If eradicated on a large scale, it can affect food webs and ecological processes essential for people and native species. Invasive species can even take on the role of extinct species—at least to a point.

For example, in Hawai’i, non-native birds on Oʻahu disperse small-seeded native plants like their extinct predecessors but can’t spread large-seeded native plants as they did.

This is one of the many reasons large-scale eradication programs need to carefully consider any potential ripple effects eradications can have, which should be done through an independent, evidence-based assessment of the risks and benefits.

A risk-benefit assessment yields a range of scenarios, including the risks of doing nothing, that can help decision-makers anticipate risks and make informed decisions on avoiding undesirable outcomes.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is trying to do this through an invasive house mice eradication project on the South Farallon Islands, a wildlife refuge for thousands of seals and sea lions and hundreds of thousands of seabirds, including endemic or exclusive seabirds to Farallon Islands like the ashy storm-petrel.

The California Coastal Commission approved the project and is left for the regional director of FWS to decide. If approved, it could happen as soon as 2023.

The plan is to drop 2,880lb of bait pellets laced with the rodenticide brodifacoum by helicopter. Secondary poisoning of brodifacoum is a high risk since it stays in body tissue for a long time and is highly toxic to birds, mammals and fish—posing a risk to predators.

The threat of secondary poisoning led the state of California to ban brodifacoum for almost all uses. Critics of the project argue that the aerial application of brodifacoum is unfit for a wildlife refuge and threatens marine life if it washes into the ocean.

Like other invasive species, the rodents on the Farallon Islands prey on endemic species and compete for natural resources, but even worse is that they attract burrowing owls. The owls end up staying through the winter, and when the mice population crashes, they turn on ashy storm-petrels, killing hundreds of them every year.

Although ashy storm-petrels aren’t considered endangered, their population has declined by 63 percent over the last 20 years.

Those against the eradication project say there is no way to limit the impact on non-target species and question if the project is worth the risk. The death of non-target species is one of many scenarios addressed in the FWS’s Coastal Consistency Determination report.

Informed by experts in island conservation, island biogeography and biologists who have worked on the Farallon Islands for decades, the report outlines the project’s operational plan to avoid adverse outcomes. The report also took notes from 1,200 rodent eradication attempts on islands worldwide, where more than 700 were successful.

A study published in the Conservation Science and Practice journal on rodenticide eradication programs compared management, operational and environmental factors to determine what contributed to their success or failure.

Out of the 35 eradication attempts they examined, there was a 58 percent success rate when the methods used aligned with best practices, compared to 19 percent when the methods fell below that standard.

The main factors associated with eradication failure included poor planning, poor bait quality, poor treatment of rodent hotspots, inadequate bait coverage, inexperienced pilots with no GPS, deviations from operational plans and human error.

The researchers found that eradication programs need to consider seasonal weather and pay special attention to areas such as cliffs and intertidal areas that provide habitat and food for rodents. They also emphasize carefully evaluating protocols that protect non-target species, such as restricting bait deployment near coastlines.

The FWS plans to drop the bait between October and December when the mice aren’t reproducing, and most wildlife migrate. Seasonal rainfall will follow and help degrade the bait and reduce the threat to non-target species.

Pilots will operate within areas above the Mean High-Water Spring when wind speeds are below 30 knots or 34 miles per hour to minimize bait drifting into the ocean. They’ll also avoid shoreline areas where bait can drift into sensitive intertidal habitats—an area the study says is often an underestimated habitat for rodents.

They’ll hand-bait caves and cliffs and have a Bait Spill Contingency Plan in place, but seabirds and several small bird and raptor species are still at high risk of exposure.

Most seabirds only feed on marine life, such as ashy storm-petrels, while western gulls are opportunistic omnivores that will eat just about anything, making them the most vulnerable.

According to FWS, most studies that discovered fish poisoned after a rodent eradication project had higher bait application rates. Their assessment places a medium risk to marine life, meaning a small number of nearshore fish will be exposed to bait, which should disintegrate within an hour in the water. However, there is a risk that unexpected wind events can discharge poison into the ocean.

For gulls, to avoid a long-term population impact, the assessment found that they must keep the mortality rate at no more than 1,050.

About five weeks before the first bait application, they will haze gulls with techniques such as spotlights, air cannons and kites to deter them from the islands. If the hazing succeeds, the project will proceed, but a concern for some is that there will be a higher death toll if the hazing program unexpectedly fails.

Small bird species that feed on seeds are at high risk of exposure and an increased risk of secondary poisoning if they prey on insects that feed on the bait. Raptors such as hawks and owls are at even higher risk of secondary exposure by preying on poisoned mice, birds or insects.

The assessment explains that since the populations of these species are low, adverse impacts would be minor. However, they plan to capture raptors before and during operation and release them once the islands are safe.

Some deem the eradication plan a simplified solution to a complex problem. It’s 15 years in the making, but studies on eradication programs agree that research organizations should undertake risk-benefit assessments independent of the group proposing invasive species control.

Also, invasive rodents have been on the Farallon Islands for more than a century. Although eradicating them could boost species such as the ashy storm-petrel, the assessment doesn’t include how eradicating them may impact the food web or if they have an ecological role to play.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Mar. 1, 2022.

The monocropping of this produce (growth of a single plant species over a large geographical space) contributes significantly to the changing climate, especially when issues such as global transportation and storage are taken into consideration. Pesticides are frequently used in this process, as they are able to make the land become artificially fertile. This can mean multiple cultivations in a single growing season, increased yield on a single plot of land and less manual labor for farm workers. However, this also means soil degradation, groundwater depletion, and direct damage to pesticide handlers’ health.

For the last ten years, fruits that were once seen as unique treats, like the avocado, have skyrocketed in consumption. In 2011, Subway claimed to “Help the Avocado Go Mainstream” by adding it to their fast food menu, featuring celebrities such as Michael Phelps in television commercials to help advertise. The tropical crop quickly went from a specialty good to an expectation at any place where food is sold. In 2018 alone, over one million tons of avocados were eaten in the United States, most of which were grown via monoculture internationally. Research shows that producing a single avocado uses around 80 gallons of water and has a footprint equivalent to over 400g of carbon dioxide.

While this may lead to issues in sustainability long term on its own, there is another trend which poses a new threat to food security as well. Another attribute that papaya, lychee and avocado all have in common is that their plant requires a pollinator in order to bear fruit. According to the US Department of Agriculture, one in three bites of food in the United States relies on bee pollination. This means that a flowering papaya plant, for example, needs a moth, bird or bee to physically collect pollen sacs from one flower and travel with them to another. This relatively simple process allows for the production of the vast majority of the world’s top crops.

As the global availability of tropical fruits increases, the threat of endangerment to their pollinators is on the rise as well. These trends are not related in cause, but will ultimately have a significant impact on one another. Pollinator species populations are continuing to shrink in size, especially in areas where the world’s produce is largely grown. Goods such as eggplants, lettuce, and bell peppers are all self-pollinating and would not be affected by the loss of pollinator species. However, these are not the crops which have increasing modern demand. Nearly two thirds of agricultural imports into the United States are now tropical products, such as mango, turmeric, and coffee. 80% of the fastest growing crops require pollination in order to grow.

According to most current scientific opinions, there is no single cause that can be blamed for the loss of most pollinator species. It is likely a synergy of several environmental challenges which together create the viral harbinger of “save the bees”. Habitat loss, land development and parasites are all among the primary threats to pollinator populations. The changing climate also has an effect, as mismatches in seasonal timing are becoming more prevalent. As it relates to monocropping, however, it is the significant and growing use of pesticides for plant growth that has the most relevant damaging effect. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which were popularized in the 1980s to coat a variety of seed types, have been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a major risk factor to pollinator species. This point is where the negative feedback loop can be identified. As demand for tropical produce increases, the use of pesticides in monocropping increases. Pesticides harm the pollinators of these tropical fruits, which means that as demand increases, the difficulty of growing these goods also increases.

Americans may need to accept an overarching culture shift towards a less colorful grocery store. The expectation that papaya, lychee, and avocado will be available across the country all year long may not be realistic forever. For the importing and exporting countries alike, this could become an issue of food security. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the volume of fruits cultivated in the top producing countries has doubled. This growth in horticulture, including citruses, guavas and bananas, primarily develops the export industry rather than being used to feed the growing populations of the countries themselves.

The United States imported around $20 billion worth of tropical products last year, which contributes significantly to the GDP of many top producing regions. Latin America, for example, is one of the leading food producing parts of the world. Their “flourishing” agricultural industry produces a substantial volume of goods each year. However, much of the population of these countries does not have access to the goods produced. Cultivated and exported, the tropical goods benefit the American grocery store without ever feeding the population who grew them.

Some argue that creating a regulatory framework of export restrictions will help combat food insecurity in these top producing nations. However, it is unclear how the growing problems of pollinator vulnerability and the changing climate will make these policies that much harder to craft. While it is not just lychee, papaya and avocado which are experiencing this phenomenon, they exemplify a larger global problem. What is clear is that the fruit and vegetable rainbow found across the United States may be quickly fleeting. Sustainable, fair trade tropical produce does exist, but continues to be challenging to find and considerably more expensive. Whether it will be the ultimate endangerment of the world’s pollinator species or an eventual restriction on tropical imports, guacamole may soon cost more than two dollars extra.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Dec. 19, 2019.

It’s true that surface water provides drinking water to half the U.S. population and is more vulnerable to pollution from pipelines, agriculture and urban runoff. But the other half rely on groundwater, which are just vulnerable to man-made disasters but are often assumed to be uncontaminated.

The soil and rock above an aquifer help filter water as it seeps underground. Sometimes aquifers are used to dilute contaminated water supplies, but groundwater contamination is hard to detect, and the natural purification processes can take decades or even hundreds of years.

There are about 542,000 underground storage tanks (UST) in the U.S., storing thousands of gallons of fuel and hazardous substances. Over the last 33 years, there have been 502,786 UST fuel leaks and a backlog of about 60,000 clean-ups.

Fuel tanks hold a toxic mix of heavy metals and chemicals that can contaminate water supplies, affecting the health of humans, wildlife, and lands and forests. Heavy metals can build in the soil and affect vegetation growth, while benzene and toluene—toxic chemicals found in fuel— move quickly through soil, contaminating groundwater and surface water.

The largest UST facility in the United States is the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility in Oahu, Hawai’i—a perfect example of how these tanks pose a significant threat to aquifers.

Not only is Hawai’i battling underground tanks that have been leaking for decades, but a lack of oversight and regulations needed to protect groundwater, which provide 99 percent of Hawai’i’s water.

The Red Hill facility has twenty underground fuel tanks containing up to 12.5 million gallons of fuel, located 100 feet above Oahu’s sole-source groundwater aquifer, supplying water to Honolulu residents from Halawa to Hawai’i Kai.

There have been 73 documented fuel leaks at Red Hill. One of the most significant leaks occurred in 2014 when 27,000 gallons of jet fuel leaked from a tank at the facility. The most recent was in 2021 when approximately 1,000 gallons of jet fuel leaked during a refilling operation.

On Jan. 7, the Hawai’i Department of Health (DOH) ordered the Navy to shut down Red Hill and de-fuel the underground tanks. However, the DOH gave the order months after the Navy shut down two of their wells, the Red Hill well and Aiea-Halawa well, after military families reported smelling fuel in their water and feeling sick.

The Navy’s water system supplies water to approximately 93,000 residents at the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and surrounding military housing. After flushing a part of the system, water tests showed that total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel contamination—a mixture of chemicals found in diesel and gasoline—exceeded 200 parts per billion at 620 parts per billion.

Although tests haven’t detected widespread contamination in the Oahu aquifer, they raised concerns over the safety of Oahu’s only water source. Cleaning up a contaminated aquifer is a costly and challenging process, and current technology is limited, but one option is as simple as heated wood or activated carbon.

A study published in the Journal of Water Process Engineering showed that remediation strategies to remove trace fuel chemicals originating from diesel and gasoline, specifically the chemical benzene, need more than a traditional water treatment system.

The researchers found that powdered activated carbon (PAC) is an effective adsorbent that significantly reduces trace chemical concentrations in contaminated water. A dosage of 80 milligrams of PAC brought trace concentrations far below U.S. EPA recommendations. However, whether the contaminants originated from diesel or gasoline impacted PAC absorption.

Since gasoline is cleaner than diesel, benzene removal was higher in gasoline-contaminated water, but adding PAC without coagulant improved absorption for diesel and gasoline-contaminated waters.

During the rapid mixing stage in a water treatment system, a coagulant such as ferric sulfate or alum helps remove particles from drinking water. Not only did the study find that adding PAC before coagulant improves absorption, but ferric sulfate outperformed alum in reducing benzene concentration in diesel and gasoline contaminated water.

To remediate the contaminated wells and restore safe drinking water, the Navy works with the DOH and EPA to flush and test the Navy’s water system, but the Navy is also tasked with installing a water treatment system with an industrial filtering system.

They plan on constructing massive pipes to discharge up to 5 million gallons of treated water a day. For the Navy to discharge treated water onto the soil or into storm drains or sanitary sewers, their filtering system must have diffusers and granulated activated carbon (GAC).

The main difference between PAC and GAC is their particle size and use. Although both remove chemicals from drinking water, and their inherent adsorption and pore structures are the same, PAC’s smaller particle size helps it absorb chemicals faster and is usually added directly to water and discarded after use. After the coagulation stage, GAC is typically used as filtration media and can be reactivated and reused.

GAC filters are proven to remove certain chemicals, but the Navy’s filtration system could benefit from adding PAC and ferric sulfate since diesel contaminated water is harder to clean than gasoline, ensuring contaminated water is free of toxic chemicals before discharging it into the environment.

States can avoid UST leaks altogether with laws and regulations that protect groundwater resources. For example, only recently was a bill amended to give the City and County of Honolulu the power to issue, modify, suspend or deny underground storage tank permits that may threaten an aquifer.

The amendment also states that underground storage tanks with a capacity of more than 100,000 gallons require a permit. To obtain a permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the tank system will not leak into the environment during its working life.

In the case of Red Hill, the DOH issued several notices stating the facility failed to properly maintain corrosion protection, adequate leak detection, piping tests and visual inspections.

Only last year did Hawai’i tighten UST regulations for better leak detection, leak investigations and visual inspections, but given the threat underground fuel tanks pose to aquifers, all underground tank systems should be held to the same standards and requirements, regardless of size or location.

Stopping fuel leaks completely is impossible, but states can mitigate future clean ups with stricter laws and regulations that require state and management oversight, UST training, leak detection and cleanup plans that follow the science to protect aquifers.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on February 16, 2022.

How have the first steps of slavefreetrade been? Where has the whole idea come from?

I worked as an Australian Federal Agent and then moved into global counter-slavery operations. I have done that for the last 17 years. The idea for slavefreetrade arose in that time. I would come back from a mission often drained from the violence and sadness of the circumstances. To me, it was an important experience and one best shared to reduce the burden. So, I started telling friends, family, and colleagues about it. People, even those closest to me, would care about this for a day, but eventually would be back out to buy without question. Because there is no choice. It got me thinking that something needed to change. I find people get overwhelmed by the horror and the fact they have a role in it, and cannot process that. So, they send the images to the back of their mind and, once buried, they stay there. I call it “Care-for-a-day syndrome” – a self-protection mechanism.

I wanted to give people something real they could do to change things, so I grounded the project on three lines:

• Immediacy: The delivery of information at the time and place that consumers need to make a difference. This empowers.
• Immersion: Providing consumers with human rights information on products, a kind of immersive journey right down the products’ lifecycle. This informs.
• Veracity: The information delivered must be independently verifiable, demonstrable, and accessible to consumers. This assures.

Speaking about technology, can you explain how slavefreetrade’s platform works and what added value it has, compared with other risk assessment platforms?

Our platform is best described as a hybrid of conventional and distributed ledger (aka blockchain) technology. We use cryptography to protect people and information. It’s a cloud-based platform, like Salesforce. When a company joins, the platform starts an audit, investigating processes and policies to confirm the company’s alignment with slavefreetrade’s values. For instance, mandatory requirements include grievance resolutions mechanisms and a child labour policy, inter alia. If the company complies with mandatory requirements, it proceeds and all staff are registered securely.

Then the platform starts horizontal assessment and monitoring. The organisation’s human rights performance is assessed in real time through questions derived from international human rights law. The truthfulness of every answer is verified by 15 integrity layers.

Simultaneously, the platform initiates a vertical process, supply chain discovery and mapping. This maps entire supply chains. In this phase, the company registers its 1^st tier suppliers, which are invited to the platform. Each supplier goes through precisely the same process. This is reproduced down the entire supply chain, tier by tier, automatically. It does not matter what size the organization has, 2 or 200,000, the platform sorts it out easily, quickly, at low cost, and for just 20 minutes of staff time a year.

A CEO sitting in her office in London has access to a dashboard with the map of both her entire workforce and supply chains of her company. She can view in detail her company’s human rights performance, and of every supplier or investee, all in real time. At the same time, it means a consumer walking into a shop can scan a product of her company and be aware the human rights record for the product, before deciding whether to buy it or not. It’s all about transparency.

Quoting Kaya Dory, “In countries with emerging economies, there are an estimated 2 billion new consumers waiting to buy the latest trends. We are racing against the clock to include poorer countries in more sustainable manufacturing models, so they can produce clothing locally and more sustainably”. Don’t you think that ethical consumerism is still a phenomenon for the benefit of a few privileged, western people? How should sustainability professionals build a bridge to reach less-income countries and trigger cultural changes in their societies?

Ethical consumerism is an unknown, fascinating piece of the sustainability puzzle: we know that ethical consumption is on the rise, at least in the global north, but there is no gender, geographical, educational, or other demographics that can define who the ethical consumer is. The only thing we do know is that ethical consumers speak to each other, and gravitate toward good actors. So, regardless of where they are and who they are, sustainability professionals must bind ethical consumers together and boost cohesion. And remember social change does not need everyone to be involved. We just need some; sufficient mass of ethical consumers. If ethical consumers in those privileged places are able to change the market demand, the market will incentivise good behaviour down the chain, pushing businesses to change their way of production. And, finally, we’ll see impact also in those downstream communities.

The United Nations acknowledge that public procurement can be a “lever for extending the practice of corporate human rights due diligence in local economies and global supply chains.” Do you see the potentiality for less-developed countries and low-income administrations, too? Are you targeting these actors in the Global Sourcing Initiative (GSI)?

For now, we are targeting western institutional regarding procurement, but there is great potential for all institutional buyers to do better. Procurement agencies often work with few, and reducing numbers, of staff. And they often lack time or resources to explore the supply chain of every bidder. But institutions are the world’s biggest consumers; they play a very important role as a demand-driver and can lead by example.

Our Global Sourcing Initiative (GSI) – a procurement window on the platform – includes an e-procurement plug-in. Tenderers which are on the platform simply have to check a box on the procurer’s website as part for their bid, and the procurement agency can see the bidder’s human rights performance. Procurement agencies can know all they need to know about the human rights compliance of every bidder. In other words, the GSI makes it easier (and cheaper) to access to the human rights records of bidding companies.

What are the next challenges for slavefreetrade to create a world “made in freedom”?

Firstly, we need to communicate that we exist and that a “slavefree-world” is possible. For that, we must gather good actors, so they know what we are doing and invite them to participate.

Once we have created trust in slavefreetrade, we need to focus on connecting good consumers, good institutions, and good businesses, jointly creating demand for “slavefree.” Most importantly, we need to make this demand visible through communication to potential suppliers to make things right.

Ethical consumers easily connect, via apps, social media, etc., but businesses are also willing to cluster. One might expect they want to differentiate themselves, but businesses will happily cluster specifically where it is a shortcut to consumers. The ethical market is precisely that kind of place.

Never before has it been possible to render transparent the entirety of a supply chain. Supply chains have, until now, been about products, colours, sizes, prices, characteristics. Now, with slavefreetrade, the humans in workplaces come into focus. Otherwise, we can tell horror stories forever and it’s not going to change anything.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 25, 2019.

Simply, fast fashion is the rapid design, creation, and sale of low-cost clothing. Brands such as Japan-based Uniqlo, Zara from Spain, Sweden’s H&M, as well as the UK’s Primark, are part of a larger three trillion dollar industry. Fast fashion retailers produce more collections throughout the year, knowing the consumer will purchase based on low price, seasonality, and a trendy style. The fact that the garment may be stylish, however, does not mean it is retained for future use. An article of clothing may be used once or twice, if at all before it is discarded. Spain’s Zara, part of Inditex, on average, gets a new garment to consumers in 25 days, according to Plunkett Research. Larger retailers, like JC Penney Co., take almost a year to plan and produce clothing collections for their stores, also per Plunkett Research. The rapid creation, sales, and disposal of fast fashion underpin broad environmental impacts though.

It is estimated that a typical pair of denim pants takes on average one thousand or more gallons of water to produce with the resulting waste released into the wastewater system. Producing a single t-shirt can be equivalent to enough potable water for one person to drink for over two years. Consumers in the United Kingdom sent 300,000 tons of clothing to landfills in 2018, and U.S. consumers discarded 16 million tons of textiles and clothing, roughly six  percent of all municipal solid waste. The waste trend and strain on resources have not gone unnoticed by regulators.

In June of this year, Norwegian consumer authority concluded H&M violated the Marketing Control Act with the sustainability claims of its “Conscious” clothing line. Bente Øverli, Deputy Chairman of the consumer authority, told Norwegian Broadcaster NRK, “When you sell a particularly environmentally harmful product such as clothing, one has to be careful about calling it sustainable. It takes a lot. We have concluded that they are misleading advertising and that they have violated the law.” While Norway leveraged a consumer law against H&M’s sustainability claim, Britain and France joined the direct fight against fast fashion, with mixed results.

In its Fixing Fashion report, the British House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee described the state of fast fashion, its environmental and social impacts with a series of recommended interventions, stating, “Textile production contributes more to climate change than international aviation and shipping combined, consumes lake-sized volumes of freshwater and creates chemical and plastic pollution.” While the committee produced over a dozen recommendations, key points revolved around taxes and mandatory environmental targets.

The parliamentarians recommended that mandatory environmental targets be set for fashion retailers with a turnover above £36 million, according to the House of Commons. The Audit Committee wrote that, “Voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives have failed.” Taxation as enforcement was the next recommended strategy within the audit group, which promoted a new “scheme to reduce textile waste with a one cent per garment sold charged to producers,” with an estimated £35 million a year to put toward reuse and recycling. Raising the tax to five cents could net the UK government £169 million annually for sustainability initiatives, wrote the House of Commons’ Audit Committee. However, when the recommendations were presented to parliament in June, they were rejected by ministers citing existing UK environmental rules and plans as sufficient to deal with the issue of waste.

Meanwhile, French lawmakers moved aggressively on consumer goods and the waste associated with them. This year, the French enacted a new law requiring unsold goods – particularly clothes – be donated, reused, or recycled starting in 2021. The French law, the next phase in their Road Map to a Circular Economy, is targeted not just at producers, but importers and distributors as well.

Since similar private-sector interventions by the federal government are rare in the United States, recycling and waste lawmaking is mostly left to cities or states, such as California. With the world’s fifth-largest economy, California chose incentives opposed to regulation when setting a 75 percent solid waste recycling, reduction, and composting goal. Because clothing and textiles are one of the state’s chief solid waste streams, with 1.24 million tons disposed of in 2014, California highlights the problem that “less expensive clothing is often made of lower quality materials, resulting in a higher rate of disposed clothing.”

While the long-term effectiveness of regulatory methods to curb fast fashion has yet to be measured, what is clear is that without an ebb in consumer demand for fast fashion or third party intervention, the problem of fast fashion will only grow.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on August 13, 2019.

This article discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of these strategies in regards to food production and biodiversity conservation. It is important to note that this does not consider social or economic aspects of the debate.

First, let’s take a look at some of the benefits of Land Sparing.

Land Sparing generally enables increased crop yield per area, which leaves more land available for biodiversity preservation. If this available land is used for conservation, it appears to be beneficial to biodiversity. Studies in Ghana and India found higher species density of birds and trees and greater avian functional group diversity in areas that implemented Land Sparing practices relative to areas using other land use strategies. Spared lands were found to be essential for the survival of species that do not tolerate any level of disturbance or those that require extensive natural areas.

Is Land Sparing as effective as it sounds? What are some benefits of the alternative, Land Sharing?

Although Land Sparing has many benefits, the intensive agricultural practices used to minimize land needed for crop production require high inputs of nutrients and pesticides. This has negative consequences for long-term food security and biodiversity.

Land Sparing practices may reduce the functional biodiversity in an area, including species that naturally control pests. This necessitates the use of pesticides, which can harm non-target species that provide essential ecosystem services, including pollinators and decomposers. Alternatively, the wildlife-friendly agricultural practices utilized in Land Sharing promote the maintenance of functional biodiversity, including natural predators that control pests without the use of pesticides, making the area more habitable to native species.

In addition to pesticides, high inputs of nutrients are required to sustain intensive agriculture. From the 1960’s to 1990’s, intensification of food production led to a substantial increase in the application of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, in the United States and globally. While increased nitrogen produced greater crop yields, high input/output agriculture degraded the soil. As a result, even greater quantities of nitrogen were required to maintain the same level of crop production.

Inorganic nitrogen is typically used in high intensity agriculture because it is more readily available to plants than organic nitrogen. However, this also makes the nutrients more susceptible to leaching into ground water or volatizing into the atmosphere. Leaching and volatilization processes enable nitrogen applied on agricultural fields to spread to other areas, negatively affecting spared lands. In the United States, even areas designated as federal wilderness exhibit effects of increased nitrogen.

In aquatic ecosystems, excess nitrogen causes algal blooms and low oxygen levels, which degrade aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem processes. In terrestrial ecosystems, excess nitrogen positively affects plant growth. However, adding nitrogen to a system also changes which nutrients are limiting. This can change which plants have a competitive advantage. Suddenly, a species that adapted to low nitrogen is outcompeted by a species that requires more nutrients, which are now available because of nitrogen deposition. This can permanently alter the structure and composition of the biological community. In comparison, Land Sharing utilizes sustainable agricultural practices, such as crop diversification, crop rotation, and organic fertilizer, which reduce reliance on labile, inorganic fertilizer.

In addition to concerns of pesticide and fertilizer use, Land Sparing may not be as beneficial to biodiversity in spared areas as some comparative studies have suggested. These studies focused on species with small home ranges, which ignores species with large home ranges and species that disperse from their natal range. In particular, the small, isolated protected areas set aside in Land Sparing are often too small to support genetically viable carnivore populations. In addition to being well-known flagship species, large carnivores are important for maintaining ecosystem processes, including predation and scavenging. Healthy carnivore populations are thought to support biodiversity in other trophic levels, notably primary producers (plants). A study of snow leopards found that just 40% of protected areas in the species’ range were large enough for a single adult male and only 4-13% were large enough for 15 or more adult females. This illustrates the importance of farming methods compatible with animal movement and the maintenance of corridors to other protected areas to maintain genetic diversity, which are provided by Land Sharing.

Taking this into consideration, which strategy is more effective in meeting food production and biodiversity conservation goals?

Like most scientific debates, there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer. Both Land Sparing and Land Sharing have benefits and limitations, and using both strategies in tandem may be most effective. The strategy that benefits a particular species depends on its tolerance for disturbance, so the combination of both strategies may be most beneficial to overall biodiversity. The topography and productivity of a landscape also affect which strategy will be most effective. Areas with low productivity or heterogeneous topography are typically better suited to Land Sharing, while flat or high productivity areas lend themselves to Land Sparing. The area’s history and socioeconomics are also important to consider. However, care should be taken to consider the biophysical processes and animal movement that link areas around the globe. When various strategies along the gradient of Land Sparing to Land Sharing are applied to an appropriate context and used to complement each other, we can make progress towards a sustainable model for food production and biodiversity conservation.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on July 11, 2019.

To answer the question of what influences an individual’s behavior, we can turn to the theory of planned behavior, a popular social-psychological model. According to the theory of planned behavior, a person’s intention predicts if they will actually perform a behavior. Intention is influenced by a person’s attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.

It is important to note that the theory of planned behavior, though one of the most commonly applied theories, is not the only theory in social science that can be used to understand human behavior. In this article, I focus on this theory in order to highlight the benefits of integrating social science into sustainability research.

Breaking Down the Theory of Planned Behavior

Attitude is a measure of how favorably a person views a behavior. It is influenced by the person’s beliefs about the behavior itself and the outcome of the behavior. For example, a person could feel negatively about using plastic products instead of reusable options, while also feeling positively about the outcome of this behavior (i.e. convenience, less expensive in the short term). To account for these two dimensions, social scientists employing the theory of planned behavior typically ask study participants to use a scale (i.e. a six-point scale where one represents strong disagreement and six represents strong agreement) to rate a statement about a particular behavior, followed by a statement about the outcome of that behavior. Afterwards, scientists multiply the two ratings to get an overall score for the respondent’s attitude. The higher the score, the more positively the respondent feels about the behavior in question (i.e. using plastic products).

Subjective norms are the behaviors considered normal by a group that the individual values. A person’s beliefs about what is normal for others in the group (i.e. do others in your social group recycle?) and how important it is to comply with that norm (i.e. is it important to you to behave the way that others in your group expect?) influence their subjective norm. These norms are based on what the respondent thinks others in their social group think or do, rather than on the actual behavior of others in the group.

The last aspect of the theory of planned behavior is perceived behavioral control. This dimension addresses how much power a person feels they have in performing a behavior (i.e. is it easy for your household to recycle?).

Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Sustainable Behaviors

Knowing a person’s attitude, subjective norms, and perceived control gives scientists an insight into why people behave as they do. Scientists who use the theory of planned behavior can typically predict between 50-70% of the variation in a particular behavior.

Different behaviors vary in what attributes are most predictive. For example, boaters in Florida are motivated to follow boating speed limits in areas with manatees because of subjective norms and a desire to comply with law enforcement. On the other hand, farmers in Pakistan, where farm forestry has been proposed to counteract the loss of forested land, were more likely to comply if they held favorable views of the advantages of planting trees on their land.

How the Theory of Planned Behavior Can Aid Efforts to Promote Sustainable Behaviors

Understanding why people engage in a particular behavior enables us to design more effective methods of intervention. Sustainability research studies are beginning to include social-psychological perspectives and apply the knowledge gained to create more effective interventions.

A recently published study of restaurant managers used the theory of planned behavior and institutional theory, which predicts how an organization will behave, to investigate what motivates managers to adopt sustainable restaurant practices. They found that managers were most influenced by what their suppliers and customers expected.

Another recent study found that the recycling behavior of ethnic minorities in Ontario, Canada was best predicted by their perceived behavioral control, attitudes, and moral norms (a specific type of subjective norm). This information was used to develop an educational program that promoted the community’s recycling program. The program was given by the leaders of 12 religious institutions in the community. When community leaders who were important to the target audience delivered the message, the intervention was more successful in positively changing intentions to recycle, compared to previous efforts by municipal leaders who weren’t as important to the target audience.

Studies that account for human behavior without directly applying the theory of planned behavior have also had success changing behavior. At Western Colorado State University, a team of researchers observed four buildings with existing recycling programs. They then made changes to the locations of waste and recycling containers based on their observations. They saw an improvement in in the amount of recyclable materials deposited in the correct receptacle in every location monitored after making changes that “nudged” students to recycle properly.

The success of Western Colorado State University’s intervention demonstrates the utility of acknowledging and accounting for human behavior, even without a theoretical framework. Anyone, even if not a researcher or community leader, can use the general ideas of the theory of planned behavior to have more productive conversations about sustainability. The key is to find out what motivates the target audience, whether that’s a friend, coworkers, or a larger group. Then, the message must be tailored to address that motivation.

The body of research related to sustainability continues to grow and deepen our knowledge of best practices. The field would further benefit from a consideration of what motivates different groups of people to adopt best practices. The growing integration of the theory of planned behavior and sustainability studies is one example of what this collaboration might look like, as the field of sustainability moves forward.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on December 13, 2018.

Key Definitions

What does it mean to invest responsibly? Responsible investment is most often defined as investment that promotes environmental, social, and governance elements/practices deemed as responsible, though it can also be a broader term for other types of similar investment. Using this definition, the environmental pillar most notably encompasses considerations of climate change in terms of physical and transitional risk for companies, given the projected impacts of climate change. It also includes risks related to resource scarcity (e.g. water), deforestation, waste, and pollution. Within the social pillar, topics include health and safety, employee relations, engagement with and consideration of local communities (e.g. indigenous populations), as well as working conditions throughout the supply chain (e.g. eliminating slavery and child labor). Under the umbrella of governance, executive pay (relative to employee pay), corruption, political lobbying, leadership diversity (e.g. executive team, board, management, etc.), and tax strategy may be key features. To reflect these three pillars, responsible investment is now more commonly known as ESG Investment, an idea and term which originated from a 2005 ‘Who Cares Wins’ conference and report.

ESG investment is different from an older term, Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), which more explicitly ascribes moral judgment. Consequently, SRI involves not investing in alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. Another distinction is that ESG investment considers ESG factors to have financial implications, as opposed to only ethical ones.

A sister of responsible investment is Impact Investing, which is a more proactive approach in investing with the ‘intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside financial return.’ In other words, a positive impact is valued above financial returns. Other terms to describe these variations of responsible investment include sustainable investing, mission-related investing, or screening.

Differences in Interpretation

The question of responsible investing is defined differently across cultures. In economies leading on sustainability innovation, responsible investing isn’t a matter of optimizing profits in a socially celebrated manner. Rather, the practice carries a moral obligation that reflects cultural values, making it closer to SRI. This form of investment has been observed in Scandinavia, where responsible investing was principally known as ‘Ethical Investing’ for a long time; the term is loaded with moral severity. This approach contrasts to the United States, where shareholder wealth maximization is valued significantly as part of fiduciary responsibility, regardless of societal impacts.

Responses from Investors

While demand for responsible investment products is increasing, institutional investors have mixed responses. Some have been slow to join the ESG movement under the guise that ESG investing interferes with the fiduciary responsibility of institutions. Meanwhile, others now see embedding ESG principles as part of an institution’s fiduciary responsibility. This change in mindset has been led by Al Gore, along with several other institutions. They seek to remove misconceptions that suggest that responsible investing can negatively impact a portfolio.

A study conducted by PwC found that – similar to Al Gore – 83 percent of Limited Partners surveyed ‘believe that better management of ESG factors will either improve returns or reduce risk, meaning that ESG management is part of their fiduciary duty.’ Risk is a central element in the decision to factor ESG principles into investing, as it can reduce future losses related to stranded assets. Likewise, it can provide an effective framework for dealing with unknowns, such as how to respond to an energy transition or resource scarcity. In the same PwC study, 18 percent of respondents indicated that they had actively withheld capital or withdrawn from an investment on ESG grounds.

According to McKinsey, over 25 percent of global assets under management are invested in line with the idea that ESG elements affect financial returns, whether in the form of performance or market value. The growth of responsible investment is most notably reflected in the decisions of some of the world’s largest institutional investors, including Norway’s Governance Pension Fund Global (GPFG), the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) of Japan (which, although having some short-term struggles, is still committed to long-term sustainable investing), and the Netherlands’ ABP Pension Fund. The combination of action from large institutional investors and a growing demand for these products continues to drive the field’s growth.

