Search

The mayors of 15 South Florida cities have a message for Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush. They want the Republican presidential candidates to see that climate change is happening and it is already affecting their home state.

The 15 mayors sent letters to both Rubio and Bush. In the letter to Rubio, they wrote that as “mayors  representing municipalities across Florida, we call on you to acknowledge the reality and urgency of climate change and to address the upcoming crisis it presents our communities.” They pointed out that their cities and towns are “already coping with the impacts of climate change today.” The cities represented in the letters include Miami, South Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.

And the group got pretty specific. To Rubio, they pointed out that as a U.S. senator from Florida and former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, “You should know the risks ahead and articulate a plan for U.S. leadership on climate.” And they mention that in 2006 he acknowledged that climate change exists and “promoted solutions,” but has now “reversed course.”

The mayors tell Bush in their letter that, as a former Florida governor, “We urge you to face this challenge head on.” They cite his commissioning of a 2006 Department of Environmental Protection white paper on climate change and solutions: “a study which acknowledged the severity of the crisis and the importance of emissions reductions strategies such as carbon taxing and cap-and-trade.”

They also mention that in April of last year Bush called for the U.S. to work with the world to reduce carbon emissions. But a month later, he questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. On the campaign trail, he has “backed away from advancing policy solutions,” the mayors wrote. 

The South Florida mayors ask Rubio and Bush to meet them to “discuss the risks facing Florida communities due to climate change and help us chart a path forward to protect our state and the entire United States.”

What is sad about the continued refusal of these two candidates to not only acknowledge that climate change is human-induced, but also that it needs to be addressed and is already affecting their home state. As Ben Strauss of Climate Central declared in an op/ed in the Miami Herald, “Florida is in the crosshairs of climate change.” Sea levels all over the coastline are rising. About 2.4 million people and 1.3 million homes -- equating to "about half the risk nationwide" -- are "within four feet of the local high-tide line," Strauss wrote. 

In South Florida, “taxpayers are already paying the price for climate change as salt water pushes through porous bedrock into coastal drinking-water supplies, and rivers and canals choked by heavy rains have a harder time draining into the ocean," he continued.

The letters to Rubio and Bush detail the impacts South Florida is experiencing: “Sea levels off the coast of South Florida rose about eight inches in the 20th century. As a result, we have seen more tidal flooding, more severe storm surges, and more saltwater intrusion into aquifers.”

There are more impacts to come. Sea levels around Florida are expected to rise by about a foot by 2050 -- “a shift which could wipe out as much as $4 billion in taxable real estate in the four-county region of Southeast Florida,” the mayors pointed out. If sea levels rise by three feet, the cost could be $31 billion and put part of the Everglades, the Florida Keys and the Miami metropolitan region under water.

The letters might work, but chances are Rubio and Bush will just ignore them. Recently, Rubio told a crowd in Iowa that climate change policy would “destroy” the American economy, the Des Moines Register reported this week. During a town hall meeting, a Cedar Rapids resident said he thought global warming was a "hoax." The senator refuted this claim -- but not by much. “It’s not in this following sense: The climate has always changed," Rubio said. “There’s never been a time when the climate has not been changing.”

What is clear is that voters in November need to consider climate change as they cast their votes for the next president of the United States.

Image credit: Flickr/DVIDSHUB

The average urban commuter spends 42 hours a year stuck in traffic. For residents of Los Angeles, that jumps around 90 hours. But this week Los Angeles officials announced a partnership with Xerox that seeks to reduce those dreaded traffic jams with an eco-friendly app.

App users will be able to type in their destination and select from a variety of transportation modes: public transit, taxis, driving, bicycling, Uber, Lyft, Zipcar and Flitways. Once the transportation selections have been made, the app will rank the transit options based on what is fast, inexpensive or green. (The green score will be calculated based on carbon dioxide emissions.)

https://youtu.be/UCX7gmIex-o

Xerox created the app, called Go LA, and plans to increase functionality by adding ridesharing and parking information. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation will regularly update the app based on feedback regarding popular transit routes.

Mayor Eric Garcetti supports the new app and said: “Go LA will help Angelenos get where they need to go by connecting smart technology with infrastructure. The app helps users move around in faster, cheaper, and greener ways by linking them to all of the transportation options available to them — from freeways, to Metro, to bike routes — while also providing the city with useful data that can help us shape a more mobile future for the people who live and work here.”

