report how much methane has leaked into the atmosphere. The company told the Public Utilities Commission in a filing last week that it did not agree with new regulations that would require SoCal and its sister companies to report methane and other gas leaks due to "catastrophic failure."

"In the event of catastrophic pipeline failures, the Joint Utilities are not aware of any established methodology that could be used to determine the release of methane and/or carbon dioxide (in the case of combustion). These types of events require specialized consideration and collaboration with various regulatory agencies to estimate the volume of emissions for potential inclusion in the greenhouse gas inventory for the state," the commission said.

Plus, being required to report the emissions under a separate category for catastrophic events, said the utilities, "on isolated events stands to distract from that intent, and could lead to reporting of emissions that are outside of the scope of SB1371 [California's natural gas leakage abatement legislation]."

To the residents of Porter Ranch, however, extraneous data that gets caught up in determining how much methane may have affected the property values or the safety of their homes is probably of little concern. Ensuring another catastrophic failure does not occur at the 40-year-old Aliso Canyon storage facility will probably be a much bigger issue on the minds of these SoCal Gas consumers.

Image credit: Earthworks