Looking Ahead

While responsible investment has been building momentum, it is not all rosy. Responsible investment comes as a response to meeting global challenges; in that context, what is being done is insufficient. A BNY Mellon report emphasizes that the “annual global investment needed in developing countries in key sectors related to the proposed UN Sustainable Development Goals is estimated to range from US$3.3 trillion to US$4.5 trillion… Current investment in these sectors is around US$1.4 trillion, leaving an investment gap of between US$1.9 and US$3.1 trillion per year.” In a 2016 survey conducted by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA), only about 30 percent of investors who responded owned responsible investments, with half planning to own some in the future. These statistics leave significant room for growth in the field. In order to catch up to these ambitious targets and expand engagement in responsible investing, the responsible investment landscape needs to tackle a few key sticking points.

One key area to address is accessibility. Responsible investment financial instruments are still not universally available across investment options. Even when they are, language surrounding responsible investment can sometimes serve as a barrier to understanding and effectively using these tools. Teething out the distinctions between ESG, SRI, and Impact Investing can be tiresome enough, even without getting into the technical jargon that prevents people from accessing finance and investment to begin with.

The second issue to sort out is measurement. To say an investment is responsible is loaded with other questions, such as ‘Responsible to who?’ ‘Responsible under what/whose criteria?’ ‘When has one crossed the threshold from irresponsible to neutral to responsible?’ The answers to these are culturally contextual and vary greatly. In addition to not having a shared idea of what ‘responsible’ looks like, the areas covered under the idea of ‘responsible investing’, such as social good, can be inherently difficult to measure. While there are ways to measure impact, the field is still young, meaning that there are not yet mature best practices or universally agreed standards. Accordingly, it is difficult to compare one investment’s impact with another. Furthermore, once standards are established, it will be another task to ensure and audit the quality of data; this problem is already being worked on, as data quality gains greater importance in an era of big data.

This growing focus on responsible investment comes as the current and expected impacts of climate change become more severe; the IPCC recently warned that the world has until about 2030 to take significant action in order to avoid the most extreme impacts. Beyond defending a company against risks related to climate change, responsible investment plays a proactive role in curbing climate change by pouring more resources into the development and advancement of technologies and companies that reduce emissions. Responsible investment, supported by other financial tools such as carbon pricing and insurance, will play a central role in mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on November 20, 2018.

A recent study on the island biodiversity crisis, published in Global Ecology and Conservation, found that although islands make up only 6.7 percent of the Earth’s landmass, they are home to about 20 percent of Earth’s biodiversity. The wonders of these island paradises don’t just make good photos but are part of their unique and fragile ecosystems that provide services like food and clean water, prevent disease outbreaks, protect communities against natural disasters by acting as buffers against storms and flooding and store carbon from the atmosphere, thereby slowing climate change. Despite all of this, islands are home to about 50 percent of the world’s threatened species, and conservation and restoration policies are needed to stop it from getting worse.

Plant and animal life on islands are at a much higher risk of extinction than life on continents because many island species evolve in isolation, exploiting the diverse habitats and resources that islands offer from their coast to their summits, leading to smaller population sizes and species developing unique or somewhat strange characteristics—such as gigantism or the inability to fly—which improve their survival under the very particular conditions they live, but makes them vulnerable to disturbances such as habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive species, climate change and even diseases. There’s no greater example of these threats and their impacts than in one of the most biologically diverse regions on the planet and endangered species capital of the world—Hawai’i.

“An example from the Hawaiian Islands illustrates how multiple drivers of biodiversity change can act synergistically to produce a ‘perfect storm’ of threats to insular species,” the researchers of the study found.

For over a century, Hawai’i has suffered massive habitat loss. First, forests and native flora were transformed into sugarcane plantations and rangeland, while more recently, coastal habitats like mangroves are being removed for real estate, leading to changes in natural wildfire patterns, habitat fragmentation and diseases. Mosquitoes carrying avian malaria killed as many as 78 native bird species from the Hawaiian lowlands, and climate change exacerbates disease spread. Avian malaria has spread into the last upland haven of endangered Hawaiian honeycreepers on Kaua’i island, and a fungal disease is devastating ‘Ohi’a lehua, a native flowering evergreen tree, which many forest birds depend on. The rise in diseases due to habitat loss also affects people, linked to diseases like malaria, dengue fever, Ebola and SARS, and about 60 percent of known human diseases and 75 percent of emerging diseases come from animals. The extinction of a species also means the loss of an entire set of plant and chemical interactions, such as pollination and decomposition, which other species depend on, causing a chain reaction that further threatens biodiversity.

Another significant cause of biodiversity loss on islands is invasive species, from flowers to rodents. The Fire Tree in Hawai’i is one example of just how much an invasive species can disrupt an ecosystem, causing a chain reaction of its own. The Fire Tree’s ability to add nitrogen to soil helps invasive weeds thrive—adapted to high nitrogen levels unlike native plants—and is enabled further by invasive feral pigs who disperse the seeds of the Fire Tree and invasive weeds. Invasive species are usually brought in through trade, transport, travel and tourism. In their new environment, they face few or no parasites, predators or herbivores, allowing them to thrive and shift an entire ecosystem, flushing out native species that depend on native plants and pristine conditions to survive.

To stop further biodiversity loss and help recover threatened island species, the researchers found that conservation efforts that only target threatened island species are a short-term solution unless they can sufficiently restore lost habitats, as well as fund more scientific research and support island communities as stewards of global biodiversity. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) stresses the importance of traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples and their involvement in legislation, policy, evaluation and environmental management. However, Hawaii is one of only a handful of states in the U.S. without a National Forest System, and continental species receive significantly more conservation resources than island species.

“Endangered birds on the U.S. mainland receive roughly fifteen times as much funding per species as endangered Hawaiian birds,” the study found.

The Senate is considering a new bill (S. 554) that could help support forest conservation and research in Hawai’i. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, private and nonprofit organizations and “any interested individuals” in determining the possibility of establishing a unit of the National Forest System in Hawaii and what lands to include. The aim is to protect and improve forest areas and remaining native or unique vegetation types, but it falls short of a few essential aspects that can help further protect biodiversity in Hawai’i.

Although the policy will search for potential land and habitats, it will only do so in the 6 major islands in the state of Hawai’i, leaving out many other islands and islets of Hawai’i.

“Small islands and islets located off the mainland or larger islands can act as refugia for species extinguished by humans on the mainland through hunting or the introduction of invasive alien species,” the study found, meaning more research on smaller islands is needed since they can provide havens for endangered species.

It also does not specify how much habitat or land should be conserved or restored. However, the study suggests that any action should follow the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and “establish a minimum threshold of 30 percent of the area occupied by each habitat type in each island group for its protection.”

The bill also doesn’t address the issue of the continual introduction of invasive species into Hawai’i, which according to the study, “surpasses by several orders of magnitude the rate of successful eradications.”

While more needs to be done to protect island biodiversity and the ecological life support biodiversity brings, the bill helps open the door to further conversations on research and the restoration of native Hawaiian flora and fauna, and hopefully, the inclusion of island communities and indigenous peoples in that process.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Jan. 5, 2022.

Within a circular economy, there are multiple loops or cycles that correspond to varying degrees of efficiency. The inner loop(s) is where design will have a significant role to play in creating direct feedback paths throughout a product’s lifetime. Inner loops include remanufacturing – essentially the restoration of a product so that it is nearly as good as new. Another inner loop is reuse, which includes using goods from a second-hand store. A most efficient inner loop would include maintenance and more intensive use of a product in order to reduce the overall quantity of the item required (think Zipcar). The outer loop, sometimes called the ‘loop of last resort,’ is one that we are already familiar with: recycling. While recycling can preserve the basic materials that a product is made from, it does not preserve other resources that were used to make that item, such as labor.

Current Status

In the context of extreme action that is needed to meet international climate goals, progress on implementing a circular economy is slow. The European Commission has been working towards a circular economy since at least 2014, when it adopted a zero-waste program. Specific goals include recycling 70 percent of municipal waste by 2030. Its last update was in January 2018, which included adding a strategy for plastic and a monitoring framework for the overall strategy. In the United States, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation has taken a lead in this field, hosting an annual Circular Economy Summit since 2015. While it is commendable that the circular economy has gained momentum in these places over the last five years, its potential role in economic growth and sustainability has been undervalued.

The idea of a circular economy gained greater recognition during the past year’s annual climate negotiations, COP24, in Katowice, Poland. A handful of governments and companies presented their lessons learned for implementing a circular economy in the hope of inspiring others into action. One of the main takeaways from the presentation was that cities are a major place of opportunity. Much like broader sustainability action nowadays, broad-reaching progress often takes place at the grassroots level, such as in cities.

The movement to understand the economy as circular, rather than linear,  is already growing organically as a broader part of innovation. What were previously considered products are now sold as services. Netflix and Lyft eliminate the need to buy DVDs or a car, respectively. Thinking of goods as services instead also removes company incentives to build in ‘planned obsolescence’ so that a consumer will need to purchase more in the future. This shift in mindset allows companies to invest for long-term sustainability.

Inching Ahead

The concept of a circular economy might be simple, but it implies redesigning the entire economy. This transition away from a linear model, where the birth and death of a product are not linked, faces several important barriers. The largest, overarching barrier is cultural: namely, it relates to the way we think about the structure of our economy. There is currently an emphasis on acquiring more and more things, in some countries as a way to demonstrate social status, in others a natural effect of rapid development. Consumer expectations for convenience, including rapid disposal of products, further compound the problem. For example, McKinsey found that from 2000 to 2014, the average consumer bought 60% more clothing but used it for half as long.

As culture slowly catches up to the mentality required for a circular economy, technological progress is also required. Currently, the equipment doesn’t exist and/or is not available at competitive prices to recycle or remanufacture goods. For instance, there are so many different forms of plastic that it takes advanced technology to sort through and process them.

While no entire economy has been redesigned to fit the definition of a circular economy, there are numerous examples of circular ‘ecosystems.’ One such example is Chicago’s The Plant, where 16 food enterprises divert 10,000 tons of food waste each year, while simultaneously decreasing the demand for natural gas within these enterprises. Similarly, the Kalundborg Symbiosis in Denmark consists of nine public and private companies who exchange energy, water, and other materials in an essentially-closed loop.

The leisurely pace at which the circular economy concept is reaching economy-wide scales is a lost opportunity for overall economic growth. In addition to significant emissions reduction potential, estimates of the impact of a circular economy in certain countries, such as India, indicate an additional USD 218 billion in economic value could be added by 2030. Failing to accelerate this game-changing economic transformation would mean leaving billions of dollars on the table, as well as adding otherwise unnecessary emissions to an already tight carbon budget.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on March 7, 2019.

For example, in Detroit, foundations large and small support various efforts to spur entrepreneurship, and foundations in SE Michigan have even come together to fund an umbrella organization that oversees the grant-making for much of the work done in the region to promote entrepreneurship. What does a foundation-dominated ecosystem mean for entrepreneurs and economic development?

The opportunity

Of the various institutions involved in an entrepreneurship ecosystem, foundations are uniquely positioned to define their objectives and think long-term. In terms of economic development, leaders of local governments focus on things like creating jobs and attracting employers. Banks and venture capital funds would like to see opportunities for more investment. By contrast, foundations have the freedom to define their own objectives – these could be improving neighborhoods, accelerating small business growth, or increasing the number of entrepreneurs launching new ventures.

The consequences

From the perspective of implementing organizations (non-profit groups doing work on the ground with entrepreneurs), the biggest concern is continuation of foundation funding and the sustainability of their programming.

For these organizations operating in an ecosystem dominated by foundation funding, the funding cycle creates an incentive to compete rather than collaborate with other organizations. Foundation funding is a limited resource and organizations want to keep their piece of the funding pie. In turn, foundations have learned to encourage and promote organizations that collaborate with others. However, the pressures to compete rather than collaborate remain high – leading to what amounts to collaboration in name only.

In addition, foundations tend to be highly numbers focused as their default position for evaluating grantee performance over the lifecycle of a grant. The consequence is that grantees gravitate toward technical assistance activities involving a high number of entrepreneurs. In other words, entrepreneurship support organizations that are highly dependent on foundations will overvalue activities that create a high number of “touch points” with entrepreneurs. In many grant-making activities, this focus on quantity makes sense. For example, if foundations give to a malaria prevention organization, it will be helpful to know how many bed nets the organization is able to provide to families. If a foundation is supporting a conference on sustainability, it will want to know the total number to attendees.

It is much less clear that a focus on numbers is valuable for supporting entrepreneurship – in fact, this focus might be leading to a misallocation of resources. While it is nice to have 100 entrepreneurs in a room learning the basics of starting a business, it might be better in terms of impact to use those resources in assisting a handful of promising entrepreneurs with strategic consulting and legal assistance. The idea that quantity should be prioritized over quality – as opposed to focusing efforts on a smaller total number of entrepreneurs but providing more assistance – is an untested, built-in assumption of foundation funding and the standard process for evaluation.

The concern

Even though foundations have the ability to plan around a long-term entrepreneurship development strategy, it doesn’t mean they will. Changes in foundation leadership and trends in philanthropy could then lead to a drop off in support for entrepreneurship.

From a societal perspective, it is interesting that something that has come to been seen as vital to an economic development strategy – supporting entrepreneurship – is largely funded by organizations outside any type of democratic accountability. In many places, foundations are even able to shape the priorities of the entrepreneurship ecosystem because of their outsize influence – determining, for instance, the neighborhoods that will be a focus, or whether supporting start-ups or small businesses is a better idea.

There is a great opportunity to learn more what works and what doesn’t in creating fertile ground for new businesses – developing a mentorship network is one area receiving increased attention. Despite all the work entrepreneurship-supporting organizations do to encourage innovation, they themselves are often slow to innovate and test out new ideas.

The balance of funding for entrepreneurship between foundations, governments, universities, and corporations will become a concern for those thinking about the future of entrepreneurship and sustaining networks of support. Ultimately, which sectors of society become the dominant funders of a given ecosystem will influence the outcomes of the ecosystem in terms of its sustainability, priorities, and overall direction.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on August 22, 2019.

In a 2004 “Challenge to Conservationists,” the Worldwatch Institute noted that the “world’s conservation agenda” (dominated by the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and Conservation International, funded by corporations and governments) has “been marked by growing conflicts of interest—and by a disturbing neglect of the indigenous peoples whose land they are in business to protect.” This trending neglect prevails despite programmatic efforts toward community-based participation. One possible frame for these conflicts of interest over land management is a basic power struggle between international and local that involves both knowledge and institutional hierarchies.

Government- and NGO-initiated conservation programs are problematic because their structures and goals tend to devalue local knowledge and exclude local participation. Focusing on non-human land and resources, even the most participatory of conservation programs tends to exclude locals whose agendas and interests don’t align with conservation politics. Programmatic conservation for the sake of land and resources also attributes limited value to local people’s experiential knowledge. Underlying this misattribution is the assumption that previous local forms of resource management have necessitated an intervention that will restore the land to a more pristine condition for conservation rather than use.

There are two main flaws in the assumption that previous or traditional land management practices are inferior to conservation. First, the goal of a pristine condition excludes all presence of humans, even though humans are inherently a part of wilderness. In the dynamic history of earth, there never was a pristine condition. And yet, the ideal of a pristine wilderness has led conservation programs to physically exclude people from biodiverse “conservation corridors” (p. 24). The removal of people from living in or using a certain terrain certainly shapes it in a new way that may promote forest regrowth or river replenishment, but it comes at the expense of the displaced and resource-deprived community.

Second, human land use is not necessarily degrading. In Changes in the Land: Colonists and the Ecology of New England, William Cronon highlights such cases in which human land use in itself can conserve and promote the health of the land: the Indians who were seen by arriving colonists as ravaging Northern New England forests were actually responsible for much of the biodiversity that the colonists observed. The problem of conservation’s limitation on human use of land (to activities like recreational hiking, ecotourism, and sustainable agroforestry) appears not only in government managed conservation programs but international NGO-led initiatives.

In the case of Yellowstone National Park from 1872-1908, support came largely from elite classes: conservationists who cited the importance of “expert scientific oversight of environmentally sensitive areas,” upper-class sport hunting clubs that also functioned as conservation groups (e.g. Boone and Crockett Club), and tourists who found appeal in “Yellowstone’s image as a remnant of a long-lost western rural past” (p. 92, 99, 111). Two notions of North America as a ‘free country’ clashed: an individual’s freedom to do or use anything in ‘free’ space was incompatible with society’s push to conserve land that defines its national identity as ‘free.’ Meanwhile, a multiplicity of interrelated social and economic factors played into various uses of the land (hunting, poaching, tusking) and their perceived legitimacy by locals and officials.

Yet government purchase and protection goals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to the enforcement of policies that excluded people who had been or wanted to make a living off the land. Yellowstone’s institutional enforcement sought to exclude American Indian seasonal hunters and Euro-American poachers alike from using the land through “rigorous patrolling of park boundaries, tightening of reservation regulations, new treaties” and arrests, establishing a new discourse for legality and legitimacy of land use (p. 95). In effect, Yellowstone’s park management disregarded the livelihoods of those who had been using the land and its wildlife for income and sustenance in favor of conservation for recreation, aesthetic beauty, and national identity.

“Participation” rhetoric emerged as a backlash to such cases of managerial elitist and exclusive forms of land and resource conservation. The historic shift from non-participatory government “preservation” to participatory nongovernmental “conservation” seemed progressive in the rhetoric of environmental conservation and development. Yet problems of exclusivity continued in NGO-led programs.

From the late 1980s to early 1990s, international NGO conservation groups began designing community collaboration programs, supported by both private foundations and multilateral donor agencies: “community-based natural resource management,” “community-based conservation,” “sustainable development and use,” “grassroots conservation,” “devolution of resource rights to local communities,” and “integrated conservation and development programs” (ICDPs) (p. 20).

It is important to note that these programs were generated by conservationists, not by indigenous or local people. Mac Chapin also notes that ICDPs in the 1990s were “driven largely by the agendas of the conservationists, with little indigenous input” (p. 22). Rather than being something “that people create for themselves,” participatory programs are an “invited space, [ … ] structured and owned” by the NGOs and conservationist funders (p. 275). “Invited spaces” of conservation programs exclude participants whose local or personal agendas don’t align with that of the leaders and funders. While conservationists may be concerned with environmental resource value, local people may want to uphold their rights and access to the land and its resources. Local communities then tend to be excluded from programs that set out to protect and conserve certain plots of their land.

Conservation development arguably necessitates helpful outside and globalized networks of people to factor in concerns about biological integrity and human livelihood. But programmatic implementations of conservation – in cases that range from government-managed national parks to NGO-led community-based programs – has given powerful leverage to the governments and NGOs, rather than local people and communities. To return to the frame of a power struggle between local and international hierarchies, perhaps we are now looking for top-heavy interactions in global networks of expertise, where local community agents and experts are at the top, supported by a base of international funders and experts in land use and livelihood.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on December 6, 2016.

However, the fear and apocalyptic nature of the impending impacts of climate change are not holding back several countries, who are emerging as leaders. Some are the usual suspects, championing climate mitigation, while others are taking a more pragmatic approach and demonstrating what adaptation and innovation look like.

In the Pacific, the Marshall Islands made groundbreaking news after becoming the first country to commit to going carbon neutral by 2050. In a global context, this announcement is only symbolic, as the country contributes less than 0.00001 percent to total global emissions. On a local level, it has significant implications. It’s part of the country’s net-zero strategy, which “in addition to seeking to slow climate change in the transport, electricity and waste sector, stresses the need to invest into adapting to freak weather events linked to global warming, from hurricanes to floods,” said President Hilda Heine at a UN Summit last year. As one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change, not surprisingly, adaptation is a priority. Ongoing efforts to protect the country include climate-proofing infrastructure, reinforcing shorelines, and strengthening food and water security; building a new island is a last-resort effort.

A quiet leader, Chile, has focused on preparing one of its major and most vulnerable industries, agriculture, for the effects of climate change. It has done so through a unique government agency, the Foundation for Agricultural Innovation, which is dedicated to discovering and implementing transformational agriculture technology to respond to climate change. Climate change is also taken seriously by the public, which is partly why it was possible for Chile to become the first country in South America to implement a carbon tax, despite 80% of the country’s energy needs being met through fossil fuels at the time of the announcement. Since then, in early 2018, Chile committed to not build any new coal-powered fire plants and has been developing a plan to phase out coal.

The Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, have been leading on climate change for decades now. They have provided an (until-recently ignored) example of how developed countries can move towards complete carbon neutrality while demonstrating economic growth and meeting their citizens’ needs. In Norway, despite much of the country’s wealth coming from petroleum, in 2017 half of its cars were powered by renewable energy. At the same time, 98% of its electricity generation comes from renewable energy, mostly hydropower. In a report released in Poland during COP24, Denmark ranked number one in mitigating climate change among 25 other major countries. This is no surprise, as Denmark is well-known for its strong bicycle culture and major wind energy industry. Meanwhile, Sweden has so perfected recycling that it imports trash to keep its recycling plants running. It has had one of the world’s highest carbon taxes and strictest environmental policies for the last couple of decades, but still boasts a strong and internationally competitive economy. Sweden is proof that climate action and economic growth aren’t mutually exclusive.

In Africa, Morocco is one of the countries leading the way; it has been ranked in the top 10 on the Climate Change Performance Index in recent years. Economic growth has been affected by severe drought, but Morocco has been quick to take the impacts of climate change seriously. The government developed a Green Strategy (Plan Vert), which lifts fossil fuel subsidies, outlines ambitious targets, and protects the ocean as a national resource. Plenty of countries have taken these steps, so it is not this, but Morocco’s giant thermosolar farm among other large-scale, ambitious projects that sets it apart. The plant, expected to be completed by 2020, will generate electricity for one million homes. It is also the start of what Morocco hopes will be its newest export to Europe and beyond – energy.

No surprise on any list of climate leaders is China. After the ground-breaking US-China agreement that paved the way for the Paris Agreement in 2015, the United States has stepped away, leaving China as the superpower at the forefront of climate action. China, as the largest country by people and global emissions, is key to hopes of reducing global carbon emissions. It has been a leader diplomatically, but has seen challenges in implementation, with ministries not always able to coordinate efficiently. An innovative approach that China has been able to take given its size is piloting climate policies in different provinces, as it has done with carbon markets.

Notable absentees from climate leadership indices and practices include Germany, whose global support of climate action contradict its own in-country efforts. Other laggards, which need to step up their activities in order to reach global goals include the United States, Brazil, and India. But, as UN General Secretary said, “The world is counting on all of us to rise to the challenge before it’s too late.”

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on January 24, 2019.

• Relief: Life saving and getting minimal functions going for preserving life and reducing damage risks.
• Recovery: Help society move into a functioning stage so that people don’t need to leave and outside assistance can be reduced.
• Reconstruction: Measures to boost economic and social strength to pre-disaster levels (or, even better, better than pre-disaster).

In terms of using resources efficiently and having the best chances for a better tomorrow, integrating across these phases as much as (reasonably) possible is key.  If one can do something in “relief” that continues into and contributes to “recovery” and is a player (lays foundations) for “reconstruction”, it is like getting a triple whammy.  And, there is a fourth R: Resiliency: if that measure helps contributes to the potential for reducing future risks, a grand slam is in play.

For example, when it comes to shelter, tents are relief and rarely into recovery.  Having a container housing unit, like the US and allied militaries have used in places like Bosnia-i-Herzegovina and Iraq, blends from relief (quickly on site, quick to install) into recovery (housing elements that can stay around awhile). Deploying such ‘container’ units with plans and ways to incorporate into rebuilt infrastructure with (let’s say) high-wind and earthquake resistance takes that ‘shelter’ investment into a triple whammy or grand-slam solution. Now, a container is more expensive than a tent — but that is a lasting investment rather than a (hopefully very) temporary path to the problem.

In my space, distributed renewable energy is the blaring example of how to integrate across the Three Rs.  As the grid gets knocked down, in places around the world, the diesel generators kick in and disaster relief organizations send in lots of them. That translates into high-cost and high-pollution demand for diesel fuel — which, by the way, undermines the Three Rs through resource demands (transportation of that diesel fuel and, of course, the cost of fuel).  With the revolution in renewables — especially, in this context, solar pv and associated systems (micro-grid controls, storage, energy efficient devices (like LED lights) — the costs of going ‘green’ in the disaster relief, rather than polluting diesel generators, has now gotten advantaged to the clean energy option.  And, unlike the diesel generator, it is quite straightforward to integrate a solar system across the ThreeRs.  And, while doing so, build the solar system in.

For US disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) needs to update its approaches — clean energy systems need to be a growing part of the ‘fly away’ kit for helping get emergency power to communities blacked-out by disasters (like New York/New Jersey post Sandy and Puerto Rico today, after Maria).  And, the US government requires an integrated approach to this so the ‘fly-away’ solar is done in a way that enables rapid creation of small micro-grids to address relief that facilities recovery and contributes to reconstruction.  And, the installations should proceed down a path so that the next time a climate-enhanced disaster hits the community, the solar keeps the lights on and lowers the costs/challenges of that next disaster’s Three Rs.

Learning from disasters and reducing risks into the future pays off: look at Houston’s hospitals in Hurricane Harvey.  Looking at Puerto Rico’s electricity situation, any honest analysis would conclude (differing, of course, as to specifics and how much and ..) that a rapid deployment of micro-grid solar would flow across the Three Rs and is a smart triple whammy path to help people and the economy.

Across the Three Rs, there are many ways that clean energy can and should be included in a Four R solution.  Here is just one example:

Greening Schools: Greening schools has tremendous benefits. Including a micro-grid provides tremendous benefit in terms of energy assuredness during disaster in a key shelter (school gyms house how many in disasters) while also facilitating more rapid restart of the educational system post disaster.  A rapid deployment of micro-grids to Puerto Rico’s schools could help the educational system get up and running while providing greater resiliency into the future. A Four R solution.

A decade ago, as part of a energy policy work called Energize America 2020, we proposed to a number of candidates the Energy Smart Communities Act.   Those measures would provide for greater resiliency in the face of natural or man-made disasters.

Be Sociable, Share!

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on October 5, 2017.

Between the news media and the protests, it would have been easy to get the impression that this year’s United Nations climate summit, known as COP26, was all talk and no action.

Fortunately, the ‘ambition mechanism’ from the Paris Agreement — the process it establishes to periodically review countries’ progress toward meeting their commitments to address climate change, and to ratchet up their ambition over time — worked.

The conference brought forth a slew of good news and formal agreements to implement bolder climate action.

According to the International Energy Agency, if all the climate pledges announced to date are fully implemented on time, it would be enough “…to hold the rise in global temperatures to 1.8 °C by 2100.”

While the best science available suggests we need to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, this is the first time governments have come together to provide targets that could keep us below 2 degrees Celsius of warming.

Although we did not fully close the gap between ambition and action, the direction is clear, and full implementation of those commitments is critical.

What I was watching for

What’s most important right now is slowing the rate of warming and reducing our global temperature trajectory. Major progress happened on both scores.

EDF was proud to have worked alongside many partners to: call for fast cuts in methane pollution; scale natural climate solutions, including protecting tropical forests and the people who live there; enhance satellite technology that can help tackle greenhouse gas emissions; reduce the climate impacts of aviation; and establish the right rules for global carbon markets.

While these are steps along a long path, they are important ones.

Highlights from the climate summit

There was plenty of good news worth highlighting:

1. 1. Global methane pledge: The U.S. and EU announced that more than 100 countries representing 70% of the global economy have signed on to participate in the Global Methane Pledge, working together to cut human-caused global methane emissions 30% by 2030. This is a welcome step. As my colleague, Dr. Ilissa Ocko, says in her TED talk: The methane we emit today could cause more warming over the next 10 years than carbon dioxide pollution.
   2. Article 6 rulebook: Markets have the power to propel fast and deep climate pollution cuts while providing an economic development lifeline for the people who are most at risk from the impacts of climate change. After six years of difficult and technical negotiations, COP26 finally gave us a strong Paris Agreement rulebook for international cooperation through carbon markets and called on countries to take specific and urgent measures to address the climate emergency. While there was little movement on the issue of compensating the developing countries that are most affected by climate change, the Article 6 rules could clear a path to get private capital flowing from developed to developing countries.
   3. Cooperation agreement between China and the U.S.: China’s top climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, said that China would cooperate more closely with the U.S. on climate action. He said China would strengthen its commitment to cut emissions, develop a national plan on methane and help stop deforestation. While short on details, the announcement is a hopeful sign that the two countries emitting the most greenhouse gases will continue to work together to tackle climate change.
   4. India’s climate commitment: Prime Minister Modi announced a major new climate commitment for India, with a target of a 45% reduction in the carbon intensity of the economy by 2030 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2070. While short on details, India’s commitment is significant since future emissions are expected to grow dramatically, and low carbon development is the path forward.
   5. Sustainable aviation fuel standard: The International Civil Aviation Organization announced adoption of an expanded set of criteria for sustainable aviation fuel. This will help ensure that airlines can meet their sustainability obligations and that SAF producers have confidence investing in the sustainability of their supply chains and operations. It should also help put aviation on a flightpath to net zero by 2050. This is essential since, were it a country, aviation would be in the world’s ‘climate top 10,’ with emissions expected to grow.
   6. A pledge to end deforestation and provide $1.7 billion for forest communities: In the first major formal deal of the COP26 conference, 100 leaders representing 85% of the world’s forests pledged to end deforestation by 2030. At the same time, governments and private funders announced a historic $1.7 billion pledge at COP26 in support of Indigenous peoples and local communities, underscoring their essential role in land stewardship. This is a game-changer since the process of cutting and burning trees adds as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

Continuing to go bold on climate

In the end, this conference showed that bringing the right people to the table and putting in the hard work — studying, advocating, planning, partnering, negotiating and more — is still important to solving the climate emergency.

It showed that pushing our leaders for bold climate action actually works, and that no, it’s definitely not too late. Let’s keep going.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Nov. 24, 2021.

The UN has enjoyed several notable successes, particularly in West Africa. In Does Peacekeeping Work?: Shaping Belligerents’ Choices After Civil War, Virginia Page Fortna, a professor at Columbia University, notes that many civil society activists, government officials, and former militants credit the 1999–2005 UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) for facilitating an end to the eponymous civil war. Robert A. Blair, a professor at Brown University, similarly credits the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) for helping restore Liberians’ trust in the rule of law.

The UN has encountered far greater difficulties operating in Central Africa. In April, hundreds of Congolese activists engaged in weeks-long protests in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) North Kivu Province to demand the departure of UN peacekeepers, insisting they had failed to protect civilians from local armed groups. That same month, thousands of demonstrators gathered in the Central African Republic’s (CAR) capital city of Bangui to protest efforts by the UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSCA) to salvage a peace deal between the national government and opposing armed groups, some of which had scorned a previous peace agreement facilitated by the UN and resumed hostilities with the Central African government.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 13, 2021.

Companies and countries recognize that aggressively cutting greenhouse gas emissions is necessary for a stable, habitable and prosperous world.

For companies, that means turning their net-zero pledges into action.

While they’re putting in place emissions cuts in their own operations and supply chains to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, many companies are finding that high-quality carbon credits — sometimes called offsets — can help them support climate ambition beyond their own operations.

These carbon credits, purchased on the voluntary carbon market, represent reductions or removals of greenhouse gas emissions taking place outside of a company’s supply chains, which help compensate for not yet reduced or eliminated emissions within their own operations.

Here are three key things to know about the voluntary carbon market:

1. Carbon credits can be a good way for companies to act on climate change now, but they cannot be a substitute for a company’s own emissions reductions.

High-quality carbon credits can help companies and countries increase their ambition on the path to net-zero goals, but near-term quantified action to dramatically reduce emissions remains crucial.

If designed well, credits obtained through the voluntary carbon market can:

• Stimulate innovation.
• Mobilize public and private sector investment in the most critical areas of climate action, such as tropical forest protection.
• Give companies the tools to make immediate and meaningful progress on their net-zero commitments.

Business interest in carbon credits is high: In 2021, growth in the voluntary carbon market has been astronomical, reaching record-breaking volume and value. A new report from Ecosystem Marketplace says the voluntary carbon market is on track to hit $1 billion in transactions this year.

2. Some carbon credits can be dodgy — and can do more harm than good.

Navigating the complexities of the voluntary carbon market can be challenging because not all credits represent genuine greenhouse gas reductions or deliver the same climate benefit.

This lack of clarity and consistent quality creates a barrier to investment that costs us time we don’t have.

All players need to work collectively to create clear standards and cut the supply of low-quality carbon credits with dubious credentials and questionable environmental merit.

Companies need to do their due diligence, work with experts and follow guidance on navigating the carbon credit landscape. It takes effort to get this right, but changes are afoot to make the process easier.

3. Clarity is coming to the voluntary carbon market.

A number of initiatives, including several that EDF has a hand in, have launched to offer much-needed clarity in the voluntary carbon market.

• The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative — a collaboration between EDF, the World Wildlife Fund and Oeko-Institut — is developing an independent, user-friendly scoring tool that will empower carbon credit buyers to identify high-quality credits while also pushing for high standards in the voluntary carbon market.
• The new, independent governance body for the voluntary carbon market established by the Taskforce for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets will focus on establishing a threshold standard for high-integrity carbon credits and ensuring that they are traded in robust, transparent and equitable markets. EDF has a seat on the executive board and is co-chairing the expert advisory group.
• The Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative offers a multi-stakeholder platform to drive credible, net-zero-aligned participation in the voluntary carbon market. EDF is chairing the advisory group.
• The Business Alliance to Scale Climate Solutions is a corporate effort to close the climate-funding gap, with a key focus on the voluntary carbon market. A number of leading companies are involved, including Salesforce, Microsoft, Disney, Google and Netflix, along with EDF and other environmental groups.
• The Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition brings together leaders from government, the private sector and academia to expand the use of carbon-pricing policies. EDF is on the steering committee of CPLC’s Task Force on Net Zero Goals and Carbon Pricing.
• The Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance Coalition is a public-private partnership that aims to mobilize at least $1 billion this year for large-scale forest protection and sustainable development that is designed to benefit Indigenous peoples and forest communities. EDF helped establish the Emergent Forest Finance Accelerator, which is coordinating the LEAF Coalition.

These efforts exemplify the kind of bold leadership and initiative that companies can and should be committing to right now.

If we don’t take advantage of a high-integrity voluntary carbon market and credits, we’ll miss a crucial opportunity to drive the full-scale economic transformation we need to protect our communities from the dire impacts that no or slow action will guarantee.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 6, 2021.

While the selfless sacrifices of healthcare workers are rightly acknowledged, the steadfast contributions of law enforcement are sometimes overlooked. In the Indian context, law enforcement –i.e., police and paramilitary forces—faced unique and unprecedented challenges during the pandemic. They were required to enforce what was likely the world’s most stringent lockdown all while securing India’s vast State elections. The particular unit that I command, the 9th battalion of the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF), is located in Amravati, a city where the Delta mutation was first detected and is widely acknowledged as the starting point of the second wave.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 4, 2021.

Like wildfires in the west and hurricanes in the east, Florida anticipates the toxic algal blooms known as “red tides” every year now. In past centuries, red tides happened once every few decades, but because of rising sea temperatures and pollution, Florida has suffered red tides every year since 1998. The culprit is Karenia brevis, a microscopic organism which produces a suite of neurotoxic compounds called brevetoxins, killing marine species up and down the food chain. Year after year, Florida’s waters bloom red, and vast quantities of dead fish wash up on beaches. But this year, Tampa Bay has seen the worst red tide in the past fifty years. And its severity is no coincidence.