To see how the app worked, I tested it out. I typed in my departure location as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and entered The Broad art museum as my destination. The app automatically found the fastest route, and with two quick button clicks I was also able to look at the cheapest and greenest routes as well. The default search can be changed in user settings to automatically search for the greenest transit option.

For my particular search, the fastest route was by car (24 minutes), the cheapest route by bicycle (35 minutes), and the greenest route by bicycle (although closely followed by public transit which was 41 minutes).

One thing to note is that the cheapest route isn’t always the cheapest route based on the automatic app settings. That’s because the app is set so that 10 minutes of time is worth $5. So, the app still lists driving as the cheapest route when the cost to drive is under $5 and ranks it ahead of biking which is free. However, in the settings this can be changed to zero which will ensure you always get the cheapest option.

There are also several other customizable features. For example, you can set your walk speed, your maximum walk time and minimum transfer time. All of these features make the app highly customizable, and you can also save your favorite ride routes. Another user-friendly aspect is that you can easily send feedback about the app by entering your email address and typing in your comments.

In the future, users will be able to integrate their personal fitness and financial goals into their modes of transit and be able to track all of them together.

A customized version of the app will also be rolled out in Denver next month. You can check out the app on the website or search for it in the Apple store by typing in the search words “Go LA” and “Xerox.”

Image credits: 1) Zan Ilic via Unsplash 2) and 3) Screenshots by the author

By Zach Bernstein

As we move into the new year, one major question continues to emerge: In an election year, will Congress be able to pass anything?

It’s accepted wisdom in Washington that, particularly with presidential elections, the odds of any major legislative victories becomes slim, even in the best of times (which this isn’t, at least as far as passing legislation goes).

Members are out campaigning and often are reluctant to take tough votes that could be used in campaign ads – or perhaps worried about letting members of the opposing party trumpet legislation they got passed.

Somewhat surprisingly, though, there is one issue that Congress continues to move on, and which could yield modest gains for consumers and businesses alike.

The road to reform

The issue is chemical regulation reform, an area that’s in desperate need of an update. Existing federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), hasn’t been updated since it passed in 1976. And there’s a lot that’s wrong with it.

While the law was designed to allow the EPA to test chemicals for safety, tens of thousands of chemicals have never been tested because they were on the market before TSCA was passed and got grandfathered in. The EPA has only managed to restrict five chemicals, and it lacks the power to do more due to a court decision that tied the agency’s hands – a problem only Congress can fix.

This is why the past several Congresses have pushed for TSCA reform, culminating with the introduction of two pieces of legislation in the House and Senate last year.

The next step is for negotiators from the House and Senate to hammer out a compromise bill that both houses will approve. The good news is, there’s actually potential incremental progress in these bills at the outset of negotiations.

The bad news is, there’s also a lot not to like that could make the final bill worse than existing law.

Strange brew

That’s particularly true with the Senate bill (S.697), known as Udall-Vitter for its bipartisan co-sponsors, who introduced different versions of the bill in previous Congresses. Much of the bill has been improved from its initial incarnation as a chemical industry wishlist. Specifically, it now includes provisions that improve transparency and create a funding mechanism for EPA to actually get chemical review work done.

But many issues remain in the current bill, including some that make it fall far short of meaningful reform. For one, it would require that a number of chemicals be set aside as “low priority,” which would let potentially harmful chemicals off the hook with relatively little scrutiny from EPA. The EPA would also have more hurdles to intercept imported products that include potentially hazardous chemicals, and expend time and resources on tasks that distract from reviewing chemicals.

Worst of all however, the bill would pre-empt states from taking action on so-called “chemicals of concern” while the EPA is studying them.

The danger goes beyond risks to consumers. Companies that produce chemicals, or use them to make their products, can be put at risk from potential health hazards that can surface years later (think fiberglass and asbestos). These can bankrupt companies and destroy entire industries. If they can’t learn which chemicals are dangerous and which aren’t, businesses nationwide could be put at risk. That’s especially unfortunate for those trying to do the right thing.

Let’s get together

Fortunately, the House legislation improves on much of this. It would not pre-empt state action before the EPA makes a decision, and removes the legal barriers that were hampering EPA. While the House bill has its own issues, like inadequate resources for EPA, it does have a lot of positive language, like a faster schedule to review chemicals and allowing EPA to get to its critical work right away.