In late March, leaks were discovered in a phosphogypsum pond at the abandoned Piney Point fertilizer plant near the coastline of lower Tampa Bay. This pond held approximately 480 million gallons of toxic wastewater, a decades-old byproduct of phosphate processing for fertilizer. If the pond’s walls broke, a 20-foot tall wave would have flooded the surrounding neighborhood. Instead, the state authorized 215 million gallons of wastewater to be dumped into Tampa Bay. This toxic wastewater was high in nitrogen and phosphorus, which are key nutrients for Karenia brevis’s growth. By July, over 3,400,000 pounds of dead marine creatures had been collected from beaches in Pinellas County alone.

This is not the first ecological disaster implicating Piney Point. In its 35 years of operation from 1966-2001, a succession of owners illegally and legally dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of wastewater into Bishop Harbor, an estuary flowing into Tampa Bay, causing massive fish kills, toxic plumes of air, evacuations, and groundwater pollution. Under state control after the plant’s closure, 1.1 billion more gallons of wastewater were dumped into Tampa Bay between 2003 and 2007. Coverage by the Tampa Bay Times over the past decades charts a startling history of mismanagement, greed, and negligence on the part of Piney Point’s owners, the county and the state. The Center for Biological Diversity and local conservation groups are currently suing Governor DeSantis and Florida regulators for years of mismanaging Piney Point. In 2003, a top state regulator called Piney Point “one of the biggest environmental threats in Florida history.” Twenty years since the plant’s closure, the threat it poses to ecological and public health has not diminished.

With each leak and heavy rainfall, Piney Point threatens the future of Tampa Bay. Hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated wastewater sit pooled atop Piney Point’s 50-70 foot tall gypstack, which itself is filled with radioactive phosphogypsum, a byproduct of creating phosphoric acid for fertilizer. For every ton of useful phosphoric acid produced, five tons of useless phosphogypsum are created, and heaped into vast mountains of radioactive waste with no clear disposal method. And Piney Point is only one of 25 gypstacks in Florida, which altogether contain two trillion pounds of radioactive phosphogypsum. Many of the other gypstacks, located farther inland, threaten the Floridan Aquifer, which supplies drinking water for 60% of Florida residents, and has been contaminated by gypstack leaks before. Florida is at the epicenter of the phosphate industry, supplying 80% of the US’s phosphate and 25% of the world’s phosphate; Florida’s residents and ecosystems suffer much of the industry’s toxic excesses. To understand why this environmental hazard has been allowed to persist, we should take a closer look at phosphorus.

Phosphorus is essential to organic life. It makes up 1% of our body weight, and is found in our DNA, cells, bones, and teeth. Plants require it for photosynthesis and many other functions. But phosphorus is a highly reactive element, and never found uncombined in nature; many of the compounds it forms are not immediately accessible to plants. Wild plants have developed elaborate mechanisms for finding and securing phosphorus, ranging from tailored chemical secretions to expansive root systems. By far their most common adaptation, though, is acquiring phosphorus through symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi.

This knowledge is both relatively recent and rarely applied in commercial agriculture, which has a far less nuanced relationship to phosphorus. For one, most modern crops are “dumb”—they were cultivated in artificially fertilized soil, and lack the innate abilities of wild plants to seek out phosphorus. Then when phosphate fertilizer is applied, most of it immediately reacts with soil minerals to form inaccessible compounds, forcing farmers to apply far more fertilizer than crops can use.

Phosphorus build-up in soil causes its own problems to farmers, and as much as 40% of phosphate fertilizer ends up as runoff polluting rivers and lakes and oceans. The damage to freshwater ecosystems in the US from excess nitrogen and phosphorus exceeds $2.2 billion dollars per year. At best, the common application of phosphate fertilizers is inefficient and unsustainable. At worst, it is an ecological and public health crisis from cradle to grave; from mine to radioactive gypstack to field to polluted waterway.

We can’t delay addressing this issue much longer, because phosphorus is a finite resource. Each year it grows more expensive for farmers, and some scientists estimate that current global reserves of phosphorus rock may be depleted in 50–100 years. Meanwhile, phosphorus mining is an ecologically devastating industry with a hulking radioactive footprint, characterized at every stage by waste. If this was, as the fertilizer industry claims, the only way to feed the world, then we should still be seeking at every step to curb the industry’s toxic excesses. But it turns out that phosphate rock mining is not essential.

While phosphate mining is riddled with inefficiencies, nutrient cycling in nature is strikingly efficient. Animals, including humans, excrete almost 100% of the phosphorus they consume. Only half of manure today is cycled back into farmland, but manure provided all the phosphorus that crops needed for centuries, and remains a simple, practical solution to an outlandishly wasteful problem. Here, regenerative agriculture comes into play. Regenerative agriculture prioritizes soil health, including those beneficial mycorrhizal fungi that provide wild plants with the phosphorus they need. Practitioners often reincorporate animals and their manure into farming. Together, utilizing manure and maintaining healthy soil microbes can make farmers far less reliant on inputs like fertilizer.

To soften the transition into a more sustainable agricultural practice, scientists have found so much “legacy phosphorus” in commercial farmers’ soil, the UK could meet its phosphate fertilizer demand for the next 54 years with the phosphorus already in their fields. Other global projections convey similar overabundance. Regenerative agriculture is not only a bright hope for farming in coming decades of climate instability. It circumvents the need for further habitat destruction and radioactive waste from phosphate mining and processing, and provides a way to increase the health of marine ecosystems around the world currently polluted by agricultural runoff and plagued by toxic algal blooms.

From seashores riddled with corpses in Tampa Bay to agricultural runoff polluting rivers a thousand miles away, phosphate fertilizer has exacted a heavy toll on the American landscape. Discarded mountains of radioactive phosphogypsum remain a looming problem. But we know enough now to say—it doesn’t have to be this way anymore.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 22, 2021.

According to the United States Geological Survey, California pumped about 125 acre-feet of groundwater from Central Valley aquifers between 1920 and 2013. Putting that in perspective, that is “enough fresh water to provide every person on earth with a 30-year supply of drinking water.” As a parched California now “faces [its] worst drought in decades,” water usage remains at the forefront of public debate. Though there are several causes for the groundwater depletion, the Arrowhead case is an example of how these challenges play out and expose the environmental issues at stake in the debate.

The main protagonists in this case study are the California State Water Board—the powerful state body that presides over the regulation of water supply in the State of California—and Nestlé, the multi-billion dollar conglomerate. While the California State Water Board declared that Nestlé’s inherited water permit was void and subsequent pumping in the San Bernardino Mountains was illegal, the United States (U.S.) Forest Service deemed the permit valid, resulting in a fraught legal discrepancy that placed Nestlé at the center of California’s groundwater debate.

Why did the State Water Board reach its decision? The answer, according to the State Water Board, was simple: Nestlé’s pumping permit was null and void. “While Nestlé may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water in Strawberry Canyon,’ the board says in its report, ‘a significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right.’” According to the published report, which took two years to investigate, the State Water Board articulated “that of the 62.6 million gallons of water that Nestle says it extracted from the San Bernardino spring each year on average from 1947 to 2015, the company may only have a right to some 8.5 million gallons.” The regulatory proclamation stemmed from a series of complaints and allegations, including the “the diversion of water without a valid basis of right,” which emphasized concern “[a]bout the impacts of Nestlé’s diversions during California’s recent historic drought.” Consequently, the state argued that Nestlé “should apply for a new permit and ensure all of its water diversions comply with California regulations.” Recently, the State Water Board further excoriated Nestlé, brandishing a Cease and Desist Order on April 23, 2021 alongside a revised report “to address alleged violations” in groundwater extraction.

While the State Water Board deemed Nestlé’s groundwater pumping in the San Bernardino mountains illegal, Nestlé disagreed with the illegality of its permits, a position bolstered by a federal judge’s ruling and the U.S. Forest Service. In 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal found that Nestlé still owned pumping rights in the San Bernardino Mountains, despite the fact that the company’s permit was “28 years out of date.” Specifically, Judge Bernal ruled that Nestlé was permitted to pump groundwater under its original 1988 permit “until the Forest Service takes action on [its renewal].” Judge Bernal added that even in light of the permit’s expiration, Nestlé was allowed to continue to extract water for its bottled water “because corporate executives attempted to renew the permit in May 1987, but did not hear back from the Forest Service.” “‘Plaintiffs do not identify and the Court cannot find any authority holding that an agency’s failure to act within a reasonable time can invalidate before it is finally determined by the agency,’” Judge Bernal wrote. Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the perspective of the State Water Board declaring Nestle’s inherited water permit void while U.S. Forest Service deems it valid.

While the discrepancy in the opinions of the State Water Board and Nestlé on the validity of the latter’s pumping permits is clear, so too is the groundwater pumping debate, which also highlights a key tension between the corporate economic benefits and the social issues surrounding reduced water supply. At the core of the debate, is a question about whose welfare should be prioritized in decisions about groundwater pumping in California. Nestle exports water to the rest of the country and the rest of the world. That provides benefits to consumers all over the world. But it comes at the expense of local Californians who may rely on the groundwater being pumped. Further complicating the issue, Nestle is far from the only entity depleting California groundwater.

Though the legal tussle between the State Water Board and Nestlé captures much of the press and public discourse and raises important policy questions on natural resource conservation, water extraction in California needs to be put into perspective. While 3.1 billion gallons of groundwater are bottled in California, only 725 million gallons are bottled by Nestlé. Yet, that water usage amount is dwarfed by the 4.1 trillion gallons of water used by residents every year, and does not include the agricultural use of water (the latter of which constitutes of 80% of water consumption in the state annually).

In 2018, California’s agricultural industry was worth $50 billion dollars. While that financial statistic is eye-popping for sure, it implies a simple yet significant question: what is a necessary ingredient for farmers to literally reap the fruits of their labor? The answer is simple: water, and lots of it. According the Public Policy Institute of California, the California agricultural industry utilizes 80% of water use in California. Though farmers historically used a combination of federal, state, and locally owned surface and groundwater resources, the prolonged droughts exposed the vulnerabilities of the agricultural industry, especially the limited capacity of the groundwater aquifers. In summary, the report conclude that in order for California to remain an “agricultural powerhouse” while not depleting its aquifers during times of drought, five policy changes should be implemented: 1) the strengths and weaknesses exposed by the droughts should inform future water policy, 2) groundwater management must be a top priority, 3) the integration of surface water and groundwater is paramount, 4) “water markets provide essential flexibility, and 5) “[a]gricultural stewardship can do more to support the environment.

Bringing all of these factors together, it is clear that the groundwater debate in California is multivariable and not just a black-and-white dispute between the State Water Board and Nestlé over an expired permit. Although this dispute over an expired permit is highly publicized of California’s groundwater debate, the Nestlé case study represents only 23% of groundwater that is bottled in the state. Moreover, Nestlé’s pumping of groundwater is dwarfed in comparison to the California agricultural industry that consumes 80% of the state’s water resources. Major policy changes are necessary to enable the State of California to allocate its water resources more effectively, build resilience for future droughts, and combat Climate Change.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 15, 2021.

As a team of nine interdisciplinary researchers at Lancaster University, we are working on a three-year UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)-funded research project looking at how plastic packaging is integrated, in often complex and less obvious ways, across peoples’ everyday lives. At this time of year, when holidays and tourism (home and abroad) are on everyone’s minds, it can be a particularly challenging time for people to follow their best intentions to keep their plastic waste down.

Plastic at every turn of the tourism experience

Plastic-free travel can appear prohibitively difficult for many tourists as greener alternatives for many everyday products, including toiletries, are perceptibly harder or more expensive to source in general, let alone at airport terminal or ferry port shops and at holiday locations. Tourists’ reliance on plastic-packaging is exacerbated by the normalcy of ‘plastic-heavy’ services and experiences in the tourism industry, like air travel and hotel stay. The hotel industry’s reliance on single-use plastics is recognised as a contributor to waste flows, and typical examples include bottled water and toiletries in hotel rooms, plastic cups in cellophane, bin liners, and so on. Single-use plastics have remained popular in hospitality because they offer cost-effectiveness and convenience for visitors and employees while maintaining compliance with health and hygiene requirements. The reliance on SUPs during tourism experiences has only increased in the COVID-19 context, and the even greater emphasis by the industry on health and safety. The widespread reliance on single-use plastics, coupled with holidaymakers’ unfamiliarity with differing waste systems in tourist locations, can result in improper waste disposal. Even before tourists have come off their plane, the average passenger generates 1.4 kilograms of waste per flight. Although airlines have recently started to experiment with sustainable alternatives to plastics, they also face the challenge of coming up with lightweight solutions with no additional weight which would result in higher fuel consumption. For those choosing to holiday in their home country (that is, staying at home), there are still plenty of challenges, whether that be when camping in the countryside, picnics on the beach or more eating out – holidaymakers are often more reliant on the convenience of single-use plastics and this can be hard to navigate.

SUPs and destination tourism

In the UK, popular tourist destinations are subjected every summer to littering and anti-social behaviour with items such as styrofoam cups, plastic bottles and bags, and utensils found on the beaches which increase internal temperatures and threaten marine life. In addition, this year, with a rise in staycations in the UK due to COVID-19, local communities have committed to volunteer for keeping British beaches clear from plastic waste.

Similarly, Mediterranean beaches are said to be responsible for up to 80 per cent of the marine litter while reports suggest that, by 2050, there might be more plastic than fish in the oceans worldwide. A report from the WWF has underscored that plastic waste in the water and on the beaches of the Mediterranean increases by up to 30% during the summer months, suggesting the impact of tourism seasonality. Covid SUP adds further complexity as masks, gloves and hand sanitizer bottles are already visible in seabeds and washing up on beaches.

Besides coastal destinations, festival tourism also generates significant amount of plastic waste. Most UK festivals take place during the summer period and produce 23,500 tonnes of waste annually. Plastic festival tents left behind by attendees create approximately 900 tonnes of waste while audiences consume 10 million plastic bottles per year. There are fewer festivals going ahead in 2021, but for those going ahead, demand for tickets is high. Coupled with this, we are still in the mode of increased usage of SUPs associated with covid. People are hungry for a post-COVID release, as we’ve seen from footage of people at clubs and gigs in England as rules have relaxed. The need for release and escape is high. In this setting, it’s feasible to expect even greater levels of waste linked to plastics, with the heightened need for release from the rules/norms around plastics.

Towards a ‘plastic-free’ tourism ecosystem

If we are to seriously contend with sustainability challenges and problems, we must appreciate the impact and complexity of seasonalised behaviours. Unsustainable tourism practices are often located within a complex institutional environment which includes taken-for-granted perceptions and well-established meanings in relation to plastic packaging.

Each stakeholder in the tourism supply chain ecosystem should aim to take meaningful action in tackling plastic pollution and reducing the use of SUPs. In light of recent initiatives, the industry has the potential to make the transition towards more sustainable alternatives which can shape existing perceptions about single-use plastics in tourism and travel. Inspiring steps are being taken in this regard, albeit slowly. Dubai International Airport and Dubai World Central Airport announced a phased ban of all single-use plastics. The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have recently collaborated on a report that explores how stakeholders in the travel and tourism sector can address waste from single use plastics. In the realm of lived experience however, more needs to be done to better educate and inform tourists about the impact of their unsustainable behaviours upon the environment. For instance, at a campaign level, such efforts should specifically target the rethinking of seasonalised behaviours (e.g., taking responsibility for your own litter, making use of reusable containers, disposing of SUPs associated with COVID)

In order for us to realise a plastic-free tourism future, we need to rethink existing perceptions and meanings attached to SUP plastic that legitimise unsustainable behaviours and lifestyles.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 8, 2021.

Image courtesy of Dr. Whyte. Originally published by S&S on June 12, 2018.

What is a Sustainability Lab?

In our Sustainability Labs event series, GreenBuzz Berlin e.V. connects citizens and initiatives, which operate on neighbourhood level to develop innovative, realistic and sustainable solutions which protect the climate in the neighbourhood. After defining and kick-starting your solution in one of the three Sustainability Labs, GreenBuzz Berlin will support and fund the next steps to bring your idea to life!

On July 1st 2018, about 20 people came together for the second GreenBuzz Berlin Sustainability Lab at CRCLR in Neukölln. The team worked on three challenges that have been proposed by active members of the GreenBuzz community in Berlin:

Challenge 1 – Hydroponic Vertical Garden. There are a lot of bare walls in Berlin, mostly four stories high with no windows. They represent vast useless space. Until now. Let us use this space to automatically grow plants in vertical gardens, absorb CO₂, clean our breathing air and create a canvas for natures wonders. Can Hydroponics (water bath instead of soil) ease the environmental control and enable us to create new concepts of vertical gardens? This challenge had five participants. It was run by Felix Hofmann from ImagineCargo and facilitated by Aurélie Ferron from Protellus.

Challenge 2 – Saubere Luft e.V. There is going to be a community platform to support specific local actions and goals in reducing air pollution in Neukölln. The air on many of our streets is heavily polluted and hazardous for health and wellbeing. The goal of this challenge is to bring the value of clean air to the forefront of everyone’s mind. We seek to brand “saubere Luft” (clean air) as a human right by founding Saubere Luft e.V., as well as by taking actions to create more space for bicycles and pedestrians, and increasing the number of electric busses, cars and bikes. This challenge had 5 participants. It was run by Frederik Henn and facilitated by Fenja Jensen.

Challenge 3 – Zoo Compost Stations. An experimental station is transforming food waste into high-quality bio-eggs, protein and compost. This pioneering initiative in Europe is able to manage 50 percent of the total municipal waste in the same neighbourhood where it is produced. No trucks, no incinerators, no CO₂. In this challenge, we want to find out how this system could be utilised in Neukölln to support a Zero Waste lifestyle in the city and to exchange waste for eggs. This challenge had 4 participants. It was run by Ricardo Beck and facilitated by Amy Buer.

The process and results for each challenge are described below.

Hydroponic Vertical Gardens

In the Hydroponic Vertical Gardens workgroup, the team started with a discussion of the positive effects of plants in the city: noise-reduction, shadow-generation, fine-particle reduction, evaporation chill and CO₂ reduction at the place of birth.

Many ideas like vertical gardens on the windowless parts of houses or other unused city parts were evaluated and brought together with construction requirements, needed permits, financing and, most importantly, maintenance costs and efforts towards a continuously working system. Interviewing people on the streets brought the insight that environmental issues are second class, while social concerns are currently the most important ones to address in Neukölln. Steadily rising rents, displacement pressure and more tourists, as well as short-term citizens, have created a situation in which the neighbourhood is highly dysfunctional, leading to emotions of fear and impotence. Therefore, the original idea was adapted to a green social hotspot, enriching the quality of  life and enabling social interaction: a low-cost, low-maintenance vertical park for a community suffering from bad air quality.

The proposed solution is Kiez Park (Small Convention Green-Spot Modules). A bench with a roof is the central place. A moss wall will shield the passer-by and create some sort of peace island where (elderly) people can take a break, the busy mother can relax and where people can meet.  For a setup like this, green moss is ideal, providing a fine-particle filter, being low maintenance and surviving even cold winters. Solar powered charging stations (like also proposed in the last sustainability lab) allow people to bring their laptops, charge their smartphones and get involved in social interaction while waiting (charging). For this reason, free Wifi was identified as another key aspect of the concept.

Ideally, a Kiez Park will be sponsored by a company which may use it for communication with the local people (via touchscreen, product placements etc). They can also customize the plants on the “green wall” and – in case of local businesses – incorporate the park into their daily business.

Action Plan

As a next step, the team now aims to build a functional prototype. A marketing and financing plan are crucial for the project, as is further research regarding similar projects. For instance, “mobiles grünes Zimmer” already does something similar (in Darmstadt) or “GreenCity Solutions”, which is a Berlin-based startup producing moss walls.

Saubere Luft e.V.

Based on the idea to create awareness of clean air in Neukölln, this group discussed the need for awareness in the general population. People do not know that the air is polluted, which means that education is required to bring their attention to the issue. Do you know how bad the air pollution in your neighborhood really is? We rely on expert advice, which is scarce. Collaboration with other groups who share similar goals is key to learn best practices, be it in Neukölln or worldwide.

According to the feedback collected from locals in the neighborhood, most people are somewhat fed up with dirty/polluted environment but are not aware about the scale of the problem. Exhaust fumes from cars and trucks are perceived as a major annoyance and health risk when cycling the city, which has also been recognised by others like Netzwerk Fahrradfreundliches Neukölln.

Action Plan

With those findings in mind, the group decided to take action by forming an initiative to promote “Saubere Luft in Neukölln”. As first steps, an award will be given to the most polluted street in Berlin, with an open invitation to press and other activist groups. Furthermore, signs reporting the current level of air pollution will be put up at central spots in Neukölln.

Through the heightened awareness, the initiative will motivate people to use bikes instead of cars. We also hope to increase pressure on decision makers for greater bicycle lanes and less traffic to reduce the amount of emitted CO₂.

Zoo Compost Stations

In the starting phase, Ricardo Beck explained the idea and an already existing prototype in Prenzlauer Berg in detail. He focused on the benefits it has in relation to traditional waste management systems. The following brainstorming session explored the questions of the current status of the project and especially how to engage citizens and neighbors to participate in the donation of their waste, as the group decided this was the most important aspect for the long-term success of a Zoo Compost Station.

After brainstorming, the team took out the key questions to be answered by two possible target groups: citizens and local food shops (cafeteria and restaurants) and went to the street for interviews. In summary, there was a general interest from all interview participants, but feedback varied depending on the knowledge and background. In conclusion, it was estimated that 1~5% of the population will value the project by understanding and caring about the environmental benefits that are involved.

With respect to the CO₂ reduction goal of the Sustainability Lab, the reduction of carbon emissions into the atmosphere is not the only significant environmental benefit of the project. Soil nutrient balance, fertility, anti-desertification and community resilience are other benefits. The project also contributes by developing cleaner composting processes (less methane) and by reducing truck travel, as less waste is generated in the neighbourhood.

Action Plan

As a next step, an information campaign will be developed, starting with an invitation to a community party for the residents of the garden where the Zoo Compost Station. This allows the demonstration of the prototype and the processes behind it, as well as the benefits of the concept. They will also be invited to participate, either by donating their waste or by volunteering to maintain the station. By finding a sustainable system for participation in the area around the existing Zoo Compost Station, they will be able to build more Zoo Compost stations in other locations and use the best-practice insights they have gained to easily foster community participation in new areas.

The event was on July 19th at 7 pm in Peace of Land. Communication material was given out to ensure that no one would leave the party without fully understanding how the station works.

What’s Next?

Based on these results, we are now working on the first prototypes together. We continue to support the three groups throughout the process. Involving and informing the public about these projects, as well as additional projects, is a core responsibility of GreenBuzz Berlin in that regard.

Sounds like something you want to do as well? Take the sustainability labs to your country and city, empower initiatives and citizens and help save CO₂ on a local level!

A new climate report is out and it is the most dire yet.

The report is the first installment of the latest climate change assessment by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It focuses on the physical science of climate change, and reports on the current state of the climate, possible climate futures, risk assessment and limiting future climate change. Two other reports due out next year will assess impacts to society and ecosystems and strategies to adapt to and mitigate further changes.

Written by more than 200 of the world’s leading climate scientists, the report synthesizes the best available climate science information from more than 14,000 studies.

Below are my top five takeaways from this latest report.

1. Many changes to our planet are accelerating, unprecedented and irreversible

Climate change is affecting every inhabited region across the globe, and some of the impacts are accelerating.

For example, the rate of sea level rise was twice as fast between 2006 and 2018 than it was between 1971 to 2006, and three times as fast as between 1901 and 1971. We are also seeing a faster increase in the amount of rain falling over land areas in recent decades compared to earlier.

The scale of several changes are also unprecedented over centuries and even millenia. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the highest in at least 2 million years and the last time the ocean warmed this quickly was when the last Ice Age ended.

And many of these changes across the climate system are irreversible over human timescales, such as changes to our oceans, ice sheets and sea level.

2. Human influence on the climate system are the main driver of changes

There is strong confidence that human influence on the climate system is the main driver of retreating glaciers worldwide, the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice, the declining springtime snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and a rising sea level.

Further, human-caused climate change has been linked to occurrences of extreme heat, heavy downpours (including hurricanes) and drought conditions. And compound extreme events, such as concurrent heatwaves and droughts, are also found to have been made more likely due to human influence.

3. We may cross the 1.5C threshold earlier than expected

It is likely that we will pass the average 1.5C temperature rise level by 2040, which is about a decade earlier than predicted in the 2018 IPCC report. The difference is in part because we have better estimates of global temperature between 1850 and 1900 (the baseline period for temperature increase), which resulted in scientists determining that the planet has warmed more since this time period than previously thought.

Compared to today, a warming of 1.5C will likely result in intensifying and more frequent heat waves, heavier rainfall and flooding, more severe droughts and more powerful storms.

4. Every increment of warming matters and we can’t rule out potentially catastrophic events

It is possible that we will only be at the 1.5C temperature level temporarily if we take immediate and drastic action to cut climate pollutants. But even with strong action, global temperature will continue to increase until at least midcentury, the glaciers will continue to melt and the sea level will continue to rise throughout this century in response.

In the absence of further climate action, we could exceed 2C of warming around midcentury, with more than 5C by end of century. The last time the planet sustained 2.5C level higher than 1850-1900 levels was 3 million years ago.

Every additional 0.5°C of global warming clearly worsens extreme events, and all regions are vulnerable, and elements of society and ecosystems worldwide will be impacted.

We also cannot rule out low-likelihood but catastrophic events such as ice sheet collapse and abrupt ocean circulation changes, which increase in risk the more the planet warms.

5. We know what we need to do and the earlier we act the better

Given that every increment of warming matters, it is never too late to act. However, the earlier we act, the better off we will be, and the more devastating consequences we will avoid. And we know exactly what needs to be done.

We need to stabilize our climate in the long run, which will require net-zero carbon dioxide emissions at a minimum. Scientists continue to improve estimates of how much carbon dioxide we can emit to limit warming to desired temperature levels, which can guide policies.

Methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are promising for balancing out any residual CO2 emissions, but side effects must be considered, such as impacts to water and food security.

We also need strong reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases, most prominently methane. This would have the benefit of slowing down the rate of warming, improving air quality and counteracting increased warming from air quality measures that reduce cooling pollutants.

The bottom line is that even though this report is full of doom and gloom, it is not too late to act. In a year defined by searing heatwaves, torrential floods and raging fires it is encouraging that this same report offers the seeds for a strategy to alleviate some of its most devastating projections.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 11, 2021.

Except that in the past few years, the fireworks haven’t stopped. Natural disasters come one after another, breaking record after record. On the west coast of the United States, wildfire season lengthens while the wet season shrinks. As June turned into July, a Pacific Northwest heat wave killed hundreds of people, cooked more than a billion sea creatures to death, and sparked dozens of wildfires. As of right now, over one million acres of land in the United States are on fire. The day after the town of Lytton reached the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada of 49.6° C/121° F, it was gone—devoured by a wildfire. And this heat wave was only one of four in five weeks in the western US and Canada. The heat exacerbates other disasters: damage to ecosystems, wildfires, crop failures, droughts. It is all connected—but that doesn’t mean the web of relation can’t be untangled.

In the midst of this scorching summer, it seems pertinent to trace cause and effect between forests and weather patterns. The planet is warming, in part because of deforestation. (It’s estimated that tropical deforestation accounts for around 10% of the world’s heat-trapping emissions, a statistic which does not include the impact of deforestation in non-tropical regions.) The increased global temperature contributes to increased drought and wildfires, both of which compound forest degradation, particularly as dried-out vegetation is more flammable. Humans are responsible for the majority of wildfires—in the United States, 84% of fires are caused by human activity—as well as all deforestation for timber and agriculture. The more forests we lose, the more carbon we release into the atmosphere, increasing the heat of the planet, and thus exacerbating drought, wildfires, and forest degradation.

Degraded forests at a certain point no longer function as the carbon sinks we need them to be. A study published this summer found that parts of the Amazon Rainforest have been degraded so much by deforestation, fires, rising temperatures and moisture stress, they now release more carbon than they absorb. This is a dangerous sign, and hardly the only one we’ve been presented with. But it comes at the same time that “natural climate solutions,” meaning ecosystem conservation and restoration as a way of mitigating climate change, are gaining ground in global conversations.

Cody Johnston’s quip that forests are the best carbon capture technology is an opinion shared by many scientists. “The most mature carbon dioxide removal method is improved land stewardship,” writes a coalition of scientists. At the same time that forest loss is compounding, we are recognizing that forest ecosystems are one of our most vital tools to fight climate change. The more we lose, the more we will lose; but the more we save, the more we can save.

The notion that “trees bring rain” sounds almost fanciful. But conclusive evidence shows that forests have a significant impact on rainfall. Transpiration is the way that water moves through plants: water is absorbed from the soil by their roots, and released as vapor into the air by their leaves. The water vapor released by a forest accumulates in the clouds above it and creates rain, which falls on the forest and is carried on the wind to other regions. Fred Pearce writes that this “hitherto neglected impact of deforestation”—losing the water vapor released by trees into the air—“could in many continental interiors dwarf the impacts of global climate change. It could dry up the Nile, hobble the Asian monsoon, and desiccate fields from Argentina to the Midwestern United States.” Forests play a crucial role in the water cycle, and deforestation leads to desertification not only because of topsoil erosion in the absence of plant roots, but insufficient moisture in the air to make rain. The loss of major rainforests would disrupt weather patterns in far-flung regions sufficient to “pose a substantial risk to agriculture in key breadbaskets halfway around the world in parts of the U.S., India, and China.”

At the same time that Lytton, BC was engulfed in flames, 400 km west of the devastated town, police and protesters faced off in one of Canada’s last old-growth forests. The forest defenders at Fairy Creek, many of whom belong to First Nations, are fighting to protect the last 1% of old growth trees in Canada from being logged. Some detractors emphasize the damage to Canada’s logging industry if old growth forests—27% of British Columbia’s annual cut—were protected from logging. Other commentators point to the urgent necessity of a paradigm shift in our valuation of forests, especially in light of the universal need for a stabilized climate.

As the Pacific Northwest is ravaged by wildfires, attention should be drawn to the potential to fight fires with forests. Conserving and expanding forests, like the temperate rainforests of British Columbia, protects against worsening drought and heat waves. Old intact forests create their own microclimates which are cooler and wetter in every season, and during forest fires, “these old-growth refugia provide an island of safety for species, but also a firebreak that can reduce risk to communities.” And for the stubbornly fiscal-minded, the $1.3 billion in annual revenue from the Canadian forestry sector is matched by the up to $1.5 billion a year in wildfire damages, which is only one quantifier of the toll of ecosystem destruction.

American Forests issues this warning about deforestation: “You need trees in order to have the moisture to grow new trees: if you cut them all down, you might not be able to get them back.” Reforestation efforts do indeed face an upward climb, and much is irreplaceable. Yet there are successful re-greening efforts that prove we can still turn back the clock of environmental destruction. The Loess Plateau in China stands among the most remarkable success stories. The 12-year project which ended in 2009 transformed 920,000 hectares of desert in western China into fertile farmland through focusing on restoring soil health. Inspired by this success, a team of Dutch engineers called The Weather Makers has plans to re-green the Sinai Peninsula over a few decades, asserting that a “regreened Sinai would alter local weather patterns and even change the direction of the winds, bringing more rain.” Conserving the ecosystems we have, and restoring the ecosystems we’ve lost, can—slowly but surely—bring us the weather we need to quench this drought.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 4, 2021.

How do we Promote the Sustainable Enjoyment of Nature?

A growing body of research suggests that allowing people to enjoy natural areas through nature-based recreation may contribute to an increase in their likelihood of engaging in sustainable, environmentally friendly behaviors.

Scientists studying these behaviors often refer to them as pro-environmental behaviors and use different metrics to define the behaviors. For example, scientists studying recreationists in rural New York grouped pro-environmental behaviors into two categories: conservation behavior (e.g. donating to local conservation efforts) and environmental lifestyle behaviors (e.g. recycling). Another option, used in a study of visitors to Point Pelee National Park, is to group pro-environmental behaviors into place-specific and general behavior. In a study of recreationists at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, pro-environmental behaviors were divided into high effort (e.g. joining an environmental group) and low effort (e.g. picking up liter) categories.

Different categories of pro-environmental behaviors can be affected differently by nature-based recreation. Among rural New York recreationists, conservation behaviors were related to recreation, while environmental lifestyle behaviors were not. Nature-based recreation had a stronger relationship to Point Pelee National Park visitors’ intent to engage in place-specific pro-environmental behaviors than general pro-environmental behaviors.

How is Participating in Nature-based Recreation Connected to Engaging in Pro-environmental Behaviors?

There are several possible explanations for the connection. Early studies suggested that an emotional affinity towards nature, which motivated behaviors that protected nature, was partially explained by past and present experiences in natural environments. More recent studies show that recreation can impact pro-environmental behaviors directly or through place-based attachment.

Place-based attachment is related to how and why a person who uses the place values the setting. People might value a place because it is the best location for a particular activity. For example, a group of surfers might value a particular cove because it has the best waves; they may even be resistant to using other locations to surf. People may also value a place because of the symbolic and emotional value it holds for them, such as a hunter who prefers a particular field because it’s where they learned to hunt.

Different types of recreation can affect place-based attachment in distinct ways. A recent study of rural counties in upstate New York focused on two groups of recreationists: hunters and birdwatchers. Hunting is a consumptive type of nature-based recreation, while birding is non-consumptive. Researchers knew from a previous study in rural New York that both birdwatchers and hunters were more likely to participate in conservation behaviors than people who didn’t participate in wildlife-dependent recreation. Furthermore, people who participated in both types of recreation had the greatest likelihood of engaging in conservation-related behaviors. The second study’s findings supported this, but noted a difference in the way that the two types of recreation lead to pro-environmental behaviors. Birdwatching lead to the formation of environmental place meaning, while hunting lead to sociocultural place meaning, both of which increased people’s likelihood to participate in conservation behaviors.

In some cases, studies have found that one type of recreation was related to higher levels of place attachment than others. At the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, researchers found that surfers reported more frequent visits to the area and exhibited stronger place attachment than other types of recreationists (e.g. beach-goers). They hypothesized that surfers and other “adventure recreationists,” who spend significant amounts of time practicing their skills in the outdoors, would make valuable environmental stewards and park advocates.

How Can We Use this Information to Increase Sustainable Behaviors?

The findings cited in this article suggest that we can increase participation in sustainable behaviors by getting people involved in nature-based recreation. Caren Cooper and colleagues suggest using a variety of strategies that target different types of potential nature-based recreationists, as both consumptive and non-consumptive recreation had benefits for pro-environmental behaviors. Many organizations and agencies that foster nature-based recreation also provide educational programs for recreationists as a way to help visitors learn about ways to be environmentally friendly.

Continued research will help to further understanding about how recreation and sustainability are related. The beneficial effects will extend not only to our current enjoyment of the environment, but also to enjoyment for future generations.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on February 5, 2019.

The San Francisco sky outside my colleague’s window last summer was burning red with wildfires. It was like a hellscape, and I was frightened for her and for our planet.

Summer began this month, time to shed our pandemic-induced stress at beaches and other vacation spots, but a new season of extreme weather made worse by climate change also began — as shown by the record temperatures being set right now in the Pacific Northwest. That means hurricanes in the South and the East, drought and wildfires in the West and Southwest.

Clearly, we need to take immediate action to slow the warming and the effects it has on weather systems — action that prioritizes bold, ambitious and swift measures to tackle the climate crisis while addressing longstanding environmental injustices.

Reasons to be hopeful again

This is a cautionary tale about the extreme weather that has already begun, but also an homage to the hope I feel in my bones.

Why am I hopeful?

The political winds around climate policy are shifting. The Biden administration has brought the U.S. back into the Paris climate agreement, pledged to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and appointed a superstar team of seasoned experts to focus on climate change. President Biden’s American Jobs Plan attempted to confront climate change head-on.

Also, two climate activists were recently elected to ExxonMobil’s board of directors, and CEOs from over 300 businesses called on the Biden administration for bold emission reductions — all positive signs.

How extreme weather gets personal

Weather is part of the fabric of our lives, and extreme weather poses particular challenges.

The first thing I do every morning is check the weather. Do I need to dress my kids in short or long sleeves, water the garden or take an umbrella outside? At the same time, the weather has become a deeply unsettling part of life.

When the heat rises, I worry more. My daughter Teagan has special needs. When it gets hot, she has more seizures. She’s in a wheelchair so she can’t run and jump in a pool to cool off like other kids.

Teagan is not alone. When temperatures soar and storms become severe, people with asthma have more flare-ups, studies show. People of color suffer the most. Children in neighborhoods with higher percentages of people of color face double the rate, on average, of pollution-related asthma compared to predominantly white neighborhoods, according to an EDF analysis.

I live in Maryland, so I don’t worry about a hurricane destroying my home. But my parents live in Florida, so I worry about them. Things are not looking good: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has predicted a 60 percent chance of an above-normal hurricane season — what could be the sixth in a row.

More severe storms, droughts and wildfires

If you live in Miami, New Orleans, Houston or other coastal areas, you know that winds and storm surges are getting worse. A shocking 32 million homes on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, with a combined value of $8.5 trillion, are at risk of sustaining damage from high winds this year.

The West could use some of that water. The Lake Mead reservoir, which supplies water to 25 million people in the Southwest, is at its lowest level since the 1930s. Ranchers in North Dakota have to truck in water to keep their livestock alive, and farmers along the Rio Grande in New Mexico were urged not to plant crops.

Further west, as Joni Mitchell would sing, “Oh, but California.” Last summer, there were nearly 10,000 wildfires there. Fires burned over 4 million acres and destroyed more than 14,000 structures. California’s still in trouble: reservoirs are only half as full as they should be.

The drought and high temperatures are ominous signs that my colleague’s sky will be burning red again this year.

Turn hope and worry into action

Just as most of us endured the pandemic, we will learn to live with extreme weather, and we can do so while fighting to lessen the worst impacts. Here are three things you can do at home:

• Plant shade trees in your yard if you have one.
• Keep your blinds or shades drawn to save energy if you have AC.
• Consider installing solar panels — and benefit from tax advantages.

You can also join EDF in advocating to slow the warming and increase resilience around the world:

• Restore U.S. climate leadership on the world stage.
• Prioritize climate solutions for America’s farmers and ranchers.
• Call on our leaders to jumpstart electric vehicle production and modernize our energy grid.

After taking these actions, let’s go enjoy the summer while we can!

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on July 14, 2021.

As the world’s climate continues to change, the inability to reduce warming to below 2 degrees may force us to face irreversible consequences. While the negative effects of climate change affect vulnerable and poor people, they continue to especially push poor women. Although efforts of women and men in vulnerable societies are gaining more appreciation in terms of their contribution to the environmental sustainability and development, women still have less economic, political and legal autonomy, and it is a fact that there are gaps in the three dimensions of women’s autonomy, decision-making, economic autonomy and control over their own bodies, as the United Nations states. Therefore they are less able to deal with the negative effect of climate change. On the other hand, women are an increasingly powerful agent of change and sustainable development despite the current structural and socio-cultural barriers and continue to make significant contributions. Let’s imagine a woman living in an underdeveloped country. She is poor, like the other women in her village and her family. She has five children, but she works in the fields, most commonly collecting fuelwood or water for the house, all day long. She does the same hard work as a man, but at the end of the day her salary is significantly less, or she might now have any. Besides, she is also responsible for feeding her family at home. The fumes are damaging to her health as she cooks in a closed charcoal fuelwood. While she might have a great idea for a business that would benefit families like hers, like solar cooking stoves, all her money and time just goes to survive right now. This is also a fact for millions of women around the world.

Women are usually responsible for collecting and producing food, collecting water and providing fuel for heating and cooking. With climate change, these tasks are getting more difficult. Extreme weather events such as drought and floods have a greater impact on the poor and the most vulnerable, 70% of the world’s are poor women.

Although women are disproportionately affected by climate change, they play a crucial role in climate change adaptation and mitigation solutions. Women have knowledge and understanding of what is required to adapt to changing environmental conditions and to come up with practical solutions. However, they are still largely unused resources. Limited land rights, lack of access to financial resources, education and technology, and limited access to political decision-making spaces often prevent them from playing a full role in tackling climate change and other environmental challenges.   Only in 28 countries women have right to own land. Female farmers receive 5% of all agricultural extension services in 97 countries. 15% of the extension agents are women, 10% of total aid for agricultural forestry and fishing goes to women. 90% of the countries have at least one law restricting economic equality for women.

Rural microfinance comes with its own challenges. Unlike cities, where the population is concentrated in small areas, the rural population is spread over large areas with poor infrastructure. It is more costly to lend to a dispersed population. Transaction and information costs are high. Many poor people living in rural areas do not have property rights and land tenure rights and often do not have collateral to secure loans.

Difficulties Women and Girls Face

“The IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] found that gender inequalities are further exaggerated by climate-related hazards, and they result in higher workloads for women, occupational hazards indoors and outdoors, psychological and emotional stress and higher mortality compared to men,” Verona Collantes, an intergovernmental specialist with UN Women, told Global Citizen.

“Gender inequality hampers women’s capacity and potential to be actors of climate action. These gender inequalities — access to and control over resources, access to education and information, and equal rights and access to decision-making processes — define what women and men can do and cannot do in a particular context of climate change,” she added.

In developing countries, women tend to work much longer hours than men.

UNICEF said the 200 million hours women and girls spend each day collecting water is an enormous waste of their precious time. Sanjay Wijesekera, head of UNICEF’s global water, sanitation and hygiene said, ‘’ 200 million hours is 8.3 million days or more than 22,800 years, a woman who started the Stone Age with her empty bucket would not have come home with water until 2016. Think about how far the world progressed at that time. Think how much women have achieved then.’’ He also added, ‘’ When water is not on site and needs to be collected, it is often our women and girls who pay for their time and lose opportunities.’’ In some communities, these activities can take up to four hours a day and in some central American countries, this can go up to 5 or 6 between women and children.

A study conducted in Africa found that women carried over 80 tons of fuel, water and farm produce over a distance of 1 km for a year. Men have transported an average of 10 tons per 1 km each year, or one eighth.

Studies have shown that women use almost everything they earn from marketing agricultural products and crafts to meet their household needs, only when they’re allowed to work. Men use at least 25 percent of their earnings for other purposes.

The Relationship between Poverty, Gender and Climate Change

According to the OECD report on poverty and climate change, there are 2 chief messages emerging,

• Climate change is happening and will increasingly affect the poor.
• Adaptation is necessary and there is a need to integrate responses to climate change and adaptation measures into strategies for poverty reduction to ensure sustainable development.

Currently over 1 billion people – two thirds of them women – live in extreme poverty on less than US$1 a day. This figure rises to 2.8 billion if a standard of US$2 a day is used (OECD 2001).

Vulnerability among the poor varies, as some groups lack more financial, social and political means of securing alternative livelihoods that are less at risk. For example, women can be constrained by social and cultural structures that place them in sub-social positions, limiting their access to income, education, public opinion and survival mechanisms. In addition, the coping capacities of the poor are already tense due to a number of trends including HIV / AIDS, increasing population densities and the harmful forces associated with globalization. Climate change will increase these trends and increase vulnerabilities.

Droughts, floods and other extreme weather events due to climate change disrupt and reduce drinking water supplies and increase water-related diseases such as cholera and diarrhea, especially in regions with poor sanitary infrastructure. Inadequate access to safe drinking water and sanitation, combined with poor hygiene practices, are major causes of ill health and life-threatening diseases in developing countries. Currently, these diseases kill an estimated 2,213 million people each year in developing countries, and about 90 percent of them are children under the age of five. Women are particularly vulnerable to water-related diseases through traditional washing and collecting work.

With the resolutions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), work has been initiated to improve the adaptation capacity of poor people and poorer countries (Least Developed Countries) to cope with the effects of climate change. Still, a stronger focus should be on poverty reduction and sustainable development. It is believed that the development and environmental community should ensure that adaptation is not addressed as a stand-alone issue, but in the context of poverty reduction and the SDGs.

Many examples show that addressing poverty also means being prepared for climate variability and extremes. While climate change is just one of many factors that affect poverty, immediate action must be taken to adapt to the effects of climate change. The authors of the OECD report claim that many possible interventions have already been identified and can be acted upon today. Their combined experience shows that the best way to address the impacts of climate change on the poor is to integrate adaptation measures into sustainable development and poverty reduction strategies.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on July 7, 2021.

Although we arguably live in the world that finally encourages us to be misfits, the original rebels of finance and investing industry – ESG Investors – are increasingly looking to fit in. What was once a literal protest against the apartheid in South Africa, is now almost routinely proclaimed to be “mainstream” by the likes of the FT and “The Economist”. This trend has shot through the roof during the pandemic with Google indexing 277,000 results for “ESG mainstream” keyword combination generated since February 2020. And like everyone, who is coming of age, we are bringing ourselves in line for the sake of streamlining the processes.

Lost in Calculation

Between the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the Climate Disclosure Standards Board, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), and various taxonomies like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), it’s easy to start equating impact to disclosure and reporting.

As Carol A. Adams and Subhash Abhayawansa have noticed, recent pushes for standardization of extra-financials serves data providers, who have been in dire need for more comparable information. At the same time, it is not a given that this is bound to serve companies, which are genuinely trying to make an impact. For example, a company that chooses to use seawater instead of freshwater to cool its data center will increase its reported water footprint. However, a deeper dive into the specific context might suggest an entirely different impact story.

Similarly, Justin Lyle of “Your Public Value” compares our current obsession with [frequently contextless] reporting with the US government efforts to increase fuel-efficiency standards for passenger vehicles in the 1970s. Back then, misplaced incentives for companies simply resulted in manufacturers bypassing the core issue entirely by producing more trucks and SUVs instead of sedans.

[Dis]Comfort Blanket

It is this similar spirit behind our laser focus on disclosure and reporting that has forced the co-Chair of the UNEP Inquiry Simon Zadek to remark that “we moved from “if you want to manage it, measure it” to “if you are clueless what to do, then measuring it is a good comfort blanket.”

However, measuring for the sake of measuring can turn out being a discomfort blanket (or dare I say the last ever blanket?) down the line. As Simon Caulkin once put it, when referring to the NHS (National Health Service) increasing heart-attack-related death rates in the UK as an inadvertent consequence of over-focusing on patient waiting times: “What gets measured gets managed – so be sure you have the right measures, because the wrong ones kill.”

What Peter Drucker Actually Said

The very dictum of “what gets measured, gets managed” is frequently attributed to the late Austrian American philosopher Peter Drucker. In reality though, there is no indication that the celebrated management thinker ever uttered those words. Yet, there is a definite record of Drucker writing a letter to another acclaimed management consultant, Russell Ackoff, who is said to have framed the following words:

By applying “the new methods of quantitative analysis to specific business problems… we had successfully solved major production and technical problems … but our work had no impact on the organisations and on their mindsets. On the contrary, we had all but convinced the management … that quantitative manipulation was a substitute for thinking … And then your work and your example showed us … that the quantitative analysis comes after the thinking – it validates the thinking, it shows up intellectual sloppiness and uncritical reliance on precedent … it does not substitute for hard, rigorous, intellectually challenging thinking. It demands it, though — but does not replace it … and your work in faraway days thus saved me – as it saved countless others from either descending into mindless “model building” – the disease that all but destroyed so many of the business schools in the last decades – or from sloppiness parading as “insight.” [emphasis added] [1]

Think What You Treasure Before You Measure

Those words that were written a couple of decades ago, could have been easily spoken by any of the 124 broadly European ESG experts (myself included), who spent the pandemic months trying to put the “thinking” back to where it belongs – alongside “quantitative manipulation.”

We embarked on the journey of co-creating the 9 Public Value Principles for ESDG (Environmental, Social, Digital, Governance) Integration and the subsequent Self-Assessment Tool for companies with a mutually shared understanding that:

1. a) It’s certainly a good management practice to “measure what you treasure”;
   b) Yet, to do that meaningfully, one must never lose track of what it is that is treasurable and /or valuable in the first place.

In fact, one of the co-created principles outright states: “We seek continuous improvement and build trust by measuring, auditing, and sharing intentions, actions, and impact transparently and regularly.” The principles also refer to multiple concepts that imply presence of rigorous measuring: corrective action for any negative impact, positive contribution to society, systemic improvement, regeneration within planetary boundaries, inclusion, accountability etc.

Yet, with the principles build upon the concept of “public value” that was originally introduced by Harvard’s very own Mark Moore (“value preserved and created through positive action – for ALL and each of us, for society and the environment), this is an intellectualized, or perhaps contextualized, measuring. This is a truly Druckerian measuring that goes beyond the misattributed blanket statement of “What gets measured, gets managed.” It is informed by purpose, and it follows that thinking about said purpose.

Beyond the Blanket

As Robert Eccles rightly noticed, the use of engagement and voting has not only risen by double digits within the last decade and became the second most important responsible investing strategy after stock exclusion.  It is also expected to grow in popularity going forward. Andrew Behar goes even further claiming that, “2021 looks to be the dawning of a new era in which shareholders stand shoulder-to-shoulder on voting to empower change on climate, racial justice and other critical systemic issues.”

All of this means that it is the highly contextual ESG data that is going to have the most value going forward. Not just for investors choosing engagement as their preferred strategy, but also for the companies, that are to find themselves in position to contextualize their performance indicators.

Epilogue: Even Stonehedge Has Mortise

It might be all too easy to see the standardization we are hastily moving towards and an increasing need for context as contradictory.

Yet, if standardized reporting is a cornerstone of ESDG impact, we need some mortar of context to keep the bricks of sustainable business together.  By shifting focus to public value and corporate purpose without letting measurement and reporting out of sight, the principles become the mortar that carries the context of a given company.

On the chance you are a skeptic, believing that your business might sustainably thrive on bricks alone, it might be useful to recall that although Stonehedge had no mortar, even it only stood the test of time because it had mortise. Just like Stonehedge, the KPI bricks you report and measure might be held together by a rather unfamiliar kind of context. Simply assuming you know what context looks like would be akin to its own form of standardization disease. That’s exactly where I find instrument like the Public Value Self-Assessment Tool for ESDG Integration most useful:  It helps you determine what the bricks of your particular sustainable business are held together by, be it mortar, mortise or anything else.

[1] The full transcript of the letter is available in Drucker P. (2002/2007), “Managing in the Next Society”, “Routledge”/” Taylor & Francis Group”, London and New York, p. XII

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 30, 2021.

California’s Central Valley is sinking, in some places almost a foot per year. Over the past century, Californians have pumped so much of the groundwater underneath the valley that the ground is now caving in beneath them, swallowing the bottom floors of houses and damaging roads, bridges, canals and dams. How could things have gotten so out of hand? To start with, we know relatively little about groundwater. Nearly every study of groundwater laments how understudied it is. Only in 2020 was Africa’s groundwater recharge—the natural replenishment of groundwater, mostly through rain and snow sinking into the ground—mapped for the first time.

My first encounter with groundwater was philosophical. I remember someone arguing in the spirit of interconnectedness that “groundwater has no nations.” Indeed, some U.S. courts have even refused to exercise jurisdiction over groundwater, arguing that it can’t be determined whether groundwater is “water of the United States.” Under the current legal conduit theory, polluters of groundwater can only be held liable when it permeates “navigable waters,” when polluted groundwater contaminates rivers, oceans or canals. Yet groundwater is an open system with porous boundaries. And it’s increasingly being relied on for drinking water, crop irrigation, geothermal energy provision and industrial uses.

Today 25% of fresh water used in the United States is groundwater, but groundwater makes up roughly 90% of the available fresh water. As U.S. groundwater is replenished largely by rainwater, it will become both increasingly valuable and scarce in the coming decades of deepening drought. Worldwide, dependence on groundwater is even greater. At least 75% of people in Africa and 75% of EU residents rely on groundwater for drinking water. India is the most groundwater-dependent country in the world, relying on groundwater for 85% of its drinking water and 60% of agricultural irrigation. At the current rate of use, 60% of Indian aquifers will be critically depleted by 2032. Groundwater contamination from human activities, ranging from agriculture to mining, is a global problem particularly concentrated in rapidly developing countries. While water quality in the U.S. is among the best in the world, millions of Americans still drink water contaminated by industrial and agricultural chemicals. Around the world, we are facing groundwater crises of both quality and quantity.

The problem of groundwater depletion and degradation is likely farther-reaching than we know. Here, another invisible actor comes into focus: microorganisms. Broadly speaking, the diverse metabolic processes of microbes provide for life as we know it. The critical difference between dirt and soil is that soil is alive, while dirt is not. Soil contains organic matter and living organisms—bacteria, fungi, earthworms, etc.—whose processes are vital to sustaining plant life. Dirt is just the lifeless medium: tiny particles of sand, silt and clay. There are more microorganisms in a teaspoon of soil than there are people on the planet. And yet because of centuries of unsustainable agricultural practices depleting the soil of microbial life, we are about 60 years from running out of topsoil—the medium in which we grow 95% of our food.

Regenerative agriculture has emerged as a way out of the catch-22 that we need to keep farming, but if we keep farming like this, we won’t be able to farm much longer. Regenerative agriculture is soil-first, organized around preserving and expanding the biodiversity of soil microbes as a necessary precursor to growing healthy plants. This is a revelatory reorientation towards what’s happening below ground. And this reorientation has been happening for forests too: the discovery that mycorrhizal fungi connect entire forests underground has sparked an explosion of literature surrounding trees’ “social lives,” their interconnected root networks resembling an organic internet. There is reason to hope that these newly excavated truths about how ecosystems function can help us to prevent their extinction.

What’s becoming clear is that the fate of groundwater and soil microbes are linked. Soil microbes free up nutrients that are vital for plant life, and groundwater availability impacts soil-plant nutrient cycling in groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Such ecosystems include very wet environments, like wetlands, rivers, lakes and springs, but they also include very dry regions, where phreatophytic or deep-rooted desert plants commonly extend their roots all the way down to the water table. When more groundwater is pumped than is naturally replenished, this lowers the water table, which means that wells run dry, wet ecosystems get drier (and die), and even the long roots of desert plants can no longer reach their water source. And that’s just the impact this has on above-ground flora and fauna.

Like soil, groundwater is full of microorganisms. Their role is even less understood than soil microbiota, though recent research has pointed out a number of vital biogeochemical processes. For instance, microorganisms in soil and groundwater purify water of pollutants, purposefully recharging groundwater reservoirs with contaminated surface water like a natural filter, making the water drinkable again. Likewise, bioremediation is the use of microbes to clean up contaminated sites, an effective biotechnology harnessing what’s already happening beneath our feet. And we have barely scratched the surface of all the potential uses of microbes in reversing environmental destruction.

Lately, conversations about climate change have honed in on carbon sequestration as a vital piece of the solution. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are dangerously high—a safe concentration of CO2 is 350 ppm, but in June 2021 we reached 419.73 ppm, the highest in 800,000 years. Even as carbon removal technologies remain woefully underdeveloped in the face of our pressing need, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere naturally and store it in the soil. This understudied process of carbon fixation by groundwater microbes may also prove significant for climate change mitigation efforts. There is, in brief, a powerful tool for mitigating climate change hidden in the ground beneath us. But it requires that we think systemically.

Ecosystems need to be healthy and functioning for a forest or an ocean to act as a carbon sink. That requires attention being paid to the unseen actors—microscopic, underground, underwater—which make everything else possible. The loss of microbial life in water and soil would have unimaginable consequences for life on earth. But the inverse is also true: the solutions to our macroscopic problems may be quite literally rooted in microscopic processes.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 23, 2021.

The Financial Times recently declared that we are entering the era of electronic globalization. They characterize this new period with tech-mergers from Microsoft and Salesforce, international software writers from Lagos, Istanbul, and Lima, and increases in technology expenditures.

Launching the era of e-globalization with an economic premise may be likened to an iceberg: business is the part that shows above the water. The real bulk, the real meaning of this new era, lies below the surface. Eras reflect a distinct character and mindset of a given time period rather than its products, services, and corporations.

The Classical Era was not about Stein or Späth selling pianofortes, or Leopold Mozart writing violin textbooks in various cities. The Classical Era was about a change of view occurring in society. For the first time, music was being played in public concerts for the enjoyment and entertainment of commoners.

The Renaissance Era was not about Frederico da Montefeltro investing in portraits, sculptures, and images of saints. It was more about Filippo Brunelleschi inventing the three-point perspective and artists such as Raphael making art more life-like, recreating nature, and putting people in the center of things.

To understand the real bulk of e-globalization, and what lies beneath the surface, one needs to begin with globalization without the “e.” Globalization means different things. As a term, it gained popularity after the Cold War. Since then, it has been equated with McDonaldization and Americanization. This is greatly due to Thomas Friedman and the late American economist Raymond Vernon — who has been dubbed the “Father of Globalization” — and his pioneering study on multinational corporations in the late 20^th Century. But for most, it describes a growing interdependence of how the world works together.

The scientific study of work is an American invention. Scientific Management was conceived by the engineer Frederick W. Taylor — the first US thinker who studied work seriously. In a testimony of Taylor at a hearing before the Special Committee of the House of Representatives to Investigate The Taylor and Other System of Shop Management in January 1912, he explains that “in its essence, scientific management involves a complete mental revolution on the part of the workingman engaged in any particular establishment or industry.” Its goal is to lead common people to a new age of affluence and prosperity. In his book The Practice of Management, Peter Drucker appraises Taylor’s ideas by saying that they are “the most powerful as well as the most lasting contribution America has made to Western thought since the Federalist Papers.” Indeed, the idea of Scientific Management penetrated the whole world. When Vladimir Lenin first learned of Taylor in 1913, he denounced his work as “a ‘scientific’ system of sweating” in the communist newspaper Pravda. However, as head of government in 1919, confronted with the problems of industrial organization and increasing labour discipline, he accepted Taylor’s ideas as “the most urgent” and “central problem” of his socialist revolution.

Management is not an efficiency device or an accounting system for figuring out costs or profits. Like the invention of three-point-perspective, scientific management puts common people at the center of work and organizations in the industrialized West for the very first time. It was a psychological shift in society. For the first time in history, productivity was measured, working hours shortened, working conditions improved, and wages significantly increased.

Taylor showed the world that there are fundamental principles to designing a job and work environment. He began with Bethlehem Steel, demonstrating that there is a science from shovelling dirt to opening restaurants. He redesigned countless shovels for individual workers and made thousands of stop-watch observations. McDonalds, a few decades later, would imitate this practice. The McDonalds brothers proved that there is a science to putting meat on a bun. Before opening restaurants in Strasbourg in 1979, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1993, and Paraguay in 1996, they stop-watched numerous employees preparing orders (McDonalds learned to fulfill a customer’s order in under thirty seconds), studied food production processes, and redesigned kitchen equipment for efficiency and effectiveness (Since then, McDonalds has engaged in extremely exploitative labor practices. In the name of efficiency, staff have been underpaid and/or assigned to inhumane working terms and conditions. To be sure, these practices are a far cry from the management revolution Taylor helped conceive.)

E-globalization is about the way computers work, or rather how people work with information. Charles Babbage (1791-1871), considered by many as the “father of the computer”, was a management thinker and pioneer. Babbage set the floor for definite principles of management. His work led to the propositions upon which Frederick Taylor would build the system and beliefs of scientific management.

Babbage’s ideas are only now coming to the fore. In his book, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers, he writes about the division of labour and how it suggests the contrivance of tools and machinery to execute its processes. He observed “principles which seemed to pervade many establishments.” His toothed wheels invention (“Difference-Engine”) sparked something that had never existed before in history, namely paying jobs for mathematicians. As a result of his management genius, commoners around the world can now labor with one logical form — the electronic computer.

With the era of e-globalization, perspectives have drastically changed. Computers have taken center stage. Even outside corporations and industry, they shape our identity and relationship with others. They have ‘evolved’ to managers, responsible for the application and performance of knowledge. To be sure, only time will tell what this new era is exactly about and what computers really think. As such, perhaps the most urgent job today is to develop concepts to assess the rapidly evolving character and mindset of the computer.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 16, 2021.

The lowest common (and most influential) denominator between both sectors is its constituents – us, the public. For the public and private sectors to engage in climate action, they must engage with what constituents view as critical issues. Rather than top-down regulatory measures, we must instead focus on a bottom-up approach that identifies issue linkages between climate change and other pressing issues to catalyze effective climate action.

Ecotourism can serve as a potential call-to-action for climate change if it is open to and advertised to a broader audience–diverse in its racial and ethnic makeup, sexual orientation, political leaning, etc. Diversity and inclusion in ecotourism have the potential to allow diverse populations to experience the serenity of the environment, but also inspire conservation and climate action in their own communities, rather than only the white upper-class citizens that ecotourism traditionally appeals to. If national parks and monuments services include diversity and inclusion initiatives in their services, ecotourism has the potential to inspire widespread climate action.

Just as diversity and inclusion practices are needed in schools and in the workplace to build an infrastructure conducive to social equality, they are also needed in national parks within the United States. Environmental conservation and national parks have historically been targeted to suit predominantly white, upper-class citizens in the United States. This follows the antiquated notion that access to ‘pristine’ and ‘untouched’ nature is a luxury only meant to be enjoyed and appreciated by the upper echelons of society.

More recent research, however, states that minorities, typically thought to be dissociated from environmentalism, are actually very concerned with environmental conservation, preservation, and protection, especially the communities of color that are affected by pollution and environmental degradation. Researchers suggest that increasing environmental awareness among minorities has led racial minorities, specifically Latinos, to become more sensitive to environmental issues than their white counterparts. Communities of color in areas suffering from pollution and other forms of environmental degradation are thus united by a shared experience, leading them to unite on environmental issues.

Diversity and inclusion practices in ecotourism are critical in providing affected communities of color with the information they need to learn about means of conservation and environmental protection and to connect with other communities that may also engage in climate action and environmental protection. Thus, diversity and inclusion initiatives in national parks can strengthen and widen the base for climate action in the United States.

The Muir Woods model for ecotourism includes specific diversity and inclusion initiatives that have proven successful in uniting various communities in understanding the value of and engaging directly in climate action. Muir Woods is a national park in Northern California which was officially established in 1908 as a Redwood tree monument and reserve. The park was named after environmentalist and founder of the Sierra Club, John Muir, whose efforts helped initiate the United States national park system. Although Muir Woods did not always include diversity and inclusion practices–ranging from hiring rangers and staff of color, sexuality, etc.–today’s Muir Wood reflects California’s (and the greater United States’) population in both its park-goers and its staff.

A park ranger who goes by the name, “Ranger Hector” explained how the park follows diversity and inclusion practices which include displaying quotes from famous African American conservation leaders like Teresa Baker, Founder of the African American Nature and Parks Experience and other representatives of conservation and communities of color all over the park (Ranger Hector. Personal Interview. April 14 2017). The rangers at Muir Woods are also diverse in terms of their racial and cultural backgrounds, and sexual leanings as to represent the constituencies the park is trying to attract. The Muir Woods staff itself states that “we empower staff and visitors to challenge power structures historically rooted in this place to make Muir Woods, our communities, and our world more equitable”. Muir Woods’ staff also educate park-goers on how climate change is affecting redwood growth, putting it and other environments at risk. Their guided tours often serve as calls to action on climate change. The new Muir Woods model for ecotourism allows various communities to see the value of environmental conservation and unite them on the front of climate action as inspired by shared experiences and by rangers and park staff that inform the public about environmental degradation and climate issues.

The primary catalyst for individuals to join a cause is a sense of community. National parks can provide people with a sense of community via shared experiences to engage in climate action. Like the Muir Woods model, national park services need to include diversity and inclusion practices to appeal to a broader community of people and inform them on the value and means of conservation, preservation, and the threat of climate change. The movement for climate action needs a broader base in order to convince politicians to work towards more stringent regulations for environmental protection and promote clean energy, and for businesses to work towards more stringent corporate sustainability initiatives. If politicians and business peoples’ constituencies begin to prioritize climate action, they will too; diversity and inclusion in ecotourism is just one way to get these constituencies to prioritize it. The U.S. National Park Service is working towards diversity and inclusion in ecotourism one park at a time.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 26, 2018.

Last year was one of the hottest and driest summers on record in my home state of California. Five of the state’s 10 largest wildfires occurred in 2020 — and experts don’t expect any reprieve this fire season, which is 3½ months longer than it was 50 years ago.

The number of hot days is rising. Snowpacks are melting earlier. Forests and grasslands are drying out from increased evaporation.

From Texas to Washington, extreme heat and wildfires have heightened the risk of power shortages and blackouts at the very time people need reliable energy most, to run air conditioners and purifiers in the face of dangerous heat and air quality.

Building community resilience to fire and heat is an immediate imperative. In addition to curbing emissions, here are three ways we can prepare for the climate impacts that are already here.

1. Build community support for planned fires.

We’ve come a long way in our understanding of how to manage forests and other ecosystems to reduce fire risk. In 1935, the U.S. Forest Service set a policy to suppress all fires. But that practice changed ecosystems, making forests more fire-prone.

Now we know that it’s better to let some fires burn, and that increasing the number of planned or prescribed fires is a cost-effective way to reduce fuel loads.

Still, increasing prescribed fire involves some risks to communities and structures. To succeed, federal and state agencies will need to work with fire-prone communities to plan prescribed fires and associated mechanical thinning in a way that ensures safety and builds trust. This path will likely yield a net increase in acres burned, but those acres will burn at lower intensities and under greater control by firefighters.

Implementing this plan will require a funding fix to shift the majority of Forest Service spending from suppressing fires — 55% of Forest Service outlays in 2017 — to preventing catastrophic wildfires and building forest resilience.

2. Reduce the air pollution we can control.

The longer duration and intensity of wildfire season in the West has compounded health concerns about air quality.

During the 2020 fire season, air-quality monitors in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, measured the highest particulate matter levels of anywhere in the world.

Breathing wildfire smoke has been linked to spikes in asthma, heart attacks and deaths. Children and pregnant women, as well as those with heart disease or respiratory conditions like asthma, are particularly vulnerable to harm from wildfire smoke.

But living with fire is our reality. So in addition to increasing guidance and resources for limiting exposure to wildfire smoke, we need to take immediate action to reduce our exposure to air pollution from burning fossil fuels.

By one recent estimate, air pollution causes nearly 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. Transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean energy could cut deaths from air pollution by up to 40% and yield huge economic benefits from improved health and labor productivity.

President Biden’s American Jobs Plan is a good start: It calls on Congress to invest $621 billion in transportation infrastructure and resilience, including a $174 billion investment to promote electric vehicles with zero health-harming tailpipe pollution. Some, including Ford’s new all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck, can also provide clean backup power during a blackout.

By addressing the threat that fossil fuels pose to our climate and investing in alternatives to cleanly fuel our economy, we’ll also dramatically cut pollution emissions that cause enormous harm to public health.

3. Boost resilience and innovation in our energy grid.

With extreme and unpredictable weather come extreme and unpredictable surges in energy demand.

But we don’t have to rely on dirty fuels for a stable power supply when there are clear opportunities to boost resilience on the energy grid.

First, we must remove obsolete rules that govern how power companies operate — rules nearly as outdated as the grid itself. This will allow room for much-needed innovation to rethink how power suppliers and customers generate and manage energy more efficiently.

One example: Electric utilities can install cost-effective smart technologies, including sensors and digital communication, to give people only the electricity they need, cutting down on waste that drives up electricity bills and air pollution.

By cutting waste and gaining more control over electricity use and costs, utilities and the customers they serve can resolve problems faster and save power reserves for when they’re needed most.

The dangers of heat, fire, smoke and blackouts are urgent, long-term and interconnected — and so are the opportunities to build resilience to them. By taking a holistic approach to tackling climate risk, we can help the western U.S. and all communities thrive on a changing planet.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 2, 2021.

This is a watershed moment for the oil and gas industry and leading investors in the race to transition to a net zero energy system.

Leading companies across the globe recognize that climate change presents a massive systemic risk, and that solving it is a multitrillion-dollar opportunity. Others, such as ExxonMobil, have defied calls to align their business strategies with a decarbonizing economy. For them, a financial reckoning may finally have arrived.

On May 26, ExxonMobil faces an investor vote to replace up to four board members with forward-thinking leaders who could help catalyze and accelerate a much-needed transition toward a clean energy future.

Three major proxy advisory firms (Glass Lewis, ISS, and Pensions and Investments Research Consultants) have already come out in support of some or all board nominees. Legal & General, the U.K.’s largest asset manager, has also pledged to vote for the nominees to improve Exxon’s transition readiness and financial viability.

CalPERS, CalSTRS and New York State Common Retirement Fund — three of the country’s largest public pensions, responsible for providing retirement security to millions of people — have also decided to vote their shares in favor of the new board candidates.

Investors must walk the talk

ExxonMobil’s four largest shareholders — asset managers BlackRock Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity — together hold almost 20% of the company’s stock, giving them powerful leverage in the upcoming vote.

With the exception of Fidelity, these firms have also signed a pledge through the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, “supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, in line with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius” and “supporting investing aligned with net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.”

How they vote will be evidence of whether these shareholders are willing to act now to address the serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system and to transition the firm toward cost-competitive and rapidly innovating clean energy technologies.

The climate crisis is a business imperative

Pressure on companies and investors to respond to the climate crisis continues to surge. The real winners will emerge based on their ability to maintain the social license to operate and stay competitive in a rapidly shifting and hypercompetitive clean energy market.

Investor confidence is flagging for companies that pursue business-as-usual investment strategies with consistently poor returns.

For example, from 2010 to 2020, Exxon delivered lower returns to investors than its peers BP, Shell, Chevron and Total. The U.S. shale industry also lost $300 billion in that time, including unprofitable investments by ExxonMobil that led to a multibillion dollar devaluation of assets.

The simple fact is that new products and technologies entering the market have no use for oil and gas. From solar and wind in the power sector to electric vehicles in transportation and high efficiency heat pumps in buildings, oil and gas is now in competition with cleaner — and increasingly cheaper — alternatives.

A clear case for action

The International Energy Agency, which helps shape energy policy for 30 member countries, made clear in a report on May 18 that development of new oil and gas fields — the kind of investment ExxonMobil has continued to make — has no place in a climate-stabilized world.

The report says that in order to reduce emissions at the scale and pace that the science demands, investors and energy companies need to start to practicing what they preach on climate change. After all, commercial opportunities abound in the growing field of clean energy, not in the fading future of traditional oil and gas.