Which brings us back to the next step for chemical reform: reconciling the two bills. Negotiators will be meeting to hammer out differences between their bills, both of which are decidedly mixed bags.

Congress has a chance to do this right, but any final legislation needs to meet key principles in order to represent truly meaningful reform: Transparency for existing chemicals, a minimum safety level (with room for states to surpass it), and innovation to support the development of safer alternatives, not codify the status quo.

Both the House and Senate bills have elements that would help achieve these goals, but also much that wouldn’t. And while many businesses expressed some worry following the Senate vote, there was clear agreement on one thing: The negotiation process offers a golden opportunity to combine the best parts of both bills into a final version.

There may be few opportunities for major policy victories in the rest of the year, which is why it’s crucial for businesses to stay involved in pushing for meaningful chemical reform when the negotiators meet. This is a policy area in desperate need of an overhaul. Done wrong, however, it could end up having disastrous consequences.

Image credit: Pixabay

Zach Bernstein is Manager of Research and Social Media for the American Sustainable Business Council.

By Robin Raj

So the circus has officially hit town, and we Bay Area residents are now bracing ourselves for the excitement, onslaught and hoopla surrounding the biggest of big games. And while some are quick to dismiss the Super Bowl as nothing but moneyball writ large, or fear a looming ‘Bowl-agedeon,' this year there’s another story playing out that may not get the media attention it deserves.

That’s because the SF Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Host Committee has publicly committed to make this the first ‘net positive Super Bowl’ -- a commitment to do more good than harm for Bay Area communities, socially, environmentally and economically. In other words, they are aiming to use the immense power of the world’s single largest one-day sports event as a platform to do good – and they should be acknowledged and applauded for it.

It began with the Host Committee’s commitment more than a year ago to set aside 25 percent of all corporate sponsorship dollars raised around Super Bowl 50 to benefit local communities and our environment. A unique goal, to be sure. It followed with creation of The 50 Fund, a grant-making program that’s on track to deliver some $6 million dollars to more than 130 local non-profits. And it will come to life in these last days by inspiring local fans to play their part by reducing their collective impacts.

That’s what led to creation of the ‘Play Your Part’ campaign, developed and co-sponsored by my agency Citizen Group, our technology partner in/PACT, and the SB50 Host Committee. Fans are being encouraged to make this ‘the most sustainable, shared, and giving Super Bowl ever’ by taking positive actions while attending Super Bowl events, such as carrying reusable containers, recycling properly, taking public transit, hosting sustainable Super Bowl parties, and offsetting their carbon emissions from travel.

Play Your Part | Super Bowl 50 from Citizen on Vimeo.

For their actions, fans will also be given the opportunity to direct dollars to deserving Bay Area environmental non-profits using the ‘Play Your Part’ online giving platform powered by in/PACT.  And as a thank you, fans will be automatically enrolled in a daily prize drawing where they can win tickets to Super Bowl 50, special Super Bowl City events such as the CBS Metallica concert, as well as sustainable merchandise and collectibles.

 

The ‘Play Your Part’ campaign links directly to the four key pillars that girder the Host Committee’s net positive commitment:

1. Reducing impact on climate change by delivering a low emissions event,


2. Responsibly using and recycling materials and resources,


3. Inspiring fans to embrace sustainability personally, and


4. Leaving a lasting legacy for the Bay Area at large.

So, is all of this simply small-ball?  Well, if you’ve ever witnessed a stadium filled with 70,000 fans, you know the environmental impacts on any given Sunday can be significant. What’s more, few sectors in our society are as influential as sports in raising consciousness and inspiring behavior change. As Green Sports Alliance president Allen Hershkowitz is fond of observing, only 13 percent of Americans say they follow science, yet 61% claim themselves as sports fans.

Sports is the ultimate cultural unifier.  If we’re serious about shifting the mindset of fans and suppliers towards ecologically preferable products and behaviors, we need to engage with leagues and teams, and harness the mighty power of the sports industrial complex.

By working closely with the Green Sports Alliance and the Natural Resources Defense Council over the past decade, my agency Citizen Group has had a front row seat to watch the rise of a global sports greening movement, as teams and alike align with healthier practices. Major League Baseball, the NBA, NHL, NFL, NCAA, USTA and MLS have all engaged and the case studies abound.  If you like following your favorite team’s stats, you might enjoy reviewing the metrics contained in this 2013 NRDC report, GAME CHANGER: How the Sports Industry Is Saving The Environment or watching the honoree film we produced.