It’s a jarring wakeup for anyone in the oil and gas industry who thought they could finesse their way through the energy transition. So, too, is Ford’s electron-powered F-150 Lightning pickup, unveiled last week, the first version of America’s most popular vehicle to have no need for ExxonMobil’s products.

Coming so close on the heels of these developments, the ExxonMobil shareholder vote stands as a potential inflection point.

This is the chance for ExxonMobil’s four largest shareholders to do the right thing for the climate and long-term value creation by making their voices — and votes — heard.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on May 26, 2021.

The rewilding movement originated as a push for “big wilderness”: for the restoration of large, interconnected swaths of land and the reintroduction of “keystone species” to it. Keystone species are animals and plants whose presence is highly beneficial to their ecosystem, and whose absence triggers a cascade of destabilizing changes. Though keystone species in North America range from beavers to chestnut trees, rewilding emphasizes the need for large predators—wolves, cougars, bears and the like—whose need for large territories in turn justifies “big wilderness.”

Rewilding is organized around the “Three C’s,” Cores, Corridors, and Carnivores, where the cores are protected wilderness areas, and the corridors are strips of land or water connecting them. Cities hardly fit in as a fourth “C” in this vision. So why are the words “urban rewilding” increasingly cropping up together? There are a number of reasons for conservationists’ newfound interest in integrating rewilding principles into urban environments, some more fruitful than others.

There is no doubt that “rewilding” a city looks substantially different from rewilding efforts in Yosemite, Nam Phouy or the Scottish Highlands. Big wilderness and apex predators are impossibilities. People can’t be prohibited entry to urban green spaces. Urban rewilding looks more like transforming a former shopping center into a wetland park in Nottingham; like de-concretizing miles of the Kallang River in Singapore; like the hanging gardens of a new skyscraper in Sydney. Unnecessarily gray spaces are restored to green, and green spaces are incorporated into new development. There is no purity to urban rewilding: the balance of gray and green is subject to constant, organic change.

One crucial principle of rewilding that succumbs to the challenges of cities is restoring native flora and fauna. Biologist Mark Davis emphasizes the difference between non-native species—which can benefit the biodiversity of their new homes—and invasive species, which harm biodiversity. He argues that it is “time to focus much more on the functions of species, and much less on where they originated.” Davis’ logic is particularly applicable for the constraints of urban environments, dominated by “urban adapters” and “urban exploiters”: species dependent to varying degrees on human resources. Many native species struggle to thrive in the altered conditions of cities, while others can and will return with changes in urban landscaping practices.

Biodiversity may be a more feasible aim for cities than pure native species restoration. There are many justifications for increasing biodiversity in cities, ecosystem health and resilience being the most obvious, along with preserving migration routes and homes for rare species. Manhattan, for instance, a stop along the endangered monarch butterfly’s migration route, recently designed a new Central Park meadow with dozens of wildflower species to provide for them and other pollinators. Recent research has also found that the psychological benefits of spending time in urban green spaces increase with greater biodiversity. The benefits of biodiversity, however, are more obvious than the means of securing them. To increase biodiversity in cities, research suggests that small habitat patches throughout must be interconnected.

Corridors, rewilding’s second “C,” are actually an essential tool of cities. These corridors can take a number of forms, from waterways and strips of parkland to hedgerows and even walls themselves. And corridors don’t have to be unbroken: new research shows that “steppingstones” are effective in expanding the range of possible habitats for urban species to live in and move through. The High Line park along an abandoned railway in New York City is a wildlife corridor; so is the River Thames in London. Gardens, parks and playgrounds can function as steppingstones.

Corridors aren’t the only healthy challenge that rewilding principles pose to cities. Another is minimizing humans’ role in managing ecosystems. Given that an estimated 40 million acres of the United States is lawn—high-maintenance and ecologically sterile—we can imagine how transformative it would be to replace lawns with pollinator-friendly plants, to have yards and roadsides humming with birds and butterflies and bees. Cities with a long-term outlook may also consider how the financial benefits of establishing lower-maintenance landscapes can offset the start-up costs of habitat restoration. Of course, some human intervention in urban landscapes may remain both necessary and beneficial.

Perhaps the greatest challenge urban rewilding provokes is rethinking the divide between built and natural landscapes, and the human role in each. Biologist Tim Flannery reminds us that the “primeval wilderness” encountered by early American colonists only looked untouched; Native Americans were actually the most important actors in maintaining its ecological balance. Today, growing interest in “urban rewilding” reveals a new willingness to reconsider how and with whom we share our built environments. The gardeners of Manhattan’s High Line, for example, consider themselves “editors” rather than authors of the landscape, whose work is to “keep it wild.” While “wild” in the bustling neighborhood of Chelsea means self-seeding asters, not roaming wolves, it still represents a profound shift in urban landscaping practices.

What most distinguishes the conversation around “urban rewilding” from the push for native plants or greater biodiversity may be how it captures the imagination. “Rewilding” has incited strong emotional reactions since its inception, from the enthusiasm of those who take pride in the unique beauty of their local ecosystems to anger from those who fear predators’ reintroduction. Urban rewilding doesn’t involve large animals, but it still requires a shift in thinking about “ownership” of urban spaces. A 2020 study of “auto-rewilding” cormorants who took over an urban reservoir in England, upsetting local fishers, notes that most rewilding efforts have concrete goals in mind, like the reintroduction of specific species. In contrast, handing over the reins to nature means making room for “ecological surprises,” like a sudden cormorant colony. While urban residents are accustomed to living amidst a great diversity of human behavior, it may be that “ecological surprises” in cities prove especially unsettling. Managing the boundaries between people and rewilded habitats will be crucial to protect wildlife and mitigate people’s concerns. Most of the creatures using urban streets as corridors would be small and winged—insects, birds—and the majority of new animal species would inhabit rewilded parks.

Urban rewilding may be the more fruitful for its contradictions: the leap from manicured lawns to restored wetlands is even greater than the reintroduction of bears and wolves to the European continent. And if it asks more of urban residents, it also may deliver more. Urban rewilding is touted as a solution to everything from increased resilience against viruses to improved respiratory and mental health. There is no one model for a rewilded city—“wild” means something different everywhere. What rewilding promises cities is a chance to more fully realize their local character.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on May 19, 2021.

Threats to Biodiversity

Temperature Increases: Many species will be psychologically affected by climate change, however, some species will not be able to control their body temperature as they are physiologically vulnerable to temperature increase. For example, the green-ringtail possum, an endemic species of Queensland’s tropical rainforests, cannot control its body temperature when the ambient temperature rises above 30 ° C.

Coral Bleaching: The most important reason for coral bleaching is shown to be warmer sea surface temperature. It is a bleaching that occurs when algae living in the coral tissues of corals and carrying essential nutrients are expelled. Coral is expelled when under stress from abnormally high water temperatures or environmental factors such as pollution. Since this alga helps corals in food production, loss of corals can affect coral growth and make the coral more vulnerable to disease. Major bleaching events occurred in the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2006, causing significant coral death in some places.

Increase in Natural Disasters: Projected changes in the intensity, frequency and extent of disturbances such as fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods will stress existing vegetation and support species that can rapidly colonize bare areas. In most cases this would mean the spread of alien “weed” species and major changes in the distribution and abundance of many native species. Heatwaves can affect the biodiversity of marine ecosystems, as seen in the summer of 2010–11 in southwestern Australia. Prolonged warm sea temperatures caused the abalone industry to shut down and whale sharks and manta rays to migrate further south and east than usual.

Increased CO2 and Plant Growth:  Key ingredients for photosynthesis include carbon dioxide and water. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes increased growth rates in many plant species. This is good news for farmers, but only if this carbon dioxide ‘fertilizing’ effect matches enough soil moisture and other nutrients. Leaf-eating animals like koalas may not be so lucky: Increased carbon dioxide concentrations can reduce the nutritional value of leaves.

Sea Level Rise:  According to the latest IPCC report, sea level is predicted to rise by 26-98 centimeters by 2100 due to the thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of polar glaciers and ice sheets. Combined with the effects of storm surges that are expected to be greater in a warmer world, this rise in sea level can threaten many coastal ecosystems.

How it hurts people

The UN-backed report details the enormous ways our species endanger others by destroying forests, polluting rivers, overfishing the oceans, killing insects and otherwise destroying their resources.

“Nature enables human development, but our relentless demand for earth’s resources is accelerating extinction rates and destroying the world’s ecosystems,” UN Environment President Joyce Msuya said.

The UN Report revealing species extinction rates accelerating finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history. The global extinction rate today is hundreds of times higher than the average for the last 10 million years.

More than a third of the world’s land surface and about 75% of freshwater resources are now used for crop or livestock production. Agriculture is particularly vulnerable and nine plant species and soils that currently account for more than two-thirds of global crop production are threatened.

Agriculture itself is one of the major causes of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and sinking wildlife populations with pesticides, soil erosion and forest clearing. And in addition to its impact on food systems, the destruction of the earth’s soil reduces its ability to hold water, increasing water stress and flood frequency, hitting people.

According to the report, the repercussions of human activities on nature are exacerbated by climate change, which is exacerbated by damage to ecosystems, such as the loss of forests that convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

A study published last year in the journal Science found that 49% of insects and 44% of plants would lose more than half of their geographic habitats by 2100, even if countries meet their commitments to limit carbon emissions.

What can we do to stop it?

In 2010, the United Nations declared “ten-year biodiversity” to reduce the loss of biodiversity. But according to today’s report, it has made good progress with just a few of the 20 goals it has set for its members, such as protecting marine areas and prioritizing invasive alien species. Each goal related to addressing the underlying drivers has made moderate or weak progress. However, the report said “urgent and intensive efforts” could still preserve and restore nature so that it can be used in a sustainable way.

The authors of the UN biodiversity regulation report stressed that avoiding the adverse effects of post-2050 biodiversity loss and the “transformative” policy requires change. They proposed a comprehensive set of policies that included effective fishing quotas and collaborative water management, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, consumption and waste reduction.

While the report’s recommendations are targeted at policy makers, scientists say many consumer options are needed to preserve ecosystems, such as reducing beef consumption and eating sustainably sourced fish. The authors also stressed the importance of developing global financial systems that move away from the “limited paradigm” of economic growth. The report also says it’s not too late to make a difference,”  UN biodiversity chief Robert Watson said. “But now if we start at all levels, from local to global.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on May 5, 2021.

We cannot address biodiversity loss without tackling climate change, but tackling climate change is equally impossible without addressing biodiversity loss. Preserving and restoring ecosystems can help us reduce the magnitude of climate change and cope with its impact.

The Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity Assesment Report concluded that climate change will have significant impacts on many aspects of biodiversity. These impacts will include impacts on genetic diversity and ecological interactions within ecosystems and constituent species. The consequences of these impacts are important to the long-term stability of the Natural World and the many benefits and services people derive from it.

In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is crucial. It is necessary and even vital to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 ° C compared to higher levels. Adaptation will be less difficult. Our world will experience less negative impacts around the density and frequency of extreme events, resources, ecosystems, biodiversity, food security, cities, tourism and carbon removal.

Why biodiversity loss is equally important as climate change?

The first thing that comes to mind when talking about biodiversity is a richness of species. And when it comes to biodiversity loss, the vast majority of people will associate it with the loss of certain species from an ecosystem or biosphere. However this is the wrong approach because, in the long run, other subtle factors affecting ecosystem health would be overlooked.

An ecosystem basically works off of interactions between the living and non-living. That means each species plays an important role and the extinction of certain species greatly affect the ecosystem’s balance. For example, a bee colony is responsible for pollinating 300 million flowers a day. Plants we consume, such as fruits, nuts and vegetables, are pollinated by bees. In fact, 90% of the world’s nutrition is based on bee pollination. In other words decreasing the bee population poses a great threat to agriculture and nutrition.

Another important example may be gray wolves, which once roamed widely across more than two-thirds of the U.S. but were hunted nearly to extinction by the 1930s because of the threat they pose to livestock. Wolf conservation groups estimate there were anywhere from 250,000 to 2 million gray wolves in the continental U.S. before colonization. Today there are approximately 6,000 gray wolves across the lower 48 states. A population of about 4,400 live in the Great Lakes area and some 1,700 live in the northwestern U.S.

Reliable data from Yellowstone National Park make clear that wolves have helped to reduce elk numbers and have changed elk foraging behavior, allowing for vegetation to recover from chronic over-browsing. That has helped create greater ecological diversity and resilience, at least on the Park’s Northern Range.

Although, Washington’s wolves still face many challenges, Gov. Jay Inslee sent a letter on September 4th, 2020, directing the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to initiate new rulemaking relating to wolf management.

The directive comes after the governor accepted an appeal from the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the Department’s decision to deny the Center’s petition to amend current wolf management rules. Specifically, the petition argues that current rules fail to prioritize non-lethal management of endangered wolves.

He stated,

“While I cannot legally prescribe the specific policies that must be included in this new rule, I ask that DFW include clear and enforceable measures in the proposed rule to achieve the following management outcomes:

• Standardized definition and requirements for the use of range riders;
• Requirements for use of non-lethal deterrents most appropriate for specified situations (wolf population and range, size and location of livestock operation, terrain and habitat, history of depredation);
• Action plans in areas of chronic depredation to end the need for annual lethal removal; and,
• Compliance measures where livestock operators do not implement the required non-lethal measures.

“Given the significant work that has been done to date on this topic, I strongly believe new rules and policies could, and should, be adopted and in place prior to the grazing season next year.”

Although Gov Inslee was outspoken about returning to the Paris Agreement and strong climate change action, his state has continued destroying the gray wolf population. In the current situation, it remains unclear whether the letter will be effective.

It is clear that there is a loss of natural and human-induced biodiversity, it can be said that the one from human-driven is more severe and long-lasting. Biodiversity loss may occur with natural disasters, floods, volcanic eruptions and fires. In addition, the loss of biodiversity due to human activities is also significantly devastating.

There is a review of about 15,000 scientific and government resources, compiled by 145 expert writers from 50 countries, according to an article from National Geographic. In this review, the authors discovered that human activity was the main cause of the decline of nature. Major drivers of human-induced biodiversity loss are land conversion, deforestation, overfishing, average scrub hunting and poaching, and pollution.

Natural vegetation, such as forests, grasslands, and shrubbery, has been cleared of large areas as human activity, particularly agriculture, as well as settlement and industrial development, has expanded over the past few centuries. The once large communities of plants have been reduced in size and divided into smaller pieces. The reduction and fragmentation of this habitat poses a problem as it limits the ability of many species to migrate to areas with favorable conditions. Species found on mountain tops, islands, and peninsulas will have a similar problem.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on April 21, 2021.

The criticism also overlooks the fact that the Trump administration’s draconian policies have prevented asylum seekers from entering the U.S. over the past four years. To unwind these unlawful policies, the Biden administration must restore the opportunity to seek asylum at the southern border and overhaul the U.S. asylum system to provide meaningful access to protection.

The number of migrants permitted to enter the U.S. in recent weeks pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of people stranded on the Mexican side of the border over the past four years as a direct result of Trump administration policies. The most firmly entrenched of these policies is metering. Under this policy, CBP artificially restricts asylum seekers’ access to ports of entry along the southern border, stating falsely that they lack “capacity” to process them. As a result, many migrants–often entire families–were rejected at ports of entry, and were sent to Mexico to put their names on waiting lists and live indefinitely in makeshift, often dangerous arrangements in the hope of seeking asylum in the U.S.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

 Reversing Aggression

The response to the British-French-Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1956-1957 and the UN response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990-1991 are examples of the United Nations at its best.

Two days after the Israeli army invaded Egypt on 29 October 1956 with the participation of two permanent members of the Security Council, the UK and France, Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld reminded the Security Council of the necessity that “all Member nations honor their pledge to observe all Articles of the Charter” and that “those organs which are charged with the task of upholding the Charter will be in a position to fulfil their task.” In response to the deadlock in the Council, the General Assembly invoked the “Uniting for Peace” resolution to convene an emergency special session, which called on all foreign troops to withdraw from Egypt and established the UN Emergency Force – the first UN peacekeeping mission.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

CCS has made little progress as a viable mitigation technology since these papers were published due to the economic and engineering challenges associated with it. But the potential of negative emissions technologies, particularly CCS, features prominently in climate change mitigation pathways. The Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC long-term temperature goal is, in virtually every scenario, operationalized in part through the use of CCS; and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includes the use of CCS to achieve its 1.5ºC temperature target in three out of four mitigation scenarios.

In the last year, a number of individuals and corporations made new commitments to CCS. Elon Musk tweeted that he would donate $100 million towards the development of CCS technology. Exxon Mobil launched a new business, Low Carbon Solutions, with a $3 billion dollar investment commitment (Exxon cites CCS as integral to achieving net-zero emissions). Shell Oil released its Energy Transformation Scenarios Report, which deems necessary the rapid development of CCS to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC long-term temperature goal. And United Airlines announced a multimillion-dollar investment in the development of CCS technology as part of its commitment to eliminating its emissions by 2050.

Amidst this wave of investment in CCS, Petra Nova, the United States’ sole coal-fired carbon capture and storage facility, was shuttered in January of this year. Petra Nova was conceived in 2017 as a joint venture between NRG Energy and Nippon Oil to capture carbon emissions from the W.A. Parish Generating Station in Texas. The captured carbon would then be transported to the nearby West Ranch oil field and, through a technique called enhanced oil recovery (EOR), injected into the underground oil reservoir to push hard-to-reach oil to the surface and boost production at the oil field. The injected carbon would remain sequestered underground at the West Ranch oil field.

Revenues from increased oil production could theoretically cover (or even exceed) the costs associated with CCS, though favorable oil prices are necessary to recover the costs of CCS through EOR. NRG spokesperson David Knox said of Petra Nova in 2017 that “oil revenues pay for the entire project.”

Petra Nova cost a total of $1 billion and received public funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through a $195 million dollar grant. The project represented the first large-scale coal-fired carbon capture facility in the United States and the largest of its kind in the world. It was initially hailed as a pioneer in commercialization of CCS technology. However, plunging oil prices were disruptive to the project from its inception. Petra Nova had been built around the expectation that oil prices would not drop below $75 a barrel, but oil prices averaged $51 a barrel in 2017, $65 a barrel in 2018, and $57 a barrel in 2019. In 2020, oil prices averaged $40 a barrel, and oil futures contracts briefly went negative in April due to collapsing demand from the coronavirus pandemic. NRG announced in May 2020 that Petra Nova had suspended its operations due to deteriorating oil prices. By January 2021, the project had been mothballed indefinitely.

Petra Nova’s story portends some of the challenges that await future deployment and commercialization of CCS technology. The facility only captured around 7% of the W.A. Parish Generating Station’s total carbon emissions and, due to technical difficulties, was inoperable for 33% of its three-year operating period. The CCS technology performed effectively at capturing carbon emissions when the facility was fully functioning, but it was only scaled to capture emissions from a portion of a single coal unit out of the eight units at the power station. Further, the facility was itself powered by a gas generator that produced uncaptured emissions, and the EOR process produced uncaptured emissions of its own. The project’s $1 billion cost was nonetheless considered low relative to other previously unsuccessful attempts at deploying CCS technology.

There is an institutional consensus that interventionist approaches like CCS will be necessary to mitigate climate change, and that reducing emissions is either unfeasible or no longer wholly sufficient. However, the strength of this consensus belies the fledgling nature of CCS technology. It is unclear whether CCS technology will scale fast enough to mitigate climate change, but the technology remains central to government and corporate climate mitigation pathways, most prominently the United Nations’ IPCC Reports. The challenge for policymakers will be to ensure that polluting entities do not defer proven opportunities for mitigation today because of their faith in tomorrow’s unproven technologies.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Mar. 24, 2021.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, passed under the leadership of President John Kennedy, marked an attempt to de-link U.S. development assistance from the nation’s military, political, and economic interests. The Act emphasized “maximum participation” on the part of the people in their own development.

Subsequent decades have shown that market-based models for growth, while generating higher levels of economic activity, also created dependency in developing nations as their economies became increasingly structured to meet the consumption needs of other countries. The participatory approach, which at this time was widely considered an alternative to achieve improved livelihoods, became more desirable by thought leaders and communities that felt that their futures had become a reflection of outside nations’ priorities rather than their own autonomous ones.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

What are the Alternatives to Greenwashing?

Trying to check every green claim or eco-credentials a brand pushes can be tiring. Fortunately, there are some great online tools and search engines like Project Cece, Ethical Made Easy and STAIY that do the hard work for you.

There are many large organizations embodying sustainability and environmentalism at their core. When companies interact in a holistic way by incorporating this ethos into their supply chains, products, employment practices and more, you can be sure they are not greenwashing.

Another company that makes sustainability differently is Roar Gill, a biodegradable alternative to Nespresso coffee capsules. Along with producing coffee, the Roar Gill team is committed not only to carbon neutrality, but to continuous improvement.  The most important feature that distinguishes it from other brands is that it is a brand that goes beyond. From planting trees to balancing emissions to roasting their kernels using wind and solar power, no stone is left unturned when it comes to improving their eco-responsibility. They even went so far as turning down the opportunity to work with some supermarkets that don’t share the brand’s eco vision.

Roar Gill is also officially certified with CO2 neutral roasting processes.  They take a carbon neutral approach to capsule production, use only recyclable packaging materials, and work with a partner to provide additional tree planting to deliver a carbon negative approach.  Offering a sustainable approach underpins Roar Gill’s values,” explains the brand. Compostable capsules, CO2-neutral roasting and CO2-neutral capsule production go a long way towards achieving this. However, they also stated that they always aimed to go further. The goal of the firm is to bring a broader perspective on carbon emissions beyond what they do. In addition, those wishing to order coffee from Roar Gill can opt for afforestation projects and deliveries to be carbon offset in key coffee growing nations.

How to Avoid Greenwashing?

Believing that consumer demand for sustainability is at the edge of our transition to a greener, fairer and smarter global economy, Futerra’s 2015 Sales Sustainability Report summarizes 10 key brand marketing tactics to avoid:

1. Fluffy language: Words or terms that don’t have a clear meaning
2. Green products against dirty companies: For example, efficient light bulbs made in a factory polluting rivers
3. Obscene pictures: images that give a (unjustified) green impression
4. Irrelevant claims: Emphasis on a little green trait when everything else is against green
5. Undeserved pride on being best in class: Stating that you are a little greener than others, even if the rest are pretty scary
6. Unbelievable definitions: For example, “greening” a dangerous product to look safe (“eco-friendly” cigarettes)
7. Gobbledygook: Jargon and information that only a scientist can check or understand
8. Imaginary friends: A label that looks like a third party endorsement … except it’s made up
9. No proof: a claim that may be true but lacks evidence
10. Exact lies: Fully fabricated claims or data

We realize that greenwashing is an unusually successful – some may say insurmountable – marketing ploy to convince the public that certain companies’ efforts to generate profits are better at achieving environmentally friendly benefits. There are, however, solutions.

Part of the solution may be validation. Groups that validate a company’s sustainability claims can highlight truly effective initiatives while leaving greenwashers behind. Correct and thoughtful reviews of greenwashers can also help – or a culture of skepticism can lead companies to take quantifiable measures to reduce their carbon footprint. The only green businesses that can survive are those that can prove their claims, those legitimately involved in sustainable behavior.

It can feel overwhelming to be one person trying to make a difference, but if consumers continue pressuring businesses to be transparent around their practices, it is inevitable that public will become more aware about it and, hopefully, continue moving in a more authentically green direction. And the good news is that greenwashing is becoming less common in both small and large businesses.

A thoughtful consumer base and increased awareness of environmental issues are making the industry greener.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Mar. 3, 2021.

Kabul, the historic city known by its legendary rose gardens and ancient architecture still remains, but the city is bruised after four decades of war. Today, Kabul has 6 million inhabitants and the mountains around the city are filled with colorful houses. The otherwise blue sky is covered with pollution during the winter season and the streets trafficked with cars.

In Professor Barry’s view, Afghanistan has become a misrerabilist subject. The few people he observed were interested in academic study of Afghanistan are social anthropologists studying timeless nomad and farmer lifestyles, pre-Islamic archaeologists, and political scientists studying the current government. Combined, such works might limit Afghanistan to static pastoralism and the current context of civil strife and fragile reconstruction. “This narrative about Afghanistan, is horrifying as it disregards the dignity of the Afghan people.” Centuries of Afghan history, in his view, is gathering dust, ignored to the detriment of the people who are supposed to inherit it.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

The UN describes the phenomenon of development with a mathematical metaphor: “multidimensional.” When joined with sustainability goals, 17 vectors are added, each pulling in different directions.

To be sure, a multidimensional equation with 17 vectors has no one solution. Thus, more often than not, it requires the brilliance of a Gauss or Einstein to solve.

Prosperity can be approached in more simple terms

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are actually unified by one simple idea. Namely, that to achieve better outcomes, mankind needs to work together.

However, contrary to popular belief, the best way for us to work together cannot be decided in a few minutes’ consideration. Neither by the alignment of planets, government policy, nor economic indicators.  It is instead determined by science. And this science of work, very simply put, is management.

Low-income countries desperately need scientific management

Management is a mental and social revolution. One of its pioneers, Frederick Taylor, used it to lead America to a new age of prosperity.

Taylor was concerned with what we might call productivity today (management experts such as Peter F. Drucker describe productivity as “the art of the necessary”).

In the introduction of Taylor’s book “The Principles of Scientific Management,” he introduces some of the problems, which management solves, as follows:

 

“We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and our iron is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts as are blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient … are less visible, less tangible, and are but vaguely appreciated.”

Indeed, sustainability has always been on the tip of management’s tongue. But today, the subject is presented as an efficiency device or a system for figuring out costs or profits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Management is foremost a liberal art. It draws on knowledge from the social and economic sciences, arts, and humanities. It helps create employment and has transformed poor, rich and middle-income countries, with  Israel, South Korea and Japan perhaps its most intriguing cases.

Management’s responsibilities entail values, growth and development. When practiced the right way, it can help people make better decisions and eradicate irresponsible production. It promotes quality education, affordable energy, effective hospitals, a clean climate and good health and well-being, in organizations, institutions and society.

As such, management has become indispensable to commerce, philanthropy, health, industry, education, politics and religion.

Management is science for working better together

From Charles Babbage, father of the modern computer, to Walter Rathenau in “The New Society,” to Henry Fayol, the Francis Bacon of Management literature, through Peter F. Drucker’s speeches and essays in the 1980s and 1990s, management has foreseen and developed a science for creating a better world.

When the UN began developing goals for a better world and the World Bank started lending money for economic development, the word “management” was not in their vocabulary. Even as of this writing, management is barely mentioned in their current reports, papers and speeches. Even though scientific management antedates their creation.

The UN remains one of the few institutions to raise questions of how mankind can better work together. But management thinkers are practically alone in answering them. With just under ten years left to achieve the Sustainable Development Agenda, and many people in low-income countries still left behind, the UN most show that they are familiar with the phenomenon and potential of management.

Current and new agenda needs illustrate that development is the direct consequence of management. It needs to be practical and easy for average people to practice – without the need to study non-Euclidian geometry. In other words, perhaps, the UN needs to promulgate the art of managing oneself, setting goals and objectives, organizing tasks, bringing people together, measuring performances and results, and helping people grow, instead of development.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Feb. 17, 2021.

.

“It’s more impactful to show significant change in a small subpopulation than to show a small change across the whole organization”

– Jon Katzenbach, 2018, “The Critical Few,” p. 104

In a time when a virus, with less than 125 nm in diameter, is spreading across the globe, it could be easy to feel helpless and disconnected. Instead, we chose to feel how deeply interconnected we are and how small things can have a massive impact. Massive positive impact, that is. These seemingly dire circumstances proved to us that no person is an island and that one young changemaker or even a small group of them can also have a global impact of considerable value. Here’s our story.

The Story Behind the Study

Two months into lockdown, Yelena Novikova, Young Global Changer 2017 shares an article she wrote about transparency and accountability in times of COVID19 in Kazakhstan.

This started a brief exchange of opinions and thoughts on Twitter with Alexandra Kodjabachi, another Young Global Changer 2017.

But the exchange led to an unexpected outcome: the two came together to explore what could potentially lie behind this “YGC in times of crisis” phenomenon.

Millions of cases and deaths later, as the pandemic spread like wildfire, we come to realize that the efforts made to fight the virus need to be at least as connected and fast to spread.

We know and feel the impact COVID-19 had on our lives. But what impact did we have on the pandemic? More specifically, how did we contribute to improving the state of things? What can the coming together of change-makers from different parts of the world do for people in times like these?

And so our Journey Began

Back in May 2020, these questions led us to start a case study and explore the capabilities and impact of young individuals, scattered across the globe, disconnected from each other, three years after a conference that united them in Berlin at the Think 20 for the G20 Global Solutions Summit.

We tried to reach out to as many of the 101 Young Global Changers of 2017. 9% were completely out of reach and only 66% were still members of a communication group. Eventually, 9% of the YGC community participated in our survey.

This percentage does not seem like a successful engagement rate. However, the infographic below shows what 9% of 101 were able to do in less than 3 months.

Limitations of the Limitless

While our YGCs seem to be limitless in passion and ambition, our case study has practical limitations. It covers the early mobilization stage of COVID-related effort that took place within the first months of the global pandemic. While we officially stopped accepting responses to the survey as early as the 29th of June, 2020, we know that our YGCs keep multiplying the impressive figures and achievements they shared with us back in June.

The Power of 9 in Figures

In just about three months of global lockdown, nine Young Global Changers positively affected the lives of more than 16,600 people from all over the world, a ratio of 1 : 1,844, thus proving how the critical few can channel energy, resources and know-how to impact the world. Although Young Global Changers are known for their engagement across sectors, we had to explore the overlapping space between the cohort’s expertise and areas of optimal relevance to the fight against COVID-19, which brought us to study their involvement across five fields: research, education, volunteering and fundraising, corporate action and social media awareness. Here are a few numbers that express the extent of the YGCs impact.

The Critical Few Words

A lot of words have been thrown around in connection to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: anti-fragility, resilience, agility. Some even go as far as claiming that this virus has localized and deglobalized the world. Nevertheless, it remains very true, that “individuals can play a powerful role in driving positive change.” The will and power to drive change, can start with a “critical few” (see Jon Katzenbach et al (2018): The Critical Few). Yet, “the critical few” doesn’t merely refer to a critical group of people, driven to contribute to change.

Crucially, it also refers to “the critical few” traits, behaviors and emotions “…narrowed down for the purpose of having the most impact… within the shortest possible period of time”.  In fact, as Robert Moritz writes in his “Foreword” to the aforementioned book, “The key… is to start small: you don’t need a hundred ideas about who you are but a very narrowly focused group”.  We literally “went by the book” here (without necessarily realizing that): the Young Global Changers community is essentially defined by one narrowly focused idea of bringing about change. Wherever, whenever or whoever we can bring it to, with whatever resources we have available to make said change happen.

While nine people in our tight-knit community couldn’t sufficiently make up a reliable sample due to its negligible size, this seemingly tiny group was able to prove something far more meaningful…

TAKEAWAY 1: UNITED, WE STAND
Even divided by closed borders, isolated by lockdowns, and separated by time (lest not forget it’s been over three years since we last saw each other), we are still united in our shared aspiration to not be bystanders. Whether we did it together or separately, we were, knowingly or unknowingly, connected by our desire to fight our common enemies – the pandemic and the crisis associated with it.

TAKEAWAY 2: NOTHING CAN STOP US
Challenges pave the way. As YGC tried to implement their solutions and contribute to the post-Covid era, they ran into several obstacles, from managing projects in rural areas to running workshops in parallel with power cuts to trying to publish on Medium when the medium is nationally inaccessible. Still, they managed to get themselves heard and to impact lives locally, nationally and internationally.

TAKEAWAY 3: IT’S OUR DRIVE THAT DEFINES US
We are not defined by what we do, we are defined by our drive to do something. It’s common for changemaker communities to get organized by the type of work that one does. Turns out, you can’t divide change into categories, as you face a common enemy.
Are you an activist, an entrepreneur, a charity worker, a researcher, or a government employee? Do you work to stop climate change, educate communities, integrate refugees into society, or ensure people’s access to healthcare? The questions that once existed to describe one’s contribution all morphed into one: What skills can you offer in this crisis?

The Role of Authentic Informal Changers

Going back to the aforementioned “critical few”,  the concept of the so-called AILs or “Authentic Informal Leaders” is central to Jon Katzenbach’s (loc.cit.) view of culture-led transformation: “People, who influence and energize others without relying on their title or formal position in the hierarchy to do so”.

Young Global Changers don’t rely on formal positions within the hierarchy to affect change. Yet, so many are  “…the informal leaders who “see it” (recognize the value of change), “get it” (understand the reasons), “want it” (are committed to change), and… already “breathe it.” (Ibid, p. 96) More importantly, most of them do believe in the power of positive keystone behaviors and good acts “going viral” by replicating in behaviors of others.

A Message of Hope

We sincerely hope that some of the numbers you see in the infographics above can prove to anyone with a drive, that the biggest asset to make an impact right now is determination. The expertise that you already have, versatile as it is, can make an impact greater than you could ever imagine. When you put your skin in the game and your knowledge and skills in the intersecting lines of problem-solving, you can come up with innovative ways and ambitious results even in the most unexpected circumstances and beyond your circle of normal activity. Remember, you’re bigger than a virus with 125 nm in diameter.

Image courtesy of Pixabay. Originally published by S&S on Feb. 10, 2021.

Today I was pleased to lend my support to GM’s dramatic announcement that it is working to eliminate tailpipe emissions from all of its new light-duty vehicles by 2035, and to be carbon neutral in its global products and operations by 2040. EDF has been working with GM to develop a shared vision for an all-electric future, and we’re proud to have played a part in this breakthrough moment.

Why is this a big deal? When a leading U.S. carmaker takes such a step, it sends a powerful signal to the industry that being on the road to zero emissions is an essential element of every automaker’s business plan. There can be no doubt: The future of transportation, starting now, is electric.

Why zero-emissions vehicles matter

Transportation and power generation are America’s two biggest sources of climate pollution. Cleaning them up will help stabilize the climate, boost the economy, create jobs, save money for consumers and clean up air pollution — especially in communities of color that have been unfairly burdened by pollution for far too long.

Here are just some of the benefits we’ll enjoy:

• Cost savings for families. In 2027, just six years from today, the buyer of a new battery-electric vehicle will save more than $5,300 over the life of the car compared to a gasoline-powered car — including lower upfront costs, avoided fuel costs and lower maintenance costs.
• Jobs and investment. The electric-vehicle industry employed nearly 130,000 people across the U.S. in 2019, but that’s just the beginning. This year there will be 60 different models of electric cars available to U.S. consumers — including SUVs, pick-ups and models under $30,000 before rebates. But automakers will spend more than $257 billion through 2030 developing new electric models, and eight manufacturers have announced plans to spend more than $22 billion to open new or renovated plants in the U.S. These plants will directly employ almost 24,000 workers and drive more job creation by suppliers and local businesses. GM recently announced it would invest $2.2 billion — its largest manufacturing investment to date — to repurpose a Detroit factory as its “flagship assembly plant in [its] journey to an all-electric future.” The investment is projected to create 2,200 jobs.
• Climate stability. By 2040, according to EDF analysis, making new zero-emission vehicles a reality industrywide will cut the U.S.’s climate pollution by 600 million metric tons per year — growing to 875 million metric tons each year by 2050. That’s a cumulative reduction of more than 11.5 billion tons through 2050, nearly as much as the combined climate emissions from China and India last year.
• Cleaner air. Huge reductions in conventional air pollution will result as well. By 2040, smog-forming nitrogen oxide will be reduced by 284,000 tons each year, increasing to more than 430,000 tons annually in 2050. The health benefits of this will be remarkable, with huge reductions in smog and particulate pollution — both of which cause respiratory diseases that unfairly burden people of color. These reductions will prevent as many as 5,000 premature deaths each year by 2040 — a total of 98,000 lives saved through 2050.