All of the action proves that a net positive goal, while ambitious, is important and achievable.

This will be part of the story of Super Bowl 50.  A Super Bowl the Bay Area way, and one that will hopefully set a higher standard for big games to come.

And that’s something to get excited about.

Image credit: Pixabay

Robin Raj is founder and executive creative director of Citizen Group, an award-winning, San Francisco-based agency dedicated to building “citizen brands.” Citizen works with companies and organizations to shape values-based strategies and then brings them to life through creative campaigns, media initiatives, and community activations that inspire, inform, and invite audiences to participate. citizengroup.com

Hang Lung Properties, Hong Kong clinched Asia's Sustainability Reporting of the Year Award at the inaugural event in Singapore this week. The company also won the Best Sustainability Report category.

Other top winners included Commercial Bank of Ceylon, Sri Lanka (Asia's Best Integrated Report), Omnicom Media Group MENA, Dubai and ACWA Power, Dubai (Joint winners of Asia's Best First Time Sustainability Report), ADFIAP Philippines (Asia's Best Sustainability Report-SME), Orient Overseas Container Line, Hong Kong (Asia's Best CSR Communication within Annual Report) and Birla Carbon (Asia's Best Online CSR Communication). Birla Carbon also won Asia's Most Transparent Report award.

The awards are the brainchild of Rajesh Chhabara, managing director of CSRWorks International, to encourage more companies to report on their sustainability and also form part of the CSRWorks own corporate responsibility programme.

“Our vision is to become the most inspiring recognition for sustainability disclosure in Asia,” commented Chhabara.

“The Asia Sustainability Reporting Awards creates a much needed platform for sharing best practices, benchmarking and peer learning by bringing together the leaders in sustainability reporting. The Awards also provide an excellent opportunity to organisations to showcase their sustainability excellence and build trust among their stakeholders.”
 

Shares of the world’s largest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy, are trading at about $4 apiece. That leaves a lot of investors with millions in losses. Coal has been displaced by the natural gas boom and climate change concerns also play a role, energy correspondent David Gelles pointed out in a recent piece in the New York Times.

Peabody Energy is an old company that has long been criticized. An old bluegrass tune called “Paradise” references strip mining by declaring about a Western Kentucky town, “Mr. Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away.” But today’s criticisms have more to do with the company’s failure to disclose climate change risks.

Back in November, Peabody agreed in a settlement to disclose more about climate risk in its filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This came after the New York state attorney general conducted a two-year investigation. The company agreed to center its financial disclosures around two main areas: an emphasis on the published scenarios in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook report, and the ability of the company to estimate the impacts from future laws or regulations.

Peabody is not the only fossil fuel company to fail to disclose climate change risks. ExxonMobil, the largest oil and gas company in the U.S., is being investigated by both California and New York for not disclosing climate risks to investors and the public. 

So, what does it say about the SEC? Consider that in 2010 the SEC issued interpretive guidance on climate risk disclosure. The interpretative guidance highlighted certain areas as examples of where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements, which include the impact of legislation and regulation, the impact of international accords, and physical impacts of climate change.

"We are not opining on whether the world's climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes. Nothing that the Commission does today should be construed as weighing in on those topics," SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in 2010. "Today's guidance will help to ensure that our disclosure rules are consistently applied."

Unfortunately, Schapiro’s words proved to be hollow, as a letter sent last spring by 62 institutional investors representing over $1.9 trillion in assets to the SEC proves. “We are concerned that oil and gas companies are not disclosing sufficient information about several converging factors that, together, will profoundly affect the economics of the industry,” the investors wrote. They “believe it is crucial that SEC staff closely scrutinize oil and gas companies’ reporting on carbon asset risks under existing SEC rules,” and specifically asked for the SEC to “scrutinize disclosures in annual filings” by oil and gas companies regarding “carbon asset risks.”

The New York state comptroller also sent a letter to the SEC last spring asking for it to “act to improve corporate disclosure of material risks in the fossil fuel industry.” The letter stated that “at a minimum” companies in the fossil fuel industry should disclose their analysis of three key areas:

• Risks to fossil fuel reserves associated with greenhouse gas emission reduction policies that may be adopted by national, state and local governments.


• Risks to company assets associated with physical risks of climate change including sea level rise and extreme weather.


• Risks and opportunities stemming from changes in the market associated with climate change mitigation policies and initiatives.

“We are concerned about the level of scrutiny the SEC is utilizing to robustly and effectively enforce this guidance,” congressional members stated in a letter sent to the SEC in October. The letter asked the SEC for an update on its efforts to implement its 2010 interpretative guidance on climate risks disclosures.

The SEC is reviewing its requirements for what companies must disclose, the New York Times reported, and new rules may be introduced this year. Given the laxity the SEC has shown regarding climate change risks disclosures in the past, it is time for the commission to enforce its requirements. Investors have the right to know about operational risks. 

Image credit: Flickr/Ken Hodge

Do you walk to work each morning? Imagine stepping over and around children sprawled out across the sidewalk, hungry, homeless and unconscious from sniffing toxic glue. What do you do?

This question plagued the minds of nine merchant women working in Leon, Nicaragua’s largest market, in September of 1989.

Nicaragua’s Civil War officially ended in 1979 with the expulsion of the brutal Somoza dictatorship and a victorious Sandinista regime. Having cost the lives of roughly 50,000 men and women soldiers (the exact number is unknown), the war left in its wake a generation of children on the street -- some orphans, others abandoned, and many victims of violence and sexual exploitation. Without the prospect of education or work, they were left hungry, desperate to steal their next meal from the very market stalls managed by the women merchants.

Emergence of Las Tías

None of the women had benefited from formal higher education, yet they felt compelled to intervene. Led by the so-called “Market Mayor,” Leonza Corina Alvarez, the women called themselves Las Tías ("the aunts"). At first, they scrapped together the resources to feed and provide basic necessities for the children. However, their longer-term vision was to create a sustainable mechanism for delivering economic and emotional support. Drawing upon the skills and experiences learned in peddling clothes, basic grains, dairy products, fruit juices and other popular goods, they developed vocational training programs designed to prepare these youth for future economic livelihood.

Originally turning toward relatively easy-to-learn work like piñata making and car washing, the vocational programs have since evolved to encompass a range of more reliable professions. Today, the Las Tías center is home to a leather workshop, sewing school, barber shop, carpentry workshop and computer-training center. Recently, Las Tías was granted a license to offer technical training which gives more formal legitimacy to the students' expertise in a society where technical titles are critical to marketability.

To enhance their capacity to maximize impact, several women of Las Tías pushed to further their own limited education by enrolling in courses at technical schools and even completing programs at the local university. They also hired social workers to more effectively address the psychological challenges experienced by their students.

Of last year’s group of 80 students who benefitted from Las Tías’ vocational training, only three have moved on to earn scholarships to attend the local public university. This low rate of continued education underscores the significance of the vocational training which is designed to empower youth with skills to create a sustainable livelihood.

More than 25 years after its inception, Las Tías is still far too under-equipped to adequately address all the challenges experienced by youth in Leon. To date, Las Tías has served 850 adolescents and 1,060 children, yet extreme poverty and child labor affects more than 167,000 youth across Nicaragua. Recognizing its own limited capacity for impact at scale, Las Tías has pursued partnerships with both local and international organizations to implement a variety of projects impacting the community.

Recognizing that challenges affecting local youth begin earlier than 14, Las Tias built another nearby facility to house programs for younger children ages 6 through 13. They even spawned another NGO called Niño’s de 14 to build quality houses and generate employment opportunities for families living in a nearby impoverished community just outside of town.

Las Tías’ influence on other local organizations is undeniable. Many local churches, historically lacking in social programs and youth education, in particular, are finally beginning to offer similar types of programs. Through its inspiring success, Las Tías has managed to attract the attention of several international organizations. One Houston-based nonprofit, Amigos de las Americas, facilitates internships and gap-year placements that have provided much-needed assistance to a range of projects with Las Tías.

Partnership with Spark Ventures

Over the past several years, Las Tías has built a deep partnership with Spark Ventures, a Chicago-based nonprofit committed to offering assistance in forms ranging from funding to volunteers and business strategy. Perhaps most interestingly, Spark is building profit-generating social enterprises designed to fund the operations and ambitions of Las Tías as it prepares for a sustainable and bright future.

In 2014, Spark Ventures and Las Tías formed a joint-venture in order to launch an agribusiness, growing cacao and supporting honeybee apiaries among other crops. The profits from this business will liberate Las Tías from a 25-year history of depending on the traditional dollar-in, dollar-out philanthropic model, freeing its staff to allocate resources and direct energy toward what they do best.