Overall by 2050, zero-emissions vehicles will deliver more than $100 billion in net societal benefits each year (economic and pollution benefits) and provide $1.6 trillion in cumulative net benefits to Americans by 2050 — almost 10% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

A new day to move our nation forward

That’s what happens when one of America’s most important sectors gets serious about going 100% clean. And that’s why GM’s announcement today is so important. EDF and GM have had serious disagreements. Last year, EDF supported and GM opposed California’s clean car standards (though GM later reversed course and withdrew from the litigation).

But this is a new day in America — one where serious collaboration to achieve transportation electrification, science-based climate progress and equitably shared economic opportunity can move our nation forward.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Feb. 3, 2021.

What is Greenwashing and How does It Work?

Greenwashing is a marketing strategy for companies and brands to generate Green PR by deceptively convincing the public that their goals and policies are environmentally friendly and therefore better at achieving ecological benefits. Products are greenwashed through the process of renaming, rebranding or repacking. Greenwashed products may convey the implicit idea that they are more natural, healthier or do not contain chemicals than competing brands. Common examples can be found in food products, alternative medicine and natural medicine marketing, as well as the ‘sustainable’ fashion industry.

To some, this may sound like good news. However, what needs to be considered is if companies claiming initiatives to reduce their carbon footprints are really doing so, or if the underlying reasons are simply pretentiousness and avarice.

Greenwashing, also known as ‘’green sheen’,’ was introduced to take advantage of today’s increasing demand for environmentally friendly products. Although these products create the image that they waste less natural resources and have a more sensitive approach to the environment, this is, in reality, an attempt to benefit from demand. More recently, some of the world’s largest carbon emitters, such as traditional energy companies, have tried rebranding themselves as environmental champions.

Where Did It Come From?

The term originated in the 1980s after American environmentalist Jay Westervelt stated that there were signs in a hotel he visited, asking guests to reuse their towels to “save the environment.” Westervelt evaluated the enormous amount of waste he encountered in the rest of the hotel, where no obvious sustainability efforts were made. Instead, he concluded that the hotel was trying to cut costs by not having to wash the towels too much, but trying to market this cost-cutting trick as eco-friendly behavior.

Large scale greenwashing companies have made headlines over the years. For example, in the mid-1980s oil company Chevron commissioned a series of expensive television and print ads to broadcast its supposed commitment to the environment. But with the now infamous “The People Do” campaign going on, Chevron was actively violating the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as spilling oil into wildlife shelters.

Unfortunately, Chevron wasn’t the only company making outrageous claims. In 1991, chemical company DuPont introduced double hull oil tankers with advertisements featuring marine animals bouncing in chorus to Beethoven’s song “Ode to Joy.” The company turned out to be the largest corporate polluter in the U.S. that year.

Examples of Greenwashing

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provides several greenwashing illustrations detailing its voluntary guidelines for misleading green marketing claims, along with practices that can be considered greenwashing:

• Plastic packaging containing a new shower curtain is labeled “recyclable.” It is unclear whether the package or shower curtain is recyclable. In both cases, the label is deceptive if any part or contents of the package other than minor components cannot be recycled.
• An area rug is labeled as “50% more recycled content than before.” The manufacturer has increased the recycled content from 2% to 3%. While technically correct, the message gives the false impression that the carpet contains a significant amount of recycled fiber.
• Garbage bags are labeled “recyclable.” Garbage bags are generally not separate from other garbage in the landfill or incinerator, so they are unlikely to be reused for any purpose. The claim is misleading as it provides an environmental benefit where there is no significant benefit.

Why Companies Greenwash & How it Harms a Brand’s Reputation

Greenwashing is mostly involved in profit-oriented actions. While advertising regulators exist, there is no universally accepted definition of what terms like “sustainable” actually mean. This means big brands can market an item as “green,” often with a significant price increase, without sticking to a clear definition of the term.

This is happening more and more because being socially conscious is popular right now and brings more profit to brands. McKinsey found that Gen Z (the demographic cohort born between 1995 and 2010) are more likely to spend money on companies and brands that appear to be ethical.  Generation Z is also more prepared to open their wallets than previous generations for a brand that promotes causes related to social causes like climate policy or social justice issues.  This may be because Generation Z is the first true digital generation, having lived through a groundbreaking time period, as well as a transition generation largely unaware of life before technological developments. This generation has ‘woken up’ positively or negatively to the world around them.

Gen Z consumers are mostly well educated about brands and the truth behind them. Even if they are not, they know how to access information and often quickly develop views based on that information. For example, if a brand advertises diversity, but there is no variety in their ranks, this contradiction will be noticed. This gives these consumers unprecedented power to shape the success or downfall of companies, who in turn are increasingly conscious of the concerned issues. And Gen Z knows that they can drive this institutional change.

Greenwashing has changed in the last 20 years, but it still continues. As the world embraces greener practices, corporate actors are faced with a series of lawsuits for misleading environmental claims.

In February 2017, Walmart paid $ 1 million to resolve greenwashing claims that the country’s largest retailer was mistakenly selling environmentally-conscious plastic. California law prohibits the sale of plastics labeled as “compostable” or “biodegradable” because environmental authorities have determined that such claims are misleading if they don’t include a disclaimer of how quickly the product will biodegrade in the landfill.

It’s easy to understand why marketers are enthusiastic: According to Nielsen’s Global Corporate Sustainability Report, 66% of consumers spend more on a product if the product comes from a sustainable brand, and this figure spikes to 73% among millennials.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Jan. 27, 2021.

Since the late 19^th century, extinct Ice Age creatures like wooly rhinos and mammoths have slowly risen from the Siberian landscape. They do not emerge as zombies; instead, their earthen graves slowly erode and shift to reveal often-intact bodies. However, natural erosion has played a lesser role in the broader, more profound landscape changes attributed to anthropogenic climate change.

Made up of layers of organic material, permafrost is year-round frozen soil that reaches two hundred plus feet in some parts of the northern hemisphere. Stuck in a frozen state, the permafrost confines plant and microbial activity until rising temperatures unlock the microbial decomposition process. The resulting release of organic carbon and methane escapes into the atmosphere. As the climate warms, permafrost in Siberia and beyond begins to thaw centuries of organic material embedded within, including Ice Age animals.

Climate change is not necessarily how humans first discovered the lost mammals of Siberia. Natural erosion of riverbanks, in particular, produced some of the first fossils finds in Siberia. As early as the 17^th and 18^th centuries, humans began to discover what Siberia’s landscape was giving up. Woolly mammoth skeletons emerged from the frozen earth, in pieces, and with some excavation, fully. While discoveries continued throughout the 20^th century, the unearthing of an intact mammoth calf caused a stir in the 1970s. Found on a former gulag island in Soviet Siberia, ‘Dima’ was a sensation that transcended paleontology and reached into the public’s consciousness. Since that time, numerous intact woolly species of mammoth and rhinoceros have emerged from the permafrost. However, as human industry began to alter climate processes, there came the realization that with the warming came a profit.

Each year tons of mammoth ivory, scoured and dug from the permafrost, is destined for China. According to the BBC’s Science Focus, some 60 plus tons of mammoth ivory are sent to the voracious Chinese market each year. As of 2019, the Siberian mammoth ivory market was estimated to be worth $53 million annually, with prospectors finding between 70 and 100 tons in recent years. The lucrative endeavor often requires prospectors to scour away receding riverbanks to pull out the preserved ivory and skeletons. Equipped with motorboats, pumps, and high-pressure water hoses, Siberia’s mammoth prospectors have an ally that makes the bonanza possible – climate change.

Recently, Siberia experienced its highest recorded summer temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Like much of the Arctic region, Siberia’s average 50-year temperature rose twice that of the rest of the globe. The high latitude temperature increases are attributed to diminished year-round polar ice. The white sheets which top the planet reflect solar radiation into space via the albedo effect. However, as the ice cap shrinks and darker and less reflective areas are revealed, the polar region warms more quickly. The resulting temperature growth has begun to work its way deeper into the permafrost. Of concern for scientists is the release of methane captured within the frozen earth. Where carbon dioxide is the well-known culprit in climate change, methane is a potentially more impactful greenhouse gas. According to the United Nations, over 100 years, methane is estimated to have 34 times more impact on the Earth’s environment than carbon dioxide.

Even as ivory prospectors reap the benefits of Siberia’s thaw, science too gets chances to examine Ice Age fauna exposed by the melting soil. In recent years Siberia has revealed remarkably integral juvenile wooly rhinos, an 18,000-year-old canine puppy, and a complete Ice Age brown bear, giving scientists unique opportunities to understand the diets, lives, and deaths of the extinct mammals. As for what the mammoth prospectors have yet to find, one suggests there maybe 500,000 tons of undiscovered Ice Age ivory hidden in the permafrost, whose melting is hastened by the human hand.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Jan. 20, 2021.

With a background in International Management, German Young Global Changer (YGC) Sebastian Woller currently serves in the Task-Force of Germany’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union Council.

His life path to date has been interesting, if not a little unusual. Born in Hamburg, he has spent around a decade of his life living in Africa mainly in Ghana, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. He is fluent in English, German and French. He has studied or worked in Brazil, France, Israel and Germany; along the way Sebastian has deepened his knowledge and understanding of management (in theory and practice) as well as multilateral challenges. In particular, he is interested in what makes top managers and presidents in both the private and public sector effective.

Comparing the 2018 and 2020 Global Solutions Summits

Having participated in the 2018 Global Solutions Summit as a Young Global Changer as well as in the digitally held 2020 Summit, Sebastian is well placed to offer his thoughts on how they compare. Talking about the 2020 edition, he notes that “the experience was very positive.” The Panel Discussion ‘The G20 in time of pandemic’ was the most memorable for him, because of its “ emphasis on different international policy areas and solutions offered to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Being digital allowed him the opportunity to easily pause and re-watch discussions, making it more convenient to take notes. However, he says, “it’s more challenging to network and meet new people in a virtual summit” and he specifically missed “the in-person encounters with other YGCs.”

For future summits, assuming they can once again be in-person events, Sebastian would still encourage all contributions to be filmed so that they “are online and accessible to the world.” This would allow greater numbers of people to engage with the Summit, its content, and to build on the achievements and key messages of past summits. “This is especially valuable for people who may not be able to afford a front-row seat to a summit of executives, Nobel laureates, and world leaders” he adds.

More generally, Sebastian believes “being a YGC has helped me gain a profound understanding of the importance of Recoupling Economic and Social Progress around the world.” He supports the Global Solutions Recoupling Dashboard, a country-specific tool for measuring the wellbeing of societies beyond GDP while illustrating the correlation of economic prosperity, social prosperity and environmental sustainability and is pleased to see it also supported and promoted by highly regarded organisations like the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Volunteer work

Outside of his professional work, Sebastian is involved in developing an after-school program in a refugee camp in Bethlehem that aims to teach English, music and arts to underprivileged children. To date, the program has raised over $50.000. He says, “this volunteer work has afforded me the opportunity to meet courageous people, of which their paths pave the way for an innovative and daring path to peace.”

In March 2019, Sebastian co-founded the African-European Fellowship, an online home to connect Fellows with over 400 entrepreneurs, start-ups and investors. It aims to informally connect Africans with Europeans to better understand investment markets and opportunities, facilitate connections with governments and investors and provide tailored support to help start-ups build their brands.

Publishing his thoughts and his ideas

Sebastian is also a keen blog writer. Some of his recent articles and letters have appeared on the Global Solutions Initiative blog, the GPDF blog and the Financial Times. Some recent topics of interest have included racial equality and the Black Lives Matter movement, emerging business leadership and management trends and better understanding Germany’s responsibilities on the global stage.

He intends to continue this writing and is interested in collaborating with, or promoting, other YGCs. He encourages other YGCs to contact him via LinkedIn. In particular, he wishes to explore potential collaborations that are mutually beneficial and could play a small part in helping to overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, he wants to play a small role in strengthening the unity of the YGCs network and demonstrate how they can effectively work together and display innovation despite global challenges.

To listen to the podcast, go to The Fletcher Forum.

This year’s Atlantic hurricane season sometimes felt like a never-ending onslaught of storms — some even happening at the same time. It was the most active and one of the most devastating seasons ever. The recovery will take years.

With studies continuing to indicate that, among other things, climate change is fueling more intense storms, the messages of this hurricane season are clear: It’s time to stabilize the climate and create a better future for those who face the worsening impacts of extreme weather.

The many ways this season broke records

This season brought 31 tropical or subtropical depressions and 30 named storms — surpassing the previous record of 28 tropical or subtropical depressions and 27 named storms in 2005. That year included such destructive hurricanes as Katrina and Rita.

From Hurricanes Arthur to Iota, storms this year stretched from early May to mid-November, quickly cycling through all the season’s designated storm names before moving nine letters deep into names from the Greek alphabet.

The 2020 season, which officially ended Nov. 30, also had more storms make landfall than ever — 12, five of which hit my home state of Louisiana. In fact, Louisiana was in the cone of uncertainty — or potential path — of eight different storms.

Of the storms that made landfall in Louisiana, Hurricanes Laura and Delta brought back-to-back intense blows of Categories 4 and 2 in August and September, devastating the southwest portion of our state.

Beyond the Gulf, hurricanes slammed into Central America well into November, with Category 4 Eta and Category 5 Iota making landfall within 15 miles of each other just a few weeks apart.

The storms unleashed massive rainfall, causing flooding and mudslides that killed hundreds of people, plus widespread damage across Central America. We will likely see more climate and poverty-based migration as a result.

How climate change intensifies hurricanes — fast

While our hope is that this past season was an extreme outlier, the latest scientific research is indicating that, at a minimum, climate change is fueling more intense hurricanes.

And that is exactly what happened this year with many storms, including Laura, which rapidly intensified into a Category 4 storm before making landfall in southwest Louisiana as the strongest storm to hit that state in more than 150 years. In fact, 10 storms from 2020 experienced rapid intensification, tying the record from 1995.

Rapid intensification poses significant risks to human safety as someone may choose to ride out a weaker storm, but then may not have time to get out when that storm suddenly intensifies.

Warmer ocean temperatures are also causing storms to stay stronger for longer, according to a recent study published in Nature [PDF], driving more severe impacts, such as extreme rainfall, as they move inland to areas far beyond the coast, leading to destructive flooding.

This destructive season shows why we must act

We must keep a spotlight on those who are still recovering from this year’s hurricanes and help them rebuild better before the next storm. (The people of the Gulf Coast still need our help. See how you can support them.)

And the destruction we’ve seen during the 2020 hurricane season must propel us to a safer future for all communities.

Taking action on climate change is a must to limit the impacts of extreme weather, while also making smart investments, such as in natural infrastructure across our coasts and within our floodplains, to provide vital natural buffers between floodwaters and communities.

We can’t stop the storms from coming, but we can limit their increasing severity and better protect our communities before the storms arrive.

While disappointed not to be able to attend the 2020 Global Solutions Summit in person, and despite having to start his days at 5am, 2020 Young Global Changer Peter Chauvel has described his virtual participation as a “wonderful experience.” He recently caught up with 2017 Young Global Changer, Ken Fullerton. In an interview he shared his reflections and insights on the 2020 Summit as well as the Recoupling Dashboard, his environmental work and the importance of reducing global carbon emissions, collaborating with other Young Global Changers and to share words of encouragement for future Young Global Changers.

Recoupling economic and social progress

A major focus of the 2020 Summit was the Recoupling Dashboard which highlights the connections between a country’s economic and social prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Describing the need for changed mindsets and different approaches, such as those the Dashboard promotes, the University of California Press says, “In the same way that the cockpit of an airplane requires several indicators (altitude, speed, fuel) to ensure a safe flight, leaders in politics, business and society need consider several dimensions so as to properly analyse and assess the state of social progress.”

Peter agrees with this and willingly promotes the need for a broader, not exclusively economic focus, as a “a hugely necessary step.” He suggests the Dashboard is “the first step and [it can] serve as a guide to more comprehensive measurement and data sharing guidelines at government levels.”

Furthermore, he can already envision ways he may be able to use the Dashboard in his work as a Project Manager at Common Seas, an organisation dedicated to finding, testing and facilitating solutions to the global plastic pollution crisis. In their ‘Plastic Drawdown’ work stream, where Peter and his team “model the flow of plastics in a country and determine the key areas of production and present solutions to reduce this,” he can see linkages between their work and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) framework used to measure environmental sustainability in the Dashboard.

If EPI factors and Common Seas’ models and recommendations are linked, Peter suggests this “would help countries better understand the environmental impacts plastic is truly having on them and would allow us to illustrate the social, environmental and economic opportunities by shifting to alterative material options.”

Reducing global carbon emissions

His passion for the environment is evident given his current role as leader of the Clean Blue Alliance, his previous work analysing innovative service delivery models in Vietnam and Tanzania, and his love of sustainable fishing. But, Peter says, “I don’t think there is a silver bullet to maximise economic development while reducing emissions on a global or cross-industry basis.”

Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, Peter clearly understands the need for the wide production and supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) yet he is also concerned by it when it gets disposed of. “In the short term, PPE is a necessary part of society but [we] need to address the waste it produces responsibly.”

His solution: “In the longer term, we need to be willing to pay for green, it is as simple as that!” We must consider not only the cost of production but where and how raw materials are sourced while at the same time factoring in the negative impacts that global supply chains have on our environment. He notes, “The reality is that many of the cheapest options can be that way through externalities (high emissions, low wages, etc.) and that if we are not willing to pay the premium that internalizes those costs, then we likely will see these issues remain pervasive.”

Collaborating with other Young Global Changers

Peter is grateful for the opportunity he has been given to become a Young Global Changer in 2020 and is eager to continue communication and engagement post-Summit. To some extent this has already been the case – “I am happy to report that since the virtual Summit there have been several engagements including webinars and calls” – and this should continue. In addition, he suggests that “we should have an active Slack [group], and general outreach, as you [(Ken)] did to me for this article, should be encouraged.”

While time zones may be a challenge, Peter also “strong believes [that digital communication] is going to be a mainstay going forward.” We should accept this, adapt to the new reality and have “frequent calls/ webinars” to explore engagement and collaboration opportunities as well as continue promoting the skills, knowledge and insights of the diverse Young Global Changer community.

He makes his suggestions out of concern for “the siloed approach that is being used now” by many individuals, businesses, governments, and other stakeholders. There is a need to work together to overcome complex, multi-dimensional development challenges and this is also true of the Young Global Changers. He believes that “while it is unclear when this cohort will be able to meet in person, the 2020 Young Global Changers are individually making strong contributions to global change and that in the future it is very likely many of us will cross paths in one form or another.”

A message for future Young Global Changers

Peter finishes with a call to action for future Young Global Changers. While encouraging them “to take advantage of the global experiences present [as] we rarely get the opportunity to share experiences and insights with people of our age demographics from around the world” he would like for future Young Global Changers to continue building on the momentum and positive work done by his and other cohorts.

“The 2020 cohort” he says, “came together in a time of uncertainty and focused efforts to ensure that we could develop comprehensive solutions to global challenges.” His message to others: “Do not squander this work, take what you can and build on it, and when we know what the new ‘normal’ looks like, use that to guide further progress!”

Ken Fullerton

November 2020

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Dec. 2, 2020.

To listen to the podcast, go to The Fletcher Forum.

But, can artificial intelligence make a positive contribution to understanding the problems caused by climate change too, problems gradually turning into a crisis?

In fact, AI can help climate researchers find solutions in many areas such as air pollution. An example of this is IBM’s Green Horizon Project, which predicts pollution by analyzing environmental data and testing what will happen if pollution is reduced. Likewise, Google has reduced the energy its data centers use by around 15% by employing data from machine learning algorithms.

Programs like these can also help and encourage other firms to reduce their carbon footprint.

Remarkable progress has been made too in using machine learning algorithms based on data from other extreme weather events to identify tropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers. And, although machines are not fully trusted, climate scientists can work with them to make better progress.

How Can Monitoring and Measuring Be Useful?

It is an almost indisputable fact that only when acting together can industries and governments reduce emissions and humans’ impact on the climate. However, it remains critical to monitor whether industries are moving towards emission reduction and expand environmentally friendly practices.

At this point, AI offers a way to reduce harmful emissions. Large volumes of data can now be processed from power plants to increase efficiency and optimize operations. Sensors installed in these plants can gather information about all aspects of a facility’s operations and allow for improvements to processing capacity, performance and operation.

AI can also seek out those who break rules designed to reduce pollution and offer greater transparency against weak energy practices. Indeed, Carbon Tracker recently announced a new project using satellite images to both detect and measure carbon emissions from major power plants around the world. Such measures hope to hold polluting facilities accountable and improve global environmental standards.

Helping Individuals Help the Environment

Everyday and relatively simple technologies can also help users be more environmentally conscious. For instance, in 2017, the transport sector was the source of more than a quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions in the E.U. The use of autonomous vehicles that do not run on fuel helps avoid such environmentally harmful transportation.

Artificial intelligence supported smart meters, which are now widely installed in homes, allow two-way communication between the power grid and users, saving energy and providing a better understanding of power use to energy providers. Additionally, AI is helping combat our dependence on fossil fuels by making renewable energy technology like solar panels more efficient and cost-effective.

If used in a sensible way, artificial intelligence can contribute to global sustainability. AI must be understood as central to empowering governments, organizations and individuals to make more informed decisions and create a more livable planet.

What are the Opportunities of AI Implementation?

Developments in machine learning and artificial intelligence have spurred major advances in society that could have far-reaching consequences. Driven by the explosion of existing and accessible data sources made possible by both rapid advances in high-throughput hardware and high-bandwidth internet connections and sensor connectivity provided by the Internet of Things (IoT), the rising economic value of artificial intelligence is estimated to be $16 trillion by 2030, making it a powerful change agent.

On the other hand, the rise of AI includes an unprecedented combination of complex dynamics that pose challenges for multilateral efforts to manage its development and use. Global governance approaches will need to strike the right balance between enabling beneficial innovation and reducing risks and negative impacts. Global governance has a role to play in developing standards for balancing the benefits and risks of using AI technologies, with due diligence paid to ensuring citizens are aware of their rights and protections.

The AI community is now turning its attention to combating climate change. In particular, the authors of “Fighting Climate Change with Machine Learning” argue that machine learning can be a powerful tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping society adapt to a changing climate because machine learning brings with it tremendous efficiency gains and improved public services to assist in collecting data and guiding future development plans.

Still, despite the enthusiasm for applying AI to climate solutions, a challenge remains in the lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, which makes AI practitioners unsure, or unaware, of how best to apply their resources to fighting climate change.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Nov. 18, 2020.

At its core, according to one report, is the recent creation of a Sipekne’ katik (Mi’kmaw) First Nation fishery and plan to collect lobsters outside Canada’s official harvesting period. Moreover, commercial opponents of the Indigenous lobstering claim that such growth will directly harm local, non-Indigenous lobstermen whose licenses cost approximately $800,000 each. First Nation lobstermen have consistently reported threats and  property destruction, including vandalism of lobster pots, dumping of Indigenously caught lobster, and warehouse arson. And the dispute between native and local fishing enterprises is sharpened by certain allegations that racism is ultimately at root. With echoes of European colonization reverberating in 21^st-century fishing disputes, there remains a further threat to all resource harvesters off Nova Scotia’s western tip – climate change. Given several immediate dangers to lobsters and other shellfish in the region, human impacts on the marine environment could permanently alter the fishing environment in not just Nova Scotia but throughout the North Atlantic.

At the eastern edge of the Gulf of Maine and above the Scotia Shelf, Nova Scotia is surrounded by crustacean harvesting grounds. It is estimated Canada’s annual lobstering industry is worth $1 billion, with significant lobster landings coming from the western edge of Nova Scotia, the area at the heart of the First Nation and commercial fishing dispute. Per the Nova Scotia government, ocean warming is one of climate change leading threats to marine life. While there are many climate-related threats to several marine species, the impact on lobsters is particularly significant when it comes to warming. Late last year, the CBC reported that Canadian fishery officials remained optimistic regarding the Nova Scotian lobster health, saying, “Some of the climate projections suggest that it may not have a big impact over the next number of years on adult lobsters.” While optimistic, however, the experts also noted, “There is still uncertainty of course around the young lobsters and egg production. But for the offshore adult lobsters, we’re feeling like climate impacts in terms of temperature particularly aren’t going to be a major negative driver.” But even this somewhat positive outlook is tempered by broader conditions at work in the region.

In September 2019, scientists studying temperature in the Canadian Atlantic wrote that increases “above an optimal thermal range can reduce lobster survival, growth, and reproduction as a result of stress, decreased recruitment, and increased disease.” The report’s authors noted that lobsters in the Gulf of Maine increased while those in southern New England waters declined. Warming throughout the water column help to explain this, with warming waters to the south directly impacted lobster populations, as species decline and northern movement continues. Likewise, a study of temperature impacts on North Atlantic lobsters found “thermal acclimation and thermal change” impact the crustacean’s “properties of the neural circuits driving lobster ventilation and cardiac activity.” While rapid temperature changes are regular occurrences in oceanic environments, the long-term thermal impacts on lobsters are concerning. In addition to direct physiological impacts on lobsters, their primary food source, zooplankton, is also negatively affected b oceanic temperature increases.

According to NOAA, “Lobster landings have been trending upward in recent decades, and many small rural communities in Atlantic Canada rely heavily on lobster for their economic well-being.” These increased landings are truly lucrative for fishing enterprises around Novia Scotia. The Canadian government’s most recent landing values show Nova Scotia brought in over $77 million in lobsters, leading the five Canadian Atlantic fishing regions. Managing the lucrative Atlantic “commons” was brought into sharp focus in the 1990s when the North Atlantic cod industry suffered a major overfishing collapse. Until management regulations and cooperative agreements were made, cod stocks in the northwestern Atlantic suffered. However, cod’s decline led to the rise of the lobster. As a Carleton University report noted, “cod used to feed on juvenile crab and lobster – species considered to form the base of marine food chains in a large part of the world’s oceans.” Until the decline of the cod in Canadian waters, lobsters were not a significant driver of the country’s Atlantic fishing economy, but with cod’s decline, lobster found itself thriving, both in numbers and due to increased consumer demand.

While commercial fishermen disputes with First Nation lobstermen capture headlines today, tomorrow’s news on Nova Scotia’s fisheries may well focus on tensions stoked by climate change. By finding common links across generations, geography, economics and social groups, there may be an opportunity to unite such opposing fishers. Fishing traditions in Atlantic Canada date back some 5,000 years, well before the first Europeans. However, as time and technology rolled forward, the commercialization of the waters around Nova Scotia altered the relationships between First Nations, Europeans and the sea. This ever-changing relationship between humans and the marine ecosystem requires renegotiations, and the realization there may be many disputes to come over the sea’s resources. Still, without equitable social and environmental awareness, fishing may not have a future.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 29, 2020.

To listen to the podcast, go to The Fletcher Forum.

This was presented and edited by Elizabeth Dykstra-McCarthy with lead researchers for this episode, Kevin Schwartz and Bilal Rahmani.

To listen to the podcast, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Imagine being a CEO without a clear picture of one of your company’s most important raw materials. This is the situation currently facing water managers and farmers across the western United States, with one additional complication:

In many cases, water supplies are becoming scarcer as a result of more severe droughts supercharged by climate change. The future of communities, agriculture and wildlife hang in the balance.

In the western United States, crops and natural landscapes consume the greatest portion of water supplies. However, tracking that consumption is surprisingly complex and expensive, resulting in a major gap in the data water managers need to balance water supplies and water demands.

A groundbreaking solution rooted in space

A recently announced web application called OpenET aims to fill this gap for farmers and water managers to build more resilient water supplies across the West and ensure a more secure food supply for our entire country.

OpenET combines advances in cloud computing with satellite imagery and scientifically established models to make data on water consumed by crops and vegetation widely accessible to farmers and water managers for the first time.

Development of this groundbreaking platform is being led by NASA, Environmental Defense Fund, Desert Research Institute, and web developer Habitat Seven, with in-kind support from Google Earth Engine.

The team also includes scientists from the U.S. Geological Society, U.S. Department of Agriculture, California State University Monterey Bay and several other universities, and about 100 farmers and water managers in the West.

The science behind the data: What is ET?

The “ET” in OpenET stands for evapotranspiration, which is the process by which water is returned to the atmosphere through evaporation off the land surface and transpiration from plants.

It can be thought of as essentially the opposite of precipitation. For farmers and water managers, ET is a key measure of water consumed by crops and vegetation, and can also be used to better understand how much water a crop actually uses to grow.

Farmers are already embracing data and technology to manage their fields down to the square foot — tracking plant health, fertilizer use, soil moisture and estimated crop yield in real time.

OpenET will provide equally important information about the near real-time water consumption of their crops — down to the field level at daily, monthly and yearly intervals. When incorporated into irrigation scheduling or other farm management tools, this data will enable farmers to make more informed management decisions, create more accurate water budgets and maximize their “crop per drop.”

Local water managers — those responsible for making sure cities, communities and farmers have the water they need — are also eager for this data to help them design innovative conservation or water trading programs that make farms and communities more resilient to drought.

Without OpenET, creating such programs has been hampered by the difficulty of measuring changes in water use from new practices or technologies.

Enabling more farmers to tap into the data

Tech-savvy farmers and agribusinesses in the West are already using ET data. For instance, Oregon state Rep. Mark Owens, who owns or manages 3,200 acres of farmland, designed more efficient irrigation systems based on ET measurements. As a result, he reduced groundwater pumping by about 15% and related electricity costs by about 20%.

Despite its clear value, only about 7% of U.S. farmers have been able to use ET data to manage irrigation, according to a 2018 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey. This is largely due to difficulty in accessing timely, accurate information on ET at the scale of individual farm fields.

OpenET will give all farmers across the western U.S. access to ET data that can benefit their bottom line.

Sparking innovative ways to tackle water scarcity

The OpenET project also aims to bring farmers and water managers together to develop more innovative solutions to water challenges.

In Bakersfield, California, the state’s ground zero for groundwater depletion, Eric Averett, general manager of Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, is using OpenET data in a new online water accounting and trading platform, which will let the district’s landowners check their water balances like they would look at an online bank account.

Averett believes OpenET will become the “de facto” source of water data because of the project’s strong lineup of experts and the rigorous science behind the platform.

Meanwhile, in Colorado, where more than half the state is experiencing extreme drought, a group of ranchers will use OpenET along with ground-based measurements to more accurately monitor the water savings from new irrigation practices on their pasturelands. Such savings are critical across many regions in the West that are facing greater water scarcity.

Even before its launch in the western United States next year, OpenET has already drawn interest from other countries such as Brazil and Mexico, reinforcing the team’s plans to eventually expand to other regions.

Such interest also highlights the need for more sophisticated management tools and strategies if we want to have enough water for people and wildlife for generations to come. OpenET will be one of those vital tools.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 14, 2020.

Climate change has forced its way into the headlines in the past week, as record-setting wildfires rage on the U.S. West Coast, burning millions of acres, forcing tens of thousands to evacuate and blanketing the region in smoke that has now reached all the way across the continent. Even as Louisiana was still reeling from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Sally made landfall on the Alabama-Florida border this week, delivering a deluge of “historic” rainfall as it moved onshore. At present, up to 30 inches have already fallen in several areas, with combined surge and rainfall causing flooding across the Eastern Gulf Coast and moving inland.

So it seems particularly timely that a federal advisory committee to the a key U.S. financial regulator released a report last week outlining the impact climate change could have on the country’s financial system. The message to Wall Street and financial regulators is stark: climate change poses serious risks that, if ignored, will undermine the financial system’s ability to support the American economy.

This new report, Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System, is the first of its kind to be released under the auspices of a U.S. financial regulator. It was written and unanimously approved by 34 experts representing banks, asset managers, agribusiness, the oil and gas sector, academia and environmental organizations. (I was one of the authors.)

What makes the report particularly newsworthy is that it connects the dots between climate change and the risk to the financial system.

Other reports have clearly documented the economic damages from climate change. The science has improved tremendously over the past decade, to the point where we can clearly link severe weather events like hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and drought to a warming planet. Just two weeks ago, for example, Datu published a report commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund that calculated $1.75 trillion in damages from severe weather events since the 1980s. But how do we know those economic damages translate into risk to financial institutions?

The new CFTC report provides the answer.

What’s in the report

One of the most powerful sections of the report describes how financial losses from storms, floods, rising sea level and wildfires can undermine core components of the financial system. For example, climate disasters could cause prolonged disruptions to critical operations of financial market utilities that could “paralyze” the markets they serve. The report cites 2012’s Superstorm Sandy, which flooded a bank vault and damaged or destroyed 1.7 million stock and bond certificates. The company couldn’t even assess the damage for two weeks until pumps could clear the vault of water.

There’s also a sobering list of assets that bear the greatest climate risk, including mortgage-backed securities, REITs, utility debt, insurance equities and bonds. The list of industries at greatest risk reads like a synopsis of the American economy: agriculture, airlines, automobile manufacturers, hospitality, power generation, and concrete and steel. Financial advisors, state pension managers and anyone who actively manages their own retirement portfolio should print Table 3.1 and pin it next to their computer screen.

At the macro — or “systemic” — level, the report discusses how climate impacts could conceivably contribute to a financial crisis by propagating throughout the economy and undermining the value of financial assets, as previously hidden risks are suddenly taken into account.

Perhaps more important, however, is the report’s careful look at what it calls “sub-systemic” shocks. After all, the U.S. is a large and diversified economy, which also makes it resilient. But as the report points out, smaller financial institutions are also at risk: community banks in hurricane-prone areas that hold commercial real estate mortgages, for example, or agricultural credit institutions that would be hard hit by drought.

In other words, this isn’t just about big banks on Wall Street: this is about everyday transactions on Main Street: the home mortgages, commercial real estate loans, farm credit and small business loans that underpin the U.S. economy — and that depend on a stable financial system.

What we don’t know

How likely are those risks? The scary answer is: We don’t know. The report shows a range of scenarios for how climate change could threaten the U.S. financial system, but we don’t know when or how those scenarios could occur — because we are not requiring businesses and financial institutions to assess, measure, manage and disclose those risks.

New research from the Brookings Institution, aptly titled “Flying Blind,” makes the same point: investors don’t know the actual climate risks to their portfolios. Members of the financial community who ignore climate change — whether they are banks, investors or regulators — do so at their own peril.

That’s precisely why measuring and managing climate risk should be an essential part of the actions regulators take to protect the financial system. The report calls on Congress and regulators to take concrete steps to manage that risk, ranging from a price on carbon to including incorporating climate risk into corporate risk management and taking steps to ensure better data availability and climate risk scenarios.

Two recommendations stand out in particular:

• First, regulators should require companies to more fully and transparently disclose climate risks. EDF was instrumental in getting the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish guidance on climate risk disclosure a decade ago. But as the report makes clear, too many companies are effectively ignoring that guidance. Regulators should beef up those requirements, making it clear that climate risks amount to material risks that firms are required to disclose — and ensure that they comply.
• Second, the report calls on regulators to make clear that managers of retirement and pension plans are entirely right to take climate risk into account alongside “traditional” financial factors. That’s critical, since only a few weeks ago the Trump administration issued a proposed regulation that would prohibit retirement and pension plans from considering climate risk — despite overwhelming opposition from the investment community.