Additionally, Spark Ventures is pioneering a concept they call ‘impact travel.' Spark goes beyond facilitating opportunities for traditional skills-based volunteering to design experiences where people can engage more deeply with both Las Tías and Hope Ministries, Spark's partner in Zambia. An impact travel experience with Spark might include extended time with local leaders like Corina, volunteering with children, and engaging with the culture, history and the natural beauty of the country.

Las Tías believes that a more secure childhood and adolescence should be a basic universal right: “We believe that providing safe spaces where children can learn and experience the challenges of growing up is a crucial step for the advancement of our society."

After spending a couple of days visiting with founder, Leonza Corina Alvarez and Director, Magno Berbis, the key to Las Tías' success was clear. They aren't just charitable business people. They have demonstrated a willingness to step into the lives of local children as family. As we parted ways, Corina left me with warm words that would both welcome and ensure my eventual return: "Remember, you have family here, you have friends here. What more do you need in life?"

To learn more about Spark Venture's business-driven philanthropy model and opportunities to support Las Tías, click here.

Image credits: Las Tías & Spark Ventures

The altercations that led to the arrest of eight militants and the death of another outside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Tuesday night signaled an abrupt change in the standoff that has pitted federal and local governments against armed occupiers for weeks. But it also drove home a question that many are asking: What will it take to resolve the ethical and philosophical standoff that's pitting communities against the federal government?

In the equally remote ranchlands of Idaho where I live, the question is just as salient. There is a growing disillusion with what it takes small farmers and ranchers to make a living. A 2011 report by the Department of Agriculture underscores this point: The cost for small ranches (under 50 head of cattle) to maintain their herds is four times what it is for large ranches (500 or more). And, as Tom Philpott points out in the Mother Jones, that also means there is limited incentive for small ranches to stay small: Mom-and-pop operations that bolster the organic or other niche markets have to fight all the harder to stay in business.

At the heart of that battle is grazing rights: the ability to feed cattle on land that is billed as "public lands." It's a controversial issue, and it has become more so for environmentalists who often see these public lands as the last hold-out for declining species; public agencies also realize there is a need to protect those species.

Yet the truth is, despite what the Malheur militants have suggested, many ranching communities have a good hand-in-glove relationship with local public agencies like the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In one southwest Oregon community, ranchers work patiently with the BLM when grazing lands need to be adjusted to accommodate migrating flocks. Public lands like Malheur often exist for the benefit of the local ranchers as much as the wildlife enthusiasts, both of whom pay into the system that supports the maintenance of those lands.

In this day and age of dwindling public resources and escalating costs, it's sexy to occupy federal buildings and lands and make broad-sweeping statements about returning those lands to a time and place when guns settled issues more than taxes and negotiations. But standoffs don't get jobs done. They don't pay for fire mitigation or stop rampant disease that threatens stocks and water resources.The free-for-all approach that Ammon Bundy has proposed won't keep those lands clean and those resources available for grazing. And it won't pay the bills.

And they don't really protect rights either, as the militants would like to suggest. Bundy's fight is an age-old battle that, thankfully, many rural communities founded by white pioneers have realized was not only unjustifiable, but unethical to assume. Small communities in the 21st century realize that survival is very much a partnership with local tribes, and there is little gain in arguing who came first. Raising that red flag only raises old scars and old prejudices.

It's probably no coincidence that the Bundy clan picked Malheur to hole up -- an area that, as its name describes, is known as much for misfortune as for its once populous migration of pioneers. It's a name that pegs the sentiment well when it comes to the struggles of small ranchers these days, who face escalating costs, dwindling resources and at times intransient federal agencies. But as the past weeks demonstrated and continue to play out, it hasn't been the support of local ranchers that gave the Bundy clan a microphone, but that very social media he professes not to use: a media that can fuel discord better and faster than any town meeting and that inevitably captures media attention.

And that is perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this standoff. The militant takeover of a refuge that many Oregonians, let alone Americans in general, couldn't have found on a map two months ago has publicized not the plight of the average struggling rancher, but the value of a stunt orchestrated by carefully-dressed militants with a penchant for fame.

Images: 1) USFWS- Pacific Region; 2) Oregon Dept. of Transportation; 3) USFWS - Pacific Region

By Anum Yoon

It’s no secret that oil prices have been collapsing for quite some time now. A barrel of crude oil recently sold for less than $30 — the first time that’s happened since 2003. To put that number in perspective, a barrel of oil sold for $107 in July 2014.