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that climate change poses risks to human health and the economy. This report is a warning that climate change also threatens the fluid and stable performance of our financial system. As we transition toward a more responsible and sustainable net-zero emission economy, we must also be aware of and manage for the real risks that two centuries of unchecked climate emissions have created.

Register here for a keynote address by Commissioner Rostin Behnam of Commodity Futures Trading Commission during Climate Week NYC 2020. The Commissioner will share key findings from the recent report: Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 6, 2020.

After meeting each other in Berlin at the 2018 Global Solutions Summit, Eduarda Zoghbi from Brazil and Nancy Hoque from the USA, were inspired to continue working together. “We brainstormed, and we wanted to do an initiative where we could share different voices of women from around the world focused on change and action, as we were inspired by our Summer School experience as Young Global Changers,” says Nancy.

Promoting women’s experiences and stories

Together, they founded The Pursuit – Global Women for Change, a platform for dialogue among women from around the world focused on sharing experiences and stories of women change makers through a cultural and gender lens. After talking to them about this initiative, Eduarda explains “the podcast interview format was settled after we heard inspiring life stories from Young Global Changers at the Global Solutions Summit 2018 and felt compelled to invite them to share their insights as young experts who had actually experienced in their countries what the G20 task forces discuss.”

Women became the target audience and guest speakers so they could promote the experiences and stories of those who would ordinarily not be heard in G20 high-level events. Too often, “we understand infrastructure and challenges based on our own countries and experiences,” according to Eduarda. That is precisely why it becomes important to “hear from women about the challenges they are facing in their countries and as experts in their specific fields.”

Both strongly believe that it is significant to promote the voices of women who may otherwise be hidden and unknown. The potential for women to make a positive contribution to the global economy is staggering and greater participation, equality and inclusion should be widely promoted. Indeed, a recent Argentina representative at the 2018 Summit claimed “if women participated in the economy in the same way as men, there would be a 26% growth in global GDP by 2025.”

The podcast topics are related to issues discussed by the G20 countries each year at their annual Summits and in their specific G20 taskforces. However, Eduarda cautions that “there is not enough transparency in the G20 process.” What is being discussed in these taskforces and how proposals will ultimately be implemented by the G20 countries remains unclear.

Balancing work and studies

Balancing full time work and studies, with family life and voluntary work, while building up The Pursuit, which includes identifying speakers, recording podcasts and promoting them, is not straightforward and takes time.

Eduarda says “all of us involved have so many things to do and projects on our plate!” Currently, Eduarda is pursuing an MPA in energy and environment at Columbia University while working for the UN Sustainable Energy for All, at the Institute of Latin American Studies, and participating in two other projects: the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative Youth Challenge Team and the G20 Energy Policy Tracker.  Nancy currently works for Adobe and supports their go-to-market strategy and sales operations while also raising two young boys. She was recently announced as a 2020 Silicon Valley Business Journal’s 40 under 40 honouree. Both were selected to represent the 2020 Global Solutions Summit as Young Global Changers Ambassadors.

To date, five podcasts have been produced and with each one the number of listeners is growing. The topics so far have included: Impacts of Trade Policy on Women, Youth Empowerment in the Climate Crisis, The Future of Work and Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia, Women Issues and Gender Equity and Technology as a tool for gender and health equity during COVID-19.

Future ambitions

Inspired by the people they interact with, and their stories, both Eduarda and Nancy plan to keep producing podcasts for The Pursuit and, as Nancy says, “continue expanding our team.” They agree that “it’s important to expand the diversity of voices represented, spanning across sectors, countries, and experiences. Entrepreneurs, political advisors, social advocates, and more. Our collective dialogue makes us more effective”.

Both have found that working on a podcast creates many opportunities to develop new (technical) skills. “For example,” says Eduarda, “I taught myself podcast editing and Nancy was more involved in putting together the discussion guides and deciding how they were going to relate to the G20 taskforce topics with the women we invited and coming up with good questions to ask. It’s a team effort to put the podcasts together!”

It has been just over a year since The Pursuit was founded. A lot has already been achieved with a website and social media pages having been created and much work going on behind the scenes. While they consider it a positive start, both Eduarda and Nancy plan on continuing to grow the platform further. Therefore, they intend to produce a new podcast every month.

Engaging the Young Global Changers network

It is doubtful The Pursuit would have been established had it not been for Eduarda and Nancy meeting each other at the 2018 Global Solutions Summit.

Almost all their podcast episodes have featured female Young Global Changers, as Nancy and Eduarda wish to tap into the network offered by Global Solutions Initiative to share these women’s projects and ideas so they can hopefully be replicated worldwide. Linda Du (from the United Kingdom) and Swati Dhawan (from India), were the first two Young Global Changers from the 2018 cohort to feature in a podcast while Sweetie Anang (from Ghana) from the 2019 cohort participated in the most recent podcast.

The alumni network, they believe, can continue to be a useful network for engaging and inspiring women from around the world and more widely promoting their stories, experiences, achievements and, just as importantly, the challenges they have faced.

Other female Young Global Changers interested in being featured on a future podcast can reach out to Eduarda and Nancy through their website.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Oct. 1, 2020.

While the delivery trucks and tractor trailers that distribute goods and cargo make up only about 4% of vehicles on U.S. roads, they are responsible for nearly half of the NOx emissions and nearly 60 percent of the fine particulates from all vehicles, and about 7% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

This pollution causes serious harm to our climate and health — from asthma and other respiratory conditions, to premature deaths — that often hit disadvantaged communities hardest because of their proximity to major freight hubs, such as distribution centers and port facilities.

While these numbers are projected to rise over 25% by 2030, thankfully, evidence is mounting that the transition away from diesel is already underway.

Signs of a transition to zero emission

• First, e-truck and bus options are becoming more readily available, with charging infrastructure coming along for the ride. At the same time, utilities and companies in the epicenters of deployment are starting to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure.
• Second, in addition to investments by new market entrants like Proterra, Rivian and Tesla, traditional truck and bus manufacturers are accelerating investments in zero-emission technology. They’re pouring billions into manufacturing facilities at companies like Daimler, Navistar and Volvo, and corporate acquisitions at Cummins and GM, to name a few.
• Third, fleets are starting to embrace e-buses and trucks, with major public transit agencies across the U.S. making significant investments and a wide array of Fortune 500 companies making commitments to transition some of their trucks to zero-emission alternatives.
• Fourth, there are an array of local and state policies that have recently been developed or are in the works that support a robust rollout of zero-emission trucks and buses, including a 15-state compact to develop zero-emission truck action plans that cover nearly one-third of the total U.S. market.

While there is a lot of important momentum for public policy and corporate action, the data and recent climate events show it’s not nearly enough.

Why we must transition away from diesel

Whether it’s the recent 121 degree temperature spike in Los Angeles, the historic fires burning up and down the West Coast or a record breaking hurricane season, indicators of catastrophic climate change are here — and time is running out to stop it.

Additionally, EDF along with other institutions has conducted air pollution research in Oakland, Houston and London that demonstrates how trucks can degrade local air quality, even block-to-block depending on the location of individual sources of pollution. For example, EDF’s air quality monitoring in Houston’s Fifth Ward, where 90% of the residents identify as non-white and 40% live below the federal poverty line, revealed that a cluster of metal recyclers and concrete processing plants — magnets for diesel-fueled trucks — are contributing to NO2 levels 48% higher than the rest of the city.

For communities living in and around heavy pollution sources like these, the transition away from diesel pollution isn’t a 10-year issue. It’s literally a life and death matter today. Quickly transitioning to a zero-emission future is both a local and a global imperative.

How we can transform the market faster

That’s why we’re working toward policies and actions that result in a much faster market transformation than what current industry projections show. By 2030, at least 30% of all new trucks and buses sold in the U.S. can, and must, be zero emission. This will position the nation to nearly completely transition new vehicle sales away from diesel by 2040, resulting in about 190 million tons of avoided greenhouse gas emissions per year in 2040, and 580 million tons of avoided GHGs by 2050 as the broader fleet turns over and global scaling continues.

Making this happen will require strong national, state and local public policy — and significant commitment to zero-emission trucks by fleet owners and manufacturers. Fostering awareness of the harm of diesel pollution among company executives, policymakers and community leaders is also key to getting clean trucks on the road.

To learn more about how new initiatives will enable electrification and efficiency in the transportation sector, join us next Monday, September 21, 2020, for a dynamic panel discussion during Climate Week featuring speakers from EDF and leading representatives from Air Alliance Houston, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and Ryder.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 24, 2020.

People want to be remembered, people in power, even more so.  The most conspicuous way this has been undertaken in history is through the building of ‘heritage sites’, and other enduring edifices through which individuals are remembered in history. But not all cultural heritage is personal, even though the most obvious ones like the Taj Mahal and the Pyramids are.  A large number of heritage sites are also representatives of communities and their culture.  Cities themselves are markers of history.  Thus, while cultural heritage may be considered to have a personal motive, as a reminder of great and powerful persons, it also has a communitarian angle. But this is not an all-encompassing definition.  Nature and areas in nature too form part of the cultural heritage of communities, for example the Niyamgiri mountain is considered sacred by the Dongria Kondhas, and naturally occurring substances like ayahuasca are part of the rituals in South America.

If culture is communitarian, then why does the term ‘world heritage’ exist?  The phrase today carries a much more benign meaning today than what it did at its inception.  At first, cultural objects were shared only in name, with a large amount of ‘exchange’ taking place through forced contracts, or theft during colonization. The present definition of world heritage is more egalitarian.  The 1972 UNESCO Convention defines some heritage as so important that it is of outstanding universal value. As places of such importance, they should be shared, enjoyed, and celebrated by all of humanity.  This definition includes both cultural sites and natural preserves. The 1972 Convention resulted in the creation of a list of such sights, the World Heritage List to which places are added on a yearly basis. Inscription is prestigious, bringing with it not only access to the World Heritage Fund, but also money from other sources of conservation, as well as a tag which attracts tourists and adds to the national and local economy.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 22, 2020.

This is the second of two articles published in the last week examining important links between environmental conditions and public health as well as how nonprofits, intergovernmental organizations and national governments can help address these issues. Part 1 can be seen here.

This is the second part of a two-part interview with Precious Akanonu, a 2017 Young Global Changer and development economist from Nigeria. She currently works as a research fellow at a renowned Abuja-based think tank, the Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa, is a lead research consultant at a private non-profit organisation, the Belema Aid Foundation; and works remotely as a fellow at the U.S-based Energy for Growth Hub. Ken Fullerton, a fellow 2017 Young Global Changer recently caught up with her to discuss a Nigerian perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic and more broadly how countries and the world can recouple economic and social progress’ coming out if this crisis (click here to read the first part of the interview).

In part two of the interview, Ken chats to Precious about climate change, her views on emissions reductions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and why we should promote the adoption and use of renewable and energy efficient technologies. She also discusses an online research and messaging platform we have established and how young people can be better engaged and informed.

KF: In more positive news, many countries have experienced significant drops in carbon emissions, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While countries, and indeed the global economy, have suffered in other ways, many are perhaps realising the benefits of reduced emissions. How can we ensure that as life and work slowly begins to return to something like normality we can keep working to reduce emissions and transition to a more sustainable and greener economy?

PA: The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us that we can adjust our lifestyles if need be. So, as life and work begin to return to normal, we should think about and implement key changes in our work and lifestyle to cater to our environment. For instance, we have seen that we can still have productive meetings, dialogues and conferences online without all the flights. We must also invest in technology that can improve global real time communication and experience as well as help to reduce carbon emissions. We must also prepare for and create better systems and structures that can respond to climate crisis.

KF: Can you elaborate further on one or two specific examples from your research and work that could help reduce emissions, protect the environment and improve the livelihoods of Nigerians?

PA: It boils down to technology and innovation deployed across key sectors of the economy. For instance, deploying technology to help transform our agriculture sector for large-scale, high quality, and climate-smart food production, storage and distribution will help ensure present and future food security, reduce large-scale poverty, and protect our environment. Technology deployment for efficient irrigation, climate-smart crop varieties, food harvesting, agrometeorological information, and food processing can go a long way.

Technology deployment in the agriculture sector is ultimately important because the sector is a major source of livelihoods for many Nigerians (accounting for 36% of total employment or 21 million people in 2018) and contributes a great deal to national GDP (21%). Yet, we are unable to produce enough food for domestic consumption and, of adequate quality, for wider export. In 2016, the Nigeria Zero Hunger Strategic Review estimated that a total investment of N31 billion (approx. USD102 million as at 2016) is needed to provide the estimated 57 million tonnes required to close the food demand deficit for crops alone. Total public storage capacity is also insufficient at approximately 300,000 tonnes, whereas annual maize capacity alone is 7 million tonnes. As a result, smallholders witness high postharvest losses which can be as much as 50% for vegetables and fruits, 30% for tubers and roots, and 20% for grains.

Climate-smart and technological-driven agriculture not only becomes relevant to close these food demand gaps, but also to ‘produce more with less’ towards resolving climate problems which agriculture contributes greatly to.

KF: Recently, and for the first time in history, the global price of oil went below zero. This obviously affects Nigeria as a major exporter of oil but on the other hand its production has caused much environmental devastation in parts of the country. How can the need to earn foreign exchange be better balanced with a desire to transition away from fossil fuels and enable increased sustainable development?

PA: Practically everyone in the country has always known that the sole resilience on oil is problematic, given past experiences of its volatility in price and production. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit the country’s major single source of foreign exchange earnings the hardest and has made the fiscal and monetary authorities deploy measures to boost local manufacturing and non-oil production. For instance, N1 trillion (currently approx. US$2.8 billion) has been made available in loans to boost local manufacturing and production across critical sectors, and N100 billion (approx. US$278 million) in credit support is being provided for the healthcare industry, particularly pharmaceutical companies and healthcare centres that want to start new or expand existing drug manufacturing or healthcare facilities. However, there is no guarantee that the government wouldn’t return to focusing on oil’s “easy money” when prices go back up.

The country needs to aggressively expand production and export beyond oil products, as it essential to job creation, expanding sources of foreign exchange, improving economic stability and macroeconomic management, and achieving the other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Beyond producing raw materials, there is a need for increased domestic capacity to process these raw materials not just in agriculture but also in the oil sector with an aim to boost manufacturing capacity. It’s alarming that while Nigeria is a major oil exporting country, with approximately 70% of its income linked to extraction and exploration of fossil fuels (crude oil), the country is still unable to meet its energy demands due to its low refining capacity and thus has to import 80% of its domestically consumed petroleum products.

For Nigeria to transition away from fossil fuels, it will need to diversify its production and income sources away from its structural dependence on oil rents, with active participation and commitment from the political cadre. Any progress at advancing the goals of climate change, poverty reduction, and other SDGs will require both:  i) advanced technology (such as deploying renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, and climate smart agriculture; and ii) incremental policy changes to support industry and households towards shifting away from fossil fuel sources (e.g. policies that promote investment in local non-oil production, and investment and use of renewable energy sources). This entails equitable policy decisions to decrease the climate impact of energy use but increase overall production levels needed for economic development.

KF: Not only are you a Young Global Changer, you’ve founded Reachiiing, an online publishing platform making research messaging Interesting, Insightful and Impactful for young Africans and global citizens. What was your idea behind this and how can such platforms be used to promote clear and consistent messages around its four main thematic areas (Government and economy, Business and Investment, Technology and innovations, and Life issues)?

PA: Reachiiing was formed out of the need to deliver important research insights as well as useful information to the public in their preferred style – i.e. simple, easy-to-comprehend, and interesting formats. We know that many great research projects and innovations have the potential to make impact, if spread more broadly, but they often only end up on the shelves or websites of academic or professional ‘expert’ cliques —we want to change that! 

The Reachiiing platform which focuses on technology, business, governance and life issues relevant to Africans and global citizens helps keep the public aware of important developments, beyond media highlights, to foster progress. It offers Communication for Development at individual, national and regional levels. Such communication platforms can keep people informed about new useful ideas and methods, encourage adoption of those ideas and methods, encourage recognition of important issues, and find common grounds for action towards different levels of development. For instance, such platforms would be useful for informing the public about ongoing research in COVID-19 treatments, and what works for handling the crises at individual, national and regional levels towards safeguarding public health and safety.

KF: For every Young Global Changer, there are thousands or millions of other youths in Nigeria, and all over the world who are simply unaware of such opportunities but are doing innovative and incredible things. How can we better identify, support and publicise their work and achievements?

PA: I think creating spaces to engage and partner with them would be helpful.

KF: And finally, what is your message for them, particularly in these COVID-19 times of uncertainty?

PA: My message to fellow Young Global Changers is to stay safe, reach out to people within your area of influence, and use this period to further develop and perhaps implement your ideas for global change.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 15, 2020.

Arguably the most concrete measure effective in Sweden’s avowed successes has been their progressive carbon tax, introduced in 1991. The tax was introduced piecemeal, the rate increasing periodically to allow the economy to shift with the policy. The result was reported to be a 9% drop in Sweden’s carbon emissions between 1990 and 2008, so exceeding targets set by the Kyoto protocol that a Swedish official claimed Sweden could be permitted to raise its carbon emissions by 4%.

But things are less clear if we understand how carbon emissions for a country and its economy are measured. Currently, most calculations for carbon emissions, including from organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Bank, are done via production-based accounting, or PBA. This means that the “emissions” of a country, whether measured, targeted or otherwise, are taken as the emissions that occur within that country’s borders. This is the case with Sweden as well, whose climate act aims to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions from activities in Sweden.”

The problem with PBA is that we live within a globalized economy, so much so that the World Bank estimates that 60% of the world’s GDP comes from trade. This means that a significant portion of products consumed within a country are not produced in it, and so a PBA approach misses the carbon impact of all imported products. Measuring emissions via consumption-based accounting, or CBA, yields very different results, demonstrating that a great portion of carbon-emitting production by developing countries is undertaken to meet the demand of more developed countries.

The case of Sweden highlights this, as even a study undertaken by Sweden’s own Environmental Protection Agency in 2012 belies the previous rosy picture. According to that study, while emissions from within Sweden decreased by 13 percent, they were outsourced to other countries through an increase of 30 percent in imported emissions. Instead of reducing their carbon footprint, then, Sweden’s greening efforts only pushed the polluting activities necessary for Swedish consumption onto developing economies.

This is not an uncommon pattern: a compilation of data by Oxford researchers shows that while Western nations are net importers of carbon, many of the world’s emerging economies are net exporters. What this means is that considered under CBA, even the often–maligned China consumes far less carbon per capita than any developed nation, and a great portion of its total emissions are driven by production to serve Western consumption.

More than anything, this phenomenon is reminiscent of the oft-cited criticism of the U.S. war on drugs, termed the “balloon effect.” According to this argument, U.S. efforts to suppress drug production and trade in any given Latin American country merely transfers the problem to a neighboring one, like squeezing the air in a balloon. Whatever the pros and cons of carbon taxation as a measure against climate change, the case of Sweden demonstrates the similar insufficiency of domestic solutions to a problem that is, at its base, global.

But if the global/local division were all that there is to this, then the solution would just be to imitate Sweden’s model universally. The problem with this is that the “decoupling” of growth and emissions heralded by the World Bank, and the piecemeal greening of countries like Sweden, has only been achievable because of the availability of other less-regulated nations from which they can import.

Given the same patterns of over-consumption in developed nations and profit-seeking markets, a solution external to these seems less and less plausible. So long as there is sustained demand for an abundance of finished products, a gallery of largely unaccountable corporations benefiting from this demand, and a global underclass dependent on this demand for their livelihoods, the emissions will find a way, like the air in a balloon.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 10, 2020.

If the risks, hardships and anxiety of life during a pandemic were not enough, my fellow northern Californians are now facing another health crisis.

As I write this, hundreds of wildfires are burning across the state, among them two of the largest ever in California. Together, the fires have burned more than 1.4 million acres, destroyed 2,800 homes and buildings, killed eight people and forced thousands to evacuate their homes.

On top of the acute risks to lives and homes, residents across the state are suffering from highly polluted air as massive plumes of smoke fill the skies above our homes.

Children, seniors and those with lung disease are especially vulnerable

As a mom of two young kids, it’s been a tough couple weeks of anxiously monitoring air quality data and maps to determine if and when it might be safe to go outside, while seeking information on how to keep my family healthy.

As an environmental health scientist, I know that wildfire smoke has been linked to a range of negative health impacts, including asthma exacerbation, which can lead to emergency room visits and hospitalizations, along with increased rates of heart attacks and even death. Children and pregnant women, as well as those with heart disease or respiratory conditions like asthma, are particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of wildfire smoke.

Climate change and wildfires are connected

We all know it’s hard to think about the long term when you’re in the middle of a crisis. But as a parent, my concern about this year’s fires is compounded by my fear of what climate change will mean for the health of my kids and children around the world.

Here in the Western U.S., climate change is lengthening the wildfire season and increasing the frequency, severity, and size of fires. It’s critical that we harness our collective fear and frustration over what has become a distressingly predictable annual occurrence to take the actions on climate change that will help us avoid a future where wildfires become even more devastating.

Clean energy could reduce air pollution-related deaths by 40% in US

At EDF, most of my work focuses on air quality and how it impacts our health. New research recently presented to Congress finds that air pollution currently causes more than 200,000 early deaths each year in the United States. Taking action to transition away from fossil fuels and meet the targets scientists say are necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change could cut deaths due to air pollution by 40% and save 1.4 million lives over the next 20 years.

These changes could also yield huge economic benefits – more than $700 billion a year due to improved labor productivity and health alone. By addressing the threat that fossil fuels pose to our climate and investing in alternatives to cleanly fuel our economy, we’ll also dramatically cut pollution emissions that cause enormous harm to public health.

California will get through this wildfire season, even if we’re bruised at the end of it. We’ve proven that our residents, businesses and entire economy are incredibly resilient. But once the fires are extinguished, let’s continue to be clear-eyed about the connections between wildfires, warmer and drier summers, air pollution and the changing climate. And let’s focus our resolve on holding our leaders to account and demanding actions and solutions that will protect our children’s health and future.

Maria Harris is an Environmental Epidemiologist based in EDF’s San Francisco office.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Sept. 8, 2020.

This is the first of two articles published in the last week examining important links between environmental conditions and public health as well as how nonprofits, intergovernmental organizations and national governments can help address these issues. Part 2 can be seen here.

Precious Akanonu is a 2017 Young Global Changer and development economist from Nigeria. She currently works as a research fellow at a renowned Abuja-based think tank, the Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa, is a lead research consultant at a private non-profit organisation, the Belema Aid Foundation; and works remotely as a fellow at the U.S-based Energy for Growth Hub. Ken Fullerton, a fellow 2017 Young Global Changer recently caught up with her to discuss a Nigerian perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic and more broadly how countries and the world can ‘recouple economic and social progress’ coming out of this crisis.

In part one, Precious discusses the current situation in Nigeria, the implication on individuals and the economy more broadly, and how we, as individuals, organisations and governments can learn from this global pandemic.

KF: For many, COVID-19 has come as a big surprise and many countries and governments have had to rush to respond. What has the response been like in Nigeria and how has it affected the general population?

PA: Nigeria has applied several measures in response to the crisis including restricting movement and implementing lockdowns in three major states across the country, increasing testing and treatment capacities, as well as deploying governance and socio-economic measures to support businesses and households. However, the COVID-19 crisis has led to an all-time crash in oil prices – Nigeria’s single major source of revenue – and has slowed down economic activities have left the country with serious fiscal and monetary challenges. Not only has all components of aggregate demand (consumption, investment, government spending, and net export) fallen, it has also led to huge balance of payment deficits estimated at about $9billion. While the Central Bank of Nigeria has been able to secure $3.4 billion from the IMF, there is still a huge gap with severe implications for the strength of the Nigerian Naira and ultimately on trade and investment, economic growth, jobs, poverty reduction and for the livelihood of millions of people in the country.

KF: On a more personal level, how have you, your family and work colleagues been affected and what measures have you had to implement to continue being able to work and support your family and friends?

PA: For me and many of us, it’s been an unusual time filled with uncertainties, mixed emotions, and severe changes to daily routine and lifestyle. Sometimes I am worried about the possibility of a loved one getting infected with a virus that is yet to have any proven cure/vaccine. I also worry about having the need to visit a hospital at this time whether for COVID-19 or any other illness. Other times, I worry for Nigeria as a whole and the ripple, trickled-down effects of the pandemic. But I try to keep myself and loved ones well-informed about safety and self-care measures. I also endeavour to search out positive and inspiring news and engage in fun in-door activities with the family.

Aside from being an emotional roller-coaster, the pandemic has severely changed my lifestyle perhaps for the worse. Generally, I have not been the type to enjoy working from home. So, it was hard for me to adjust to the new work lifestyle at first, but I eventually picked up my motivation and adjusted to the times. With an even more sedentary work life; having to now work 24/7 from home.

KF: In some ways, global crises and pandemics – as sad as they may be – present opportunities that may not have previously been considered. What major lessons can both developing countries, like Nigeria, and developed countries take from this pandemic to strengthen their economies, their health systems and be better prepared in future?

PA: One of the major lessons this pandemic teaches us is the need for improved global, regional and intersectoral coordination – particularly in terms of surveillance, technology and data, equipping the health care sector, and better crisis management structures.

The global response to the crisis was severely hampered by a narrow country focus, regulatory barriers, and a mismatch of demand and supply. In such an interconnected world that makes the global spread of a virus much easier, there was no effective rapid response command structures to allow countries to quickly learn from each other about what’s working and what could work, so they can roll out their health and economic response in a calibrated way as the virus spreads. For example, we needed rapid-result testing to allow for rapid isolation of those infected with Covid-19, but the contract-tracing technologies that was available in East Asia and effectively used there, were not rapidly learned, mass produced and deployed in other countries.

Global coordination is essential especially to support developing countries to know where their much limited fiscal funds would yield the best returns in resolving a crisis; to improve production and supply chains of critical products especially to highly trade-dependent and low-income countries; and to prevent severe food insecurity and hunger especially for net food-importing countries.

Finally, more than ever before, the impact of the pandemic buttresses the need for a cross-sectoral and cross-thematic coordination in policy planning at national, regional and global levels. Particularly, we have seen the need for higher productive capacity especially for many African countries. However, we must coordinate how we go about improving production capacities at all levels, while bearing in mind key sectoral and thematic issues (e.g. public health, food security, migration, supply chains, climate change, job creation, and national security). For instance, in boosting production capacities, we will need a mechanism that can support each continent to deliver trade-friendly and climate-smart local productive capacity especially for essential health and agricultural products.

The more we can apply lessons from pandemic-era teaching to the programs we develop now, the better we can innovate for tomorrow’s online education.

By mid-March, 79 percent of AACSB-surveyed business schools had converted face-to-face classes to online after the COVID-19 health crisis caused colleges and universities around the world to close their doors. The massive shift to online learning that followed, where teaching occurred remotely and on digital platforms such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, has dramatically changed education, leaving many people wondering whether the benefits brought by online learning will outweigh its shortcomings.

Whether the adoption of online learning will continue to persist post-pandemic remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the health crisis has disrupted an education system that was already losing its relevance. The COVID-19 pandemic put a magnifying glass on this outdated system, highlighting its many flaws and areas for improvement.

There is no denial that the rapid transition to online learning has also shined a spotlight on the administrators, professors, parents, and students who, despite the worst odds, have done their best to make distance learning work. However, the result, quite understandably, given the unique circumstances, has been far from ideal. Students have questioned the quality-to-cost ratio of their education, a ratio already weakened by the continuous increase of tuition fees, and professors have struggled to prepare, manage, and assess classes.

Consequently, higher education can no longer rest on its laurels if it wants to remain relevant in the future. So what can we learn from this experience, and how can online education grow as an opportunity in the coming years?

A Challenging Landscape

Limited accessibility. Paradoxically, the key strength of online education, its accessibility, has also been its main challenge, as not all faculty are comfortable with virtual teaching and not all students have a digital infrastructure that allows them to continue their education online. Moreover, due to the limitations in bandwidth capacity in many countries, both the quality of the learning experience and the value of education have been degraded. Beyond the issue of digital access, in war-torn societies or places where children’s and women’s rights are fragile or nonexistent, the disappearance of the physical space often equates to that of the entire learning opportunity for vulnerable people.

A defective online experience. The second biggest challenge has been the experience itself. From an organizational perspective, the preparation for synchronous, or live, online sessions takes more time than for in-person ones, and the management of large classes (more than 12 students) with current videoconferencing platforms cannot accommodate for personalization and real-life experimentation. Assessment and accountability have suffered as students have found creative ways to skip classes or “cheat” in exams. And because asynchronous teaching cannot offer the accountable consistency of live classes (be it online or offline) or the opportunity for dialogue, learners generally prefer face-to-face interactions over recorded lessons.

Reduced value and effectiveness. As learning went digital and lost its immersive experience, cutting off direct contact with peers and experts, tuition fees remained unchanged and education became overpriced. Learners, and even their parents, began considering the value of a gap year to counter the prospect of long days of study spent behind a computer screen. That perception reveals the inefficiencies of the typical online experience, as it lacks animation, reduces motivation, and decreases engagement rates.

When we look at the statistics behind the massive open online learning experience, such as Coursera’s, about two-thirds of people never get to the end of an online course. When 55 percent of students don’t complete their college education in the United States, it is only legitimate to question and worry about the effect of online learning on the drop-out rate throughout the 2020–21 academic year. Meanwhile, as rising ed tech seeks to solve problems, we can only wonder whether innovation will cure the symptoms or deal with the root problems.

However, the mass online learning experiment, in spite of its many hurdles, has given us a glimpse of what the future of education could look like.

A Future of Opportunities

Open access to education. More people than ever will have access to a solid education, as universities extend their reach beyond campus and beyond borders. With content digitization and the emergence of micro-learning and specialized certifications, universities will benefit from a growth in enrollment rates and students will be able to access high-quality courses. This potentiality will enable students to take ownership of the quality of their education, irrespective of background or predetermined circumstances.

For instance, highly regarded MBA programs have already embraced online learning to increase accessibility. Furthermore, the current transition to digital learning is likely to foster the development and growth of open education resources. What Khan Academy has been offering the world since 2008 is only a sample of what can be achieved by making education more accessible.

A reinvented learning experience. When it comes to curriculum design, we could see a shift toward the division of programs into credentialed micro-learning segments. As a result, learners would be able to “patch together” their education from a “menu of options,” and employers could allow their workers to access these credentialed micro-learning segments, enabling a continuous retraining and upskilling of the workforce.

This greater flexibility, coupled with an adaptability to changing needs, is attractive to both professionals and lifelong learners. A more specialized curriculum design can help bridge the gap between academia and the professional world. It also confirms that lifelong learning is the new norm.

The recent experiment in widespread online learning has shown us that live, face-to-face interactions still matter. Videoconferencing has helped restore some of the social and human connections and recreate a sense of balance and structure in students’ lives. This realization confirms that learning is not a one-way conversation but a dialogue, and that collective intelligence, drawn from peer-to-peer communication, is essential to the process.

Colleges and universities will need to foster more virtual collaborative environments in the future, as digital settings have revealed the inadequacies of the traditional classroom lecture. If lectures in the physical context already were unengaging for students, the virtual setting has rendered the experience unbearable. This issue leaves room for new methods of engagement, such as a facilitative approach or visual collaboration workspaces, to emerge and become the norm in online teaching.

Multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovation. Online learning is a fertile ground for multi-stakeholder partnerships, such as those between tech companies and universities. For example, what if MIT were to partner with Google, or Harvard with Facebook, to expand enrollment by offering hybrid online-offline degrees at an accessible price? The tech company would be responsible for scale and the online component, while the university would be responsible for the accreditation. This way a certification from an elite university would still be worth its high tuition fees, given the enhanced branding power and learning experience that such a degree could bring, and the collaboration could have further potential to innovate the education sector and beyond. That being said, we cannot help but wonder whether the digital expansion of elite universities could cause a “brain drain” from non-elite universities.

Universities, and perhaps other emerging educational partners, will be able to join forces at both the local and international levels to create a shared learning ecosystem, thus enriching the curriculum, diversifying perspectives, and allowing for more cultural openness through trans-border collaboration.

Now is the time to reimagine the learning ecosystem and experiment with new ideas. There is no going “back to normal.” If we do, then we would lose a golden opportunity to revolutionize education in order to overcome the challenges of the 21st century. How far are we willing to go when exploring the different possibilities that online learning can bring?

Many lessons will be drawn from this disruptive time for higher education. The switch to online learning that took place in the middle of the teaching semester will enable students to compare the digital with the analog versions of their classes. There has never been a better time for students, professors, and innovators to lay the foundations of a new type of education.

However, reimagining education is not an easy task. Consequently, in the post-pandemic world, a hybrid model of education is better positioned to respond to the existing challenges, take advantage of opportunities, and expand access to quality education for millions of people around the world.

This calls for a revision of the education system in the 21st century: What will the online experience cover, and what will the new purpose of the physical classroom and campus be? Online education is not yet the future, but with a few “patches” and “add-ons,” it might very well be.

As Louisiana and Texas prepare for Hurricane Laura to make landfall, our primary focus is on the safety of those in its path.

Laura will hit the Gulf Coast as we remember the destruction Hurricane Katrina brought fifteen years ago on August 29. One month later, Hurricane Rita devastated the area that Laura now threatens.

Like many of you, I watched in horror as the news broadcast images of my hometown of New Orleans under water and its residents stranded on rooftops. Katrina claimed the lives of nearly 2,000 people, flooded more than a million homes and caused $161 billion in damages. The storm displaced hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom never returned to places where they had lived their entire lives. Everyone here suffered, and as is too often the case, communities of color bore a disproportionate share of that suffering. For example, a Black homeowner was three times more likely to live in a flooded part of town after Hurricane Katrina.

While I won’t go into the extensive history of all the factors that contributed to Katrina’s destruction (Tulane professor Andy Horowitz has a new book, Katrina: A History, 1915-2015, that does that pretty well!), the loss of Louisiana’s wetlands greatly exacerbated the disaster.

Since the 1930’s, the state has lost 2,000 square miles of wetlands — equivalent to the size of Delaware — that once provided New Orleans with a vital buffer from storms. Louisiana could lose an additional 4,000 square miles in the next 50 years, making communities even more vulnerable.

The storms we face today and the anniversaries we observe are stark reminders of why we must restore and protect Louisiana’s coast with urgency. Louisiana has made significant progress since Katrina and Rita, and we must build on that progress before it’s too late.

1. Katrina was the wake-up call, and Louisiana listened.

Following Katrina and Rita, our state came together to not just recover, but to rebuild better before the next storm and to address our land loss crisis.

Policymakers created the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, a state agency charged with overseeing a unified approach to coastal protection and restoration. In 2007, the agency developed the Coastal Master Plan, a first-of-its-kind climate adaptation plan based in science and developed with public input, to identify and build projects that could better protect communities, infrastructure and wildlife. The plan, which is updated every six years to account for the latest science and modeling, has secured the support of Governors and legislators across both parties and delivered billions of dollars invested in vital coastal restoration and protection projects across the state. EDF has worked alongside nonprofit partners in Louisiana for more than a decade to advance large-scale coastal restoration projects from the plan, including sediment diversions that would reengage the Mississippi River to again build and maintain tens of thousands of acres of wetlands around New Orleans. These sediment diversions represent Louisiana’s best hope for maintaining a sustainable and productive delta for future generations and wildlife.