Since then, the price has fallen steadily. To date in 2016, oil already lost more than 20 percent of its value, and more than 250,000 workers in the oil industry lost their jobs due to the erosion of the commodity’s value.

But folks from all over the world depend on oil. While we might wish we could use sustainable energy in all aspects of our lives, that’s simply not the case for the vast majority of us. If oil is still in high demand, why are its prices tumbling so drastically?

Quite simply, it’s a marriage between at least four realities.

1. The United States falls in love with fracking

On one hand, the answer is an easy one: Due to breakthroughs in technology, it’s easier than ever to produce oil in the United States — which is the world’s leading consumer of oil.

This, of course, can be attributed to the rise of fracking, the process by which companies use high-pressured water streams to release gases from rocks buried far beneath the surface of the Earth. Despite President Barack Obama’s pledges to reduce America’s drilling capacities during his presidency and wean the country from oil, his two terms were the source of an explosion in the U.S. oil market. In fact, the country is drilling more today than it ever has before.

Thanks to this expansion, Americans are paying considerably less at the pumps. They’re also paying a lot less for heating oil and diesel, too.

Since the U.S. is now producing so much oil, the country and its citizens don’t have to rely so much on oil from the Middle East and other OPEC nations. Because of this, OPEC — which has traditionally sold its wares at inflated prices in the U.S. market — now has to find new buyers for its products, but those folks don’t have a ton of money.

In other words, the supply of oil continues to swell. And the price comes down because there’s so much oil to be sold.

2. OPEC wants to make fracking as profitless as possible

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries isn’t in any danger of becoming irrelevant anytime soon.

OPEC — which includes Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Libya, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and six other countries — has long played an active role in controlling the prices of oil.

Unlike more modernized economies that are diverse, the members of OPEC, generally speaking, derive their riches and wealth from oil. As a result, it is imperative that the members of OPEC take steps to ensure their stranglehold on the oil market continues.

In an effort to put frackers out of business, OPEC has decided to maintain record-high levels of oil production. This is happening as the United States produces more oil than it ever has before.

While it might seem a bit counterintuitive, the OPEC logic works something like this: Produce as much oil as possible, drive the cost of oil down as low as possible, and keep your fingers crossed that the American frackers will eventually be forced to close shop as they’re unable to return a profit on the oil they extract.

Once the frackers are out of business, OPEC retains its dominance on the market and is able to charge what it sees fit for a barrel of oil. If OPEC’s plan is successful, you better believe gas prices won’t stay as low as they are today.

3. Cars are becoming increasingly fuel-efficient

In addition to the increase in U.S. oil production and OPEC’s determination to keep producing a ton of oil, newer cars are coming to market that are quite fuel-efficient. This is partially due to innovation and partially due to government mandate.

In any case, drivers can get from Point A to Point B on considerably less gasoline. The average new car can cover more concrete with less of it, and consumers don’t have to fill up their tanks as frequently.

4. Green technologies are coming into their own

We’re finally seeing automakers like Tesla Motors power the green revolution, giving birth to what many hope is a transformative wholly-electric car that’s as reliable as a gas-guzzler.

While fully-electric cars have yet to take off in American and other markets, they are becoming increasingly popular. As the technology continues to evolve and infrastructure falls into place, we can expect these more affordable cars to become increasingly common.

If everyone’s driving an electric car, what does that mean for OPEC?

Here’s a hint: There’s a reason Saudi Arabia is investing so much money in solar energy.

Be sure to enjoy today’s low prices at the pump. You never know when the price of oil will once again escalate.

Image via Life of Pix/Tanker

Anum Yoon is a writer who is passionate about personal finance and sustainability. As a regular contributor to the Presidio Graduate School’s blog, she often looks for ways she can incorporate money management with environmental awareness. You can read her updates on Current on Currency.

By Kate Danaher

Rising demand for fair-trade products is creating an emerging need for growth in fair-trade supply chains. This is a fantastic opportunity to put more people to work under fair pay and labor standards — but the time and cost involved in scaling these supply chains while maintaining fair-trade standards poses a major challenge. To overcome it, we need new financing and business relationships that enable increased production while assuring benefits for supplier communities.

Chris Mann, CEO of the yerba mate beverage company Guayakí, boils the challenge down to its essence: If his suppliers grow 40,000 acres of mate, they can sell the leaves. If they have a drying facility to process those leaves, then they can generate three or four times the value from those leaves. That would raise their community’s standard of living and potentially expand their market, but where does the financing to build the facility come from?

Trade finance for international supply chains (credit lines and other instruments designed to bridge payment gaps between buyers and sellers) is well established. Capital expenditure (CapEx) finance, which funds facility and equipment needs, is not. Major funders such as the World Bank will do it, but only in major amounts — in the millions. Smaller-scale fair trade suppliers typically need much less than that, on the order of $100,000 to $500,000.

That capital gap exists because these are challenging loans. Many fair-trade suppliers don’t have access to local banks specializing in small and medium enterprises, which are best positioned to service CapEx lending to local businesses. The suppliers may also need technical assistance that local lenders can’t provide. And even when neither of these issues comes into play, the loans are often too costly.

Smaller loans are riskier but take as much time and expertise to underwrite as large loans — and sometimes even more. The result is that even when producers can find loans for projects like building facilities for drying mate leaves, the interest rates are unaffordably high — 12 percent or more. Suppliers can manage those rates for short-term trade financing, but CapEx loan terms are typically three to five years, and these businesses can’t pay double-digit interest rates for that long.

“The capital is maturing — there’s more in the marketplace than there used to be. But the right financial products at the right term are still being evolved,” noted Ben Schmerler, director of investor relations at Root Capital, during a recent panel discussion I moderated. “That, combined with businesses that have the skills and acumen to take [financing] on, is a gap.”

New thinking about filling the gap

Some brands are beginning to provide CapEx financing to their suppliers. In the same panel discussion, Les Szabo of Dr. Bronner’s talked about how the company got one of its suppliers in Sri Lanka off the ground. Social lenders turned the supplier down for CapEx funding, so Dr. Bronner’s put up the capital. With some operational history, the borrower was able to get a loan from Triodos Bank at 8 percent, and is now borrowing from a local commercial bank at under 5 percent. Now Dr. Bronner’s is working with Root Capital on a Ghana supplier’s $450,000 facility-expansion project.

Smaller brands, however, often face a choice between providing CapEx financing to suppliers and investing in other crucial aspects of their business. At RSF Social Finance, we’re working on a solution to this problem for Guayakí and other fair-trade companies in our Social Investment Fund portfolio. Since we don’t lend internationally, we’ve come up with the concept of trust underwriting: where we have a trust relationship with a fair-trade borrower, and that borrower has trust relationships with its suppliers; we will offer our borrower loans at reasonable rates (around 5 percent) to fund its suppliers’ CapEx needs.

We believe that by relying on trust and community, we can reduce transaction costs — one of the biggest barriers to supply chain financing for both the lender and the borrower. Our relationships with existing borrowers mean we don’t have to underwrite the life out of these loans. We’re piloting this concept with a philanthropic fund, which enables us to take more risk than we could with our main investment fund, and if we can prove that the model is sound, we hope others will replicate it in different sizes, regions and supply chains.

Strong relationships are the secret to success

If this strategy works, the impact could be huge — but the relationships have to be there. Scott Leonard, CEO of the ethical fashion company Indigenous (a former RSF borrower), made that point during the panel. “Are we as brands and investors willing to work within that community?” he asked. “How far are we willing to go to benefit that community? We often stop short.” He noted that Guayakí is trying to build the sustainable yerba mate market for everyone, not just for Guayakí. Similarly, Indigenous is working in Peru to help alpaca farmers do their own spinning, but when their product reaches the market, “Maybe 5 percent of it comes through Indigenous.” This kind of capacity-building “creates a unique opportunity for the community.”

Even at a company the size of Dr. Bronner’s, community relationships are key to achieving significant impact. “It’s all about connecting directly with farmers,” Szabo said, citing his company’s use of a fair-trade premium fund to support community-driven projects.

True partnership is the thread that ties together all the potential supply chain solutions I’ve seen. If we develop trusted relationships throughout the supply chain and extend ourselves to find solutions that work at the systemic level, we should start to see better opportunities for those who need them most.

For more information, check out the video below:

https://youtu.be/LoSHIP7hTSs

Image courtesy of RSF Social Finance

Kate Danaher is lending manager for sustainable food and agriculture at RSF Social Finance, a pioneering funder of social enterprises based in San Francisco.