2. Louisiana has become a model for climate adaptation and resilience.

In addition to coastal restoration, Louisiana implemented an innovative program called LA SAFE (Louisiana’s Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments) that engaged over 3,000 residents from its most vulnerable coastal communities to develop solutions for a more resilient future. This work resulted in $41 million dollars to community-based projects ranging from floodproofing homes, creating safe harbors for fishing boats and even relocating one neighborhood.

Recently, Governor John Bel Edwards signed two executive orders that truly demonstrate how far the state has come and how seriously it is taking its land loss and climate crises.

The first puts resilience at the heart of state government. Led by a newly appointed Chief Resilience Officer, state agencies from education to transportation and healthcare will develop strategic plans to build greater resilience within their department’s operations and strategies. The second order establishes a Climate Task Force charged with helping Louisiana achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The rate of sea level rise will literally determine which communities in Louisiana can survive, so the stakes couldn’t be higher. While Louisiana has lead on climate adaption and resilience planning, the state can now also provide a model for how to lead on climate mitigation as a traditionally energy-dependent state.

3. Louisiana can increase equity and economic opportunity through coastal investments.

Investments in coastal restoration and protection will protect lives, property and limit damages from storms. If done right, they can also build greater equity and economic opportunity for communities that need it the most. The Data Center’s Coastal Index demonstrated how the state’s growing water management sector is creating good paying jobs, even when more traditional sectors, like oil and gas, falter.

And a recent economic analysis found that construction of sediment diversions could create nearly 4,000 jobs and increase regional sales by $3 billion. It’s important that contractors do everything in their power to hire and source locally and that government apply appropriate pressure to ensure they do. Local community colleges have developed coastal programs and degrees to provide workforce development and training to meet the demand for these jobs. We can continue to grow that effort.

As Laura makes landfall in Louisiana, we are reminded that we must act with urgency to prepare for a future with more hurricanes and higher seas.

In Louisiana, that means working to create a smaller, but sustainable and bountiful delta and doing so in a way that is as just and equitable as possible. This is also true beyond Louisiana. Any state with a coastline should have a plan for how to confront a similar future, and many states from New Jersey to Florida are making significant strides on that front.

Nothing can take away the pain and loss that Katrina and Rita dealt our region. The storms forever changed us. We must remember that moment in our history, so we take the steps necessary to never repeat it.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 27, 2020.

Alongside being a profound threat to the wellbeing of billions of people, soil degradation is also a telling example of the way that development and the environment interact, and how the incentives generated by our current systems can run counter to sustainability’s demands. Much of human life depends on the availability of fertile soil for agriculture, and new technologies and methods developed in the past century have enabled us to make greater use of this vital resource. It is, ironically, these developments that are in part to blame for the coming risks, though what that attribution means is somewhat more complex.

The alteration and, in some senses, degradation of land by human societies is not new. The raging forest-fires in the Amazon are a successor to much more ancient methods of slash-and-burn farming which has taken place over millennia, though the current incarnation is occurring at an unsustainable level. Likewise, though many may imagine much of the developed world to have been untouched wilderness prior to the industrial age, it is now believed that places like Britain were cleared of their primeval forests as early as 1000 BCE, with the onset of bronze-age farming. As some infographics that regularly do the internet rounds attest to, we have also been altering the various species we use for food over many centuries of farming, effectively creating GMOs through much slower processes. As caveats in each example point to, however, part of the issue with our current round of environmental modification is the speed and severity thereof, and whether it allows for sustainable continuity.

When writing about this “current round,” it is impossible not to mention the Green Revolution of 1966-85, with agronomist Norman Borlaug as its face. Through the development of resistant, high-yield strains of staple crops and popularizing of double-cropping methods, Borlaug is credited by some as “the man who saved a billion lives,” receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for his achievements in 1970. The Green Revolution as a whole introduced new technologies and methods that grew many developing countries’ agricultural capacities, contributing to the global decline in hunger that ran from then into the 2010s. The success of such measures is doubly significant when held up against the catastrophic failures of other agricultural schools, namely the disasters wrought by Lysenkoism through its influence in the USSR and China.

Yet the legacy of the Green Revolution and Borlaug is not uncontroversial. It has had critics like Vandana Shiva, whose argument that the methods of the Green Revolution  degraded soil and reduced biodiversity ring true in a time where more and more voices point these issues out as vital to the sustainability of agriculture. The dangers of the standardization of cultivars can easily be seen through the trade collapse following mass contamination of the gros michel strand of bananas in the 1950s. Although it is difficult to dismiss the Green Revolution as a negative given the alleviation of hunger and poverty that followed it, these criticisms point to a troubling clash between the demands of development and limits of sustainability.

This clash is not necessarily inevitable, however, and this becomes apparent when we examine consumption patterns driving agricultural development in the past few decades. The 2018 IPBES report lists the over-consumption of developed countries and the growing high-calorie consumption of emerging economies as the main drivers of land degradation as a whole – not the alleviation of hunger. The inequality in consumption between and within economies is a vital driver in land use, and this is demonstrated strikingly by researchers at Oxford. They show that the diets of many developed countries would be impossible to support if imitated globally, but that if the diets of developing nations were globalized less land than present would be needed for agriculture. In other words, unsustainable agriculture is not driven by an attempt to feed the world, but by overconsumption in developed economies. This has rung even truer since the long decline in world hunger stopped and reversed, while obesity continues to grow.

What all this amounts to is that the challenge we face with land is not Malthusian calculation of who to let die to preserve sustainability, but the simple fact of inequality. Just as Amartya Sen’s groundbreaking work arguing that many famines are caused not by a lack of food but by a failure or unwillingness to distribute food to those in need, so, too, is this a situation where our social systems fail to sustain natural ones. So long as such systems remain as is, sustainability will mean leaving many in need; only through their transformation can we combine these two goals.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 25, 2020.

  Pakistan PM Muhammad Ali Bogra (1953-55)

Since the time of its inception, the state of Pakistan has adopted the model of a security state. The above statement made by the then Pakistan PM, Bogra, reflects the insecurity and the mindset that Pakistan was born to. Despite the growing socio-economic challenges faced by the country, Pakistan remains reluctant to depart from its traditional militaristic understanding of security. The recent 2020-2021 national budget presented by the state is a clear reflection of this viewpoint. Despite the outbreak of COVID-19 and subsequent economic slump, the national budget saw a spike in funds allocated for defense by a whopping 11.82% from the last fiscal year, bringing the number to Rupee(Rs.) 1.29 trillion in the present budget. Whereas, the size of the Federal Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) budget remained limited to only Rs. 650 billion.

The increase in the defense budget over the years along with a relative de-prioritization in the development funds reiterates the position long held by the Pakistani state that defense and security of the state is paramount, while regarding other considerations as secondary to that of national dignity and honor. The high defense allocation is mainly justified on concerns of protecting the border from hostile neighbors, India and Afghanistan.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Groundwater extraction in California remains a hotly contested topic. The main source of this furor is the pumping of groundwater by Nestlé Waters, the bottled water branch of the Nestlé Group, commonly just known as Nestlé. The Swiss food and drink conglomerate extracts millions of gallons of groundwater in California, drying up the state’s precious aquifers. As surface water dried up, farmers, individuals and municipalities resorted to pumping groundwater, which in the past had been the state’s literal water bank. A problem soon erupted because of the groundwater pumping. The state’s “insatiable thirst for groundwater,” as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) notes, has exemplified the severity of the droughts and lack of other water sources, with geographical studies showing that California is getting drier.  Although then-Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a landmark groundwater bill in September 2014 aimed at regulating groundwater management in the Golden State, making California the last state in the West to regulate the practice, Nestlé is still pumping groundwater at levels environmentalists, and many locals, argue is unsustainable. And, while this water crisis is certainly not alone, tension is boiling in California, and does not show any sign of cooling down any time soon.

Preservationists vs. Conservationists

While the controversy that Nestlé is embroiled in with California regulators dominates public debate, California’s water wars were not borne out of the Swiss conglomerate, but rather over the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in the early twentieth century. After the 1906 earthquake and fire razed much of San Francisco and buried the city under rubble, the supposedly state-of-the-art municipal firefighting system fell short. As the San Andreas Fault unleashed a 7.9 magnitude seismic quake on unsuspecting San Franciscans, much of the city’s waterlines were severed, leaving many fire hydrants useless. The consequence was $350,000,000 dollars of property damage (approx. $10,025,438,888.89 in inflation adjusted to 2020 $USD), an estimated 3,000 people killed and 50% of the city’s 400,000 residents left homeless. The devastating fire exposed deep problems in San Francisco’s water system and the need for a reliable source of water for the City and County of San Francisco. Water access came to the forefront in the public’s mind.

An alternative turned out to be Hetch Hetchy Valley. Located in the northwestern part of modern-day Yosemite National Park, Hetch Hetchy’s natural beauty rivaled that of Yosemite Valley. The proposal advanced by conservationists was to dam it to collect and re-route water to San Francisco and the Peninsula. The battle-lines were quickly drawn between two camps: the preservationists and conservationists. The preservationists, led by John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, contended that the valley’s preservation for posterity outweighed society’s utilitarian needs. Conversely, the conservationists, such as officials from San Francisco and Gifford Pinchot—who was the first head of the United States Forest Service—asserted that the environment should be used in a conscientious manner to benefit society. Ultimately, the conservationists won out, much to the devastation of Muir, who died a year later. Specifically, the Raker Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 19, 1913. The law granted “the city of San Francisco the right to dam the Hetch Hetchy Valley as a reservoir, and the unfulfilled right of municipalized electricity for the city.” As a result, the O’Shaughnessy Dam was completed on May 24, 1923, establishing the Hetch Hetchy Valley reservoir. And thus California’s endless search for water began.

The California State Water Project Down to Present Day

Following the Hetch Hetchy Valley reservoir’s completion, water and access to water consumed California politics into the twentieth century. Arguably the most prominent champion of water reform in the Golden State in the mid-twentieth century was Governor Edmund “Pat” Brown, whose signature implementation of the California State Water Project (SWP) in 1960 helped transport water from wetter northern California to the drier south. The SWP helped partly quench the thirst of California agricultural producers in the Central Valley, though a warming climate would make even the impressive technological feat of the California State Water Project (SWP) insufficient to fully satisfy California’s insatiable need for water in the decades to come.

As droughts became the new norm in California and surface water diminished or evaporated altogether, many Californians—especially farmers in the Central Valley—resorted to pumping groundwater from the labyrinthine aquifers that meander under the state. While in normal times seasonal pumping of groundwater allows time for the refilling of those aquifers, during droughts groundwater is pumped faster than aquifers can replenish themselves. A practical consequence of this phenomenon is that pumps run dry; a geological consequence is land subsistence, the subsiding (i.e., sinking) of the ground directly above the aquifer as a result of depleted water supply and lack of water recharge. In 1977 a measuring pole was used to show how far some California land sank between 1925 and 1977: a whopping nine meters – approximately 30 feet. While that is bad enough, subsidence also reduces the ability of the earth itself, composed largely of clay, to store water. Put plainly, the more California sinks, the less groundwater it can hold for posterity.  While the state’s subsidence monitoring mechanisms were reduced in the 1980s, new ones continue to be developed, including a refurbishment of the extensometers and piezometers from the old network, and augmenting ground-based measuring tools with remotely-sensed tools. From the preliminary geographical examinations, not only is subsistence continuing to occur in known locations, but it is also cropping up in new places, such as in Madera, California.

Although the Golden State keeps getting drier, demand for its precious groundwater keeps getting higher, especially as, in a market-driven economy food and drink corporations continue to aggressively market water. This market-driven action, though, brings with it environmental consequences. Though some companies, such as Starbucks, have terminated water pumping activities for their bottled water brands due to the worsening drought, other corporations continue to pump out groundwater to this day. The corporation that continues to garner the most notoriety in the court of California public opinion is Nestlé, which continues to pump groundwater in the state for its Arrowhead brand.

With surface water levels unpredictable at best amid a changing climate, and subsistence reducing the capacity of the state’s aquifers to regenerate, California’s water wars continue to polarize. In places where there still is at least some constant supply of fresh water, such as creeks and streams, the debate has become even more pronounced. It is in this historical and scientific context that Nestlé’s controversy comes to the fore and ultimately baits the question: Should water be commodified, or is it a human right?

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 18, 2020.

It is against this backdrop that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should supplement its security engagement in the Gulf with a focus on clean energy achievement. Consultation-driven energy cooperation is scarce, and any progress here will significantly compliment the region’s positive growth trajectory.

The 2020 Sustainable Development Report offers a snapshot of the Gulf’s impressive gains. Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain, Jordan and Qatar have all at least “moderately improved” their scores on the affordable and clean energy front, with nearly 60% of these countries on track to achieve their 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) commitments. To understand the significance of these gains, consider the fact that several of these economies reported double digit GDP contractions in recent months.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Today, with over half a million dead and second waves washing over many countries, the option to weather out the storm, overlook some deaths, and wait for “herd immunity” to develop seems untenable. This consensus is somewhat backed by the fact that the US and Brazil, the two countries most notorious for eschewing lockdown measures once widely called “draconian,” now sit at the top of the list for coronavirus deaths. Nonetheless, economies have been hit hard: even back in April China’s economy shrunk for the first time since it began recording quarterly figures in 1992, and just recently the US has reported its worst quarter since WWII with its GDP declining by 32.9%.

There is, then, some deep discord between the demands of the “invisible hand” of the economy and those of the sustainability and maintenance of the systems that compose it revealed both by the questions asked before lockdown, and the results we are seeing after it. Though hearing the words “recession” or “economic crisis” may bring 2007-2008 to many minds, there is something fundamentally different this time around, and that difference runs through this line of discord. The crisis that occurred in the past decade is widely considered a financial crisis- a crisis emerging from webs of debt, derivatives, and other financial instruments. It was a crisis of perverse incentives, opaque deals and irresponsible practices- in other words, it had its source in confusions and inconsistencies of accounting, to put it very crudely. The crisis arising from COVID-19 will be, or is, one triggered by something not financial, but real: the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, a sudden drop in various forms of consumption, and restrictions on large swathes of the global labor force.

One thing that a real crisis like the current pandemic does, then, is that it reveals gradations of necessity and thus reality within broader economic systems. The most familiar example of this is the distinction drawn between essential and non-essential workers, with the latter and not the former allowed paid leave or remote working. What is striking about this distinction is that the “essential” work is some of the worst-paying, scoring below average salary in many US states. In other words, these distinctions reveal that in many cases work that is less needed is paid, and thus incentivized, more than work that is “essential” to the functioning of society.

This discordancy gives rise to two interconnected problems. First, it becomes less and less viable to look at “the economy” through the lens of money alone, as this does not distinguish between the real, or essential, and the financial, or non-essential, economies. The destruction of billions of dollars’ worth of valuable jewels vs. the destruction of farmland of equal value appears the same on a spreadsheet, yet when we consider what is essential these two are incomparable. There has already been much criticism of GDP as an economic measure along these lines, with a recent notable example being former US presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s campaign.

But the second problem goes beyond that of perception, and strikes at the heart of this discord that these crises and issues point to. That is: what incentives does this discord generate? In a world of growing global inequality, the reins of economic power lie more and more in the hands of a few, and thus lie farther from macro-level social forces and closer to the incentives of those well-situated. And if profit-seeking and over-consumption are the bread and butter of the economic system under which we live, it is easy to imagine how phenomena like the divergency between the pay of essential and non-essential workers emerge.

Recognizing this central disconnect is vital for questions of future sustainability, as it is both a driver and a hinge for similar future crises. From relentless deforestation and tremendous fires in the Amazon to the depletion of fisheries worldwide, many of our environmental challenges are challenging by virtue of the economic incentives against their resolution. And while it may be enticing to imagine the perpetrators of these disasters to be villains driven by greed, it can often be the pressures of necessity placed on the many that end up threatening the environment, as the case of poaching demonstrates.

In some ways the COVID-19 pandemic is unique, a “once-in-a-century” crisis as the World Health Organization put it. From this perspective it requires an equally unique, extraordinary response. But looking at both how such responses can be hard to coordinate, and how the web of incentives can act to hollow out resilient systems and dismantle far-sighted precautions, it is impossible not to see systemic problems. But just as the detachment of the essential economy from economic power can mean a neglect of those essential measures, it also means the inverse: that crisis-time investment in those measures will run counter to the flow of the economy, inevitably leading to downturn, and much suffering with it.

Much like a pandemic, the crises of environmental degradation are real – that is, they lie not in the web of financial numbers, but in the availability of the necessities of life. They are driven by a neglect of real systems and their maintenance, and their impact is real and unavoidable by clever tricks of accounting. What this ultimately means is that so long as the disconnect between what is essential and what is profitable remains, we place ourselves more and more at risk of facing “once-in-a-century” crises, at which point the only solutions available undermine our economies and cause great suffering. It is only through transformative changes that we can close this gap, and make sure that we can prevent such a future.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 11, 2020.

Climate pollution is making heat waves longer, hotter and more frequent. As communities throughout the United States face surges in COVID-19 infections, more intense heat is creating additional public health challenges, with sweltering conditions complicating efforts to contain the virus and leading to a cascade of difficult choices.

The current heat wave across the South and Southwest has seen heat warnings and advisories for at least 11 states, stretching from Southern California to the Florida Panhandle. Last weekend in Phoenix, temperatures hit a record high of 116 degrees Fahrenheit on Sunday, July 12—and were measured at or above 110 degrees for at least ten consecutive days.

This is part of a long-term upward trend in global temperatures caused by climate pollution. Over the last 60 years, each decade has been decisively warmer than the previous one. The number of deadly heat waves in 50 major cities across the U.S. has increased dramatically from an average of two heat waves per year during the 1960s, to more than six per year during the 2010s.

Now layer in a deadly pandemic. What happens when searing heat descends on a city where residents are asked to stay in their homes to avoid spreading a deadly disease?

The most vulnerable people will bear the brunt

Up to a quarter of all American households don’t have access to air conditioning, and they are often the poor and the elderly, for whom coronavirus poses the greatest risk. Moving them to crowded cooling centers — like public libraries, community centers and senior centers — increases the likelihood of exposing and possibly killing those most vulnerable to the disease.

Consider, too, the millions of Americans who work outdoors — who, for example, deliver mail or labor on highway construction crews as temperatures soar and heat waves worsen. These conditions set up an impossible choice between a person’s health and the job that feeds their family.

Then there are the 25 million Americans with asthma: As temperatures climb and heat waves become more frequent, the metaphorical rope around their chests will tighten. Heat and humidity encourages mold growth and seasonal pollen, which are asthma triggers. On very hot days, the problem of ozone pollution – which happens when heat and sunlight combine with pollutants to create ozone – also increases. Ozone causes damage to everything from human lungs to crop yields. While this is especially worrisome for people with asthma and related illnesses, ozone is bad for all people’s health, triggering problems including chest pain and coughing. It can also harm lung tissue and reduce lung function, which is especially worrisome amid the threat of COVID-19, which itself can cause serious lung damage.

Because the burden of asthma is strongly related to social and economic status, access to health care and exposure to environmental triggers, the most vulnerable are most at risk here, too. African Americans, Latinos, and the poor—particularly poor children—have a higher incidence of the illness.

Heat waves can be lethal

If you think putting up with a spell of hot weather is not a big deal, look at recent history. In France, record heat waves in June and July 2019 killed more than 1,400 people. In India, an intense heat wave in 2015 killed more than 2,300 people and had temperatures hot enough to melt pavement in New Delhi.

All across the United States, temperatures are climbing. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the number of days in Minnesota with a heat index above 90 degrees could quadruple by around mid-century if no action is taken to climate pollution. And in Florida, the average number of days when the heat index is 105 degrees or higher is projected to increase more than five times by then — from 25 dangerous heat days a year to 130 — more than any other state.

There are also agricultural and economic impacts. Rising temperatures increase the likelihood of droughts and spread insect borne diseases. They will also have a profound impact on outdoor recreation and sports — heat is already a leading cause of death and disability among high school athletes.

The challenges of COVID-19 and climate pollution are connected

Families should not have to decide between keeping their elderly relatives at homes, without air conditioning, and the risking their exposure to the virus. We have to tackle both health threats — defeating the immediate threat of COVID-19, while also dramatically reducing the pollution that’s heating up the planet. That means transitioning to clean energy, electrifying transportation, putting limits on pollution and prioritizing communities that carry the highest burden and health disparities.

As we move to repair the COVID-battered economy, we have a chance to make it better than it was before. In the U.S., we can rebuild better by investing in clean energy to create more jobs and less pollution. In doing so, we’ll reduce shocks to the system from the global pandemic to devastating heat waves made worse by climate change.

It’s time to act.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 6, 2020.

To think about our relationship to soil, we need to start by looking into what healthy, fertile soil looks like. The answer seems to lie in microbes. Microorganisms “digest” nutrients in a form that plant cells can assimilate, and protect plants against pathogens and other threats. Soil microbes have also been responsible for sequestering carbon for hundreds of millions of years. They perform these and other ecosystem services “in exchange” for the organic matter they feed upon. Thousands of years ago, indigenous farmers in the Amazon seem to have understood this. They would fertilize their soils using organic matter, wastes, ceramics and charcoal to form what is known nowadays as terra preta. Today, this dark soil still presents more nutrients, more biomass, and higher pH than other soils in the Amazon, contributing greatly to the rainforest’s biodiversity. There is, then, an undeniable connection between the soil’s biological health and its fertility, as well as with biodiversity and soil’s capacity to sink carbon. A healthy soil is a living soil.

For years, though, the agroindustry has been aggressively destroying the soil microbiome with monocultures dependent on chemical fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides, as well as by using heavy tillage and failing to provide organic matter. Turning living soil into dead dirt, these processes have released tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Plus, they have made the land more and more dependent on other inputs to produce food—inputs which are themselves fossil fuel derivatives and that further pollute water and land, negatively affecting people’s health. If we add to this the fossil-fuel dependent supply chain of export agriculture and the deforestation involved in land-conversion for farming, the results are devastating, positioning the agroindustry as among the most significant contributors to climate change.

The irony is that, as droughts and floods strike harder every year, agriculture is also one of the sectors most affected by climate change, which is why the question of how to produce enough food under the current climate conditions has become central. One of the answers that has gained significant traction is Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), a sort of umbrella concept covering a range of pathways for effectively managing the relationship between agriculture and climate change around three pillars: mitigation, adaptation and increased production. The problem with CSA is that it is goal-oriented and doesn’t define processes or methods. Besides that, it is very narrowly focused on carbon emissions. So when we look at the pathways gaining the most support, we find a set of solutions that may indeed mitigate emissions, but do very little to actually transform business as usual.

Some of the techno-financial solutions proposed, like biotechnology, climate-ready GM crops, intensification, carbon-trading mechanisms for agriculture, and agro-weather tools, represent attractive options for the big players in agriculture because they provide continuity for a high-input, market-oriented model. That is, they give agribusinesses a chance to ‘greenwash’ their activities through technological fixes, while also accessing new climate financing schemes and carbon markets, until now targeted mainly at forestry. On top of that, it opens new market niches for CSA interventions through pilot schemes, reports and top-down capacity building initiatives, and even for crop insurance against climate change events.

Carbon might indeed be mitigated through CSA, but this reductionist fixation with quantifying carbon fails to address other long-standing issues in agriculture like ecosystem pollution, impoverished genetic diversity, land grabs, weakened food sovereignty, destroyed cultural heritage … the list goes on, by some estimates with at least 400 agriculture-related conflicts reported around the globe. Without structural changes in the way food is produced around the globe, although carbon-farming may prove relatively successful we would still miss an opportunity to fix the larger problem: an exploitative relationship with the soil and the people dependent on it. There is, however, an alternative which has proven for decades to be more efficient, even if it comes down to just carbon and yields, but which encompasses a lot more than climate change.

Agroecology is an agricultural paradigm that encourages local food production by small farmers using agroecosystems with minimal to zero dependence on agrochemical and energy inputs. Some of its core principles include recycling nutrients and energy on the farm, enhancing soil organic matter and biological activity, genetic and biological diversity, integrating crops and livestock, and optimizing productivity of the total farm system (rather than yields of a single species). In essence, it is agriculture in true partnership with the living soil.  But beyond this, agroecology also implies a set of social principles that defend peasants’ and indigenous peoples’ access to land, seeds, water, loans and local markets. As such, it is also a movement for food sovereignty. It seeks to break small farmers’ dependence on external inputs and on foreign and volatile markets, and instead build an ecosocial fabric based on cooperation, traditional knowledge systems and on-site farmer innovations shared in horizontal, farmer-to-farmer relationships.

It is estimated that peasants already feed 70% of the world’s people, using less than 25% of the resources (land, water and fossil fuels). It has also been shown that, if measured by total output rather than yields from a single crop, small family farms are much more productive than large-scale agriculture. Besides yields, research in Latin America shows that, compared to chemical-dependent monocultures, agroecological systems tend to be significantly more biodiverse, present greater soil moisture, have larger stocks of carbon, and have also proven more resistant and resilient to natural disasters like hurricanes and droughts. By developing a deep understanding of their biophysical context, peasants and indigenous peoples have been able to tap into nature’s gifts to build diverse, abundant, resilient agrosystems.

In short, agroecology opens the possibility of building an agri-culture not only better prepared to face climate variability, but that also protects the whole ecosystem, sinks larger amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, enhances biological and cultural diversity, and provides food security for local communities. The key to this approach is a holistic understanding of the interconnectedness between biological and social systems, creating a more-than-human web of reciprocity.

Conversely, the CSA dominant pathways promoted by agroindustry seem to think that biophysical conditions are something to be overcome with new technology and bioengineering. They want to manufacture and sell what nature gives freely, making soil and the millions of people working it dependent on tools and tech owned by a few. It would not be the first time. La Via Campesina, an international peasant movement, has convincingly argued that CSA is a continuation of the Green Revolution, expanding and creating new markets for inputs and technology. Only this time around, what was once marketed as ‘progress’ is now presented as ‘climate change solutions.’ A new frontier for an old dominant system. Meanwhile, scientific evidence is increasingly supporting what peasants and indigenous peoples have known for generations, showing that their relationship to land perhaps holds more answers than the reductionist question carbon asks.

We learn from an early age that photosynthesis can pull carbon out of the atmosphere, giving us oxygen and food in return. But we were taught this in a very mechanistic way, overlooking the myriad organisms the process involves and how humans relate to them. From a deeper perspective, climate change is a lot less about greenhouse gas emissions than it is about our underlying relationship with land. We can’t expect to solve agriculture or climate change problems if we keep perceiving our living world only as resources to be exploited and commodified.

Fortunately, all around the world, peasants and indigenous groups have resisted the monocultures of the mind and ground, and have continued to honor the land. It is them, and their living soils, who we need the most at these pressing moments. And so, defending their rights and guaranteeing their access to land and resources is one of fastest, most cost-effective and sustainable ways to make agriculture compatible with a life-supporting planet. Not just because its soil will capture and hold more carbon, but because it will cultivate thriving communities under and above ground.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Aug. 4, 2020.

Since economy and society are embedded in the natural environment, there is an inseparable connection between environmental sustainability and human wellbeing. Awareness of environmental problems and the effects of our daily consumption of products such as coffee is an important requirement for the recoupling of economic and social progress.

According to the International Coffee Organization (ICO), around 1.4 billion cups of coffee are enjoyed every day around the world. That’s certainly a lot of coffee, and while many people love the taste and even struggle to start their day without a warm cuppa, not many stop to think where their coffee has been sourced from and how sustainable these supply chains are.

Brianna Kerr, a Young Global Changer from 2019, and her colleagues are working to change this. Together, they are involved in running Kua, a social enterprise that sources coffee from smallholder farmers in Uganda to market and sell to businesses and workplaces across Australia.

A long-term interest in development

Brianna’s interest in international development issues didn’t begin when Kua was founded in mid-2017. Indeed, it began much earlier. At the age of 15, she was serendipitously asked to sew textiles and donate old fabrics to a non-profit in her hometown of Cooma, located around 115 kilometres from Canberra, Australia’s capital city. Wanting to get more involved, she found herself in remote Papua New Guinea three months later with Rotary International. While there, she helped to teach local women how to sew on refurbished sewing machines but left pondering the sustainability of fly-in, fly-out aid.

What makes Kua different?

Now, as a Founding Director of Kua, Brianna continues to generate positive impact. Her, and her team’s focus is on improving the wellbeing for all those who touch their coffee including growers, drinkers and their team; promoting circular economy for all material inputs and resources starting with their coffee and packaging; and fighting for climate justice and vulnerable generations, both in Australia and Uganda.

“The concept of Kua is pretty simple” says Brianna. “We do world positive coffee for workplaces to make businesses think a little differently about where their products come from and where they end up. Whilst most companies have footprints, we’re striving to leave a handprint: a net-positive impact on society and the environment.”

Their positive impact

Brianna, and her team’s positive impact has been considerable. To date, almost 142,000 coffees have been enjoyed in workplaces around Sydney which has contributed to over two tonnes of coffee grounds being diverted from landfill and repurposed in community gardens. It’s estimated that every kilogram of used coffee grounds collected eliminates 0.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions which equates to a total of more than 1.2 tonnes of CO2 emissions saved.

Furthermore, 300 Ugandan women were provided access to Cents for Seeds, a program run by the Love Mercy Foundation, that provides them with a “30 kilogram loan of seeds such as beans or sesame, as well as a hand held gardening tool, educational workshops and access to savings groups, [thereby] empowering them to reinvest their earnings into food, education and health care.”

Kua also helps to connect the dots between smallholder farmers in Uganda and consumers in Australia through powerful storytelling and the use of innovative virtual reality technology.

“In conjunction with some incredible experts at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, we were able to create an immersive virtual reality experience to help take people to Uganda. Our customers put on the headset and are transported to the coffee plantations on the misty slopes of Mt Elgon. It’s pretty amazing to watch their reactions – it really does help close the producing-consuming gap.”

Some words of advice

Although Brianna professes to be “no expert,” some advice that Brianna offers concerning development and human rights is “nothing for them, without them.” Essential in achieving change”, she adds, is the need to “collaborate, listen and co-design solutions with those that are at the centre of your work. Check yourself constantly and be cognisant of the ways that your biases and experiences can influence your work and others.”

Another challenge is to “think about the entire system when designing solutions for part of the system. That’s sustainability.” Consider Kua, or other social enterprises, and how they work at the nexus of social and environmental change, acknowledging that one doesn’t come without the other – a systems approach to change.

Innovative thinking is also required. “Think and problem solve like a business but lead with the heart of an impact organisation. These two worlds are best when combined, not separated”, she says. Strive to “connect the dots between where your products come from and where they end up” and “test new business models to help respond to the changing needs of people around the world.”

A call to action

Reflecting on her experiences, she says her interest in the social impact space is probably rooted in her mum’s “beautiful and indiscriminate compassion.” She encourages others to think about how they can contribute, no matter how big or small,  as we continue to live in a world striving to overcome many complex, multi-dimensional challenges including “modern slavery, digital security, extremism [and] the increasing wealth gap.”

What is needed is “courageous leadership, innovation and synergy to overcome these challenges”, says Brianna. “We need to come together now more than ever or we’ll fall apart!”

In the context of water management, Grey Infrastructure is the rigid pipe network, concrete, and treatment facilities that have allowed cities to grow ever larger while capturing and conveying water from storms and the waste stream away from concentrated populations. In mechanistic terms, these networks are efficient and effective. Yet the realities of today’s urban places – rapid population growth, crumbling infrastructure, and budget constraints – have put serious strain on grey infrastructure. Further complicating the matter, more extreme weather events fueled by a changing climate are putting many metropolitan areas in growing peril. Hurricane Sandy’s damage to New York City’s housing and infrastructure, estimated at $42 billion, is perhaps the most attention-grabbing example. And other low-lying cities, like Miami, face serious flood control challenges. Sea level rise often cause storm surges to push up through the drains and onto Miami streets. Herein lies the role of green infrastructure.

The US EPA defines green infrastructure as “a cost-effective, resilient approach to managing wet weather impacts that provides many community benefits.” To unpack this definition, green infrastructure is commonly understood to be the use of plants, soils, and other natural processes to manage stormwater runoff on-site. If grey infrastructure manages water like a machine, green infrastructure manages water like an ecosystem. Facilities such as of rain gardens, bioswales, constructed wetlands, and conserved natural spaces show a remarkable ability to store excess runoff created during wet weather events and capture harmful pollutants such as heavy metals. Additionally, there can be serious cost savings in installing green infrastructure over the grey variety.

So, the value proposition is rather compelling. Investment in the greener types of infrastructure has taken off in the last decade. New York City has an ambitious green infrastructure plan in place that aims to manage both storm overflows and flood events (i.e. Hurricane Sandy type storms) and has spent more that $187 million on green infrastructure to date. In 2013, Chicago announced one of the nation’s large volunteer green infrastructure programs, with $50 million committed over five years to complete green infrastructure projects tied other capital investments in strategic locations throughout the city. Milwaukee has similarly ambitious strategies in action. The Fresh Coast 740 Plan looks to manage the first half-inch of rainfall across the entire city, equating to 740 million gallons of stormwater managed through green infrastructure. These investments are important first steps in improving water quality, reducing the burden on overtaxed grey infrastructure, and creating more resilient cities.

Yet there is still a notable opportunity for the services of green infrastructure to extend beyond stormwater management to address other urban challenges such as urban heat island effect, air pollution, habitat loss, and lack of access to green space. Simply increasing the number of street trees, for example, can reduce ambient air temperatures by up to five degrees. And according to Tori Kjer, PLA, the Program Director for the Trust for Public Land’s Los Angeles Program, “[d]eveloping green features in cities has important public safety benefits for vulnerable and underserved populations.” In Los Angeles, only one in three children are in walking distance of a park. Quantifying these benefits can be a little more challenging. But they directly and visibly address quality of life for residents.

Locating green infrastructure then becomes a considerable challenge once climate variability and the other socio-environmental criteria discussed above are properly considered. Scholars, city managers, and major non-profit organizations are moving toward a more informed approach to planning and siting green infrastructure to best capture its multiple benefits.

The Urban Sustainability Research Group in the University of Michigan has been working on the Green Infrastructure Spatial Planning (GISP) model. A framework that utilizes a multi-criteria spatial analysis to assess the tradeoffs of various green infrastructure benefits and identify priority areas. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers serve to describe six green infrastructure planning priorities: stormwater management, social vulnerability, access to green space, air quality, the urban heat island effect, and landscape connectivity. Individual criterion layers are compared and spatial trade-offs analyzed through a composite score. While this type of spatial analysis operates at a relatively course scale, the data used is commonly available for cities across the country and the world. Thus allowing for a fist level of spatial prioritization with minimal investment of time and resources.

The Trust for Public Land’s Climate Smart Cities initiatives are also using spatial data in a similar fashion to help prioritize green infrastructure investment in Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. TLP’s GIS data is organized around four green infrastructure objectives: connection, cool, absorb, and protect – and composite mapping can provide more granular prioritization than the University of Michigan’s GISP model. Milwaukee’s MMSD is also organizing data at a similar spatial resolution for green infrastructure planning down to the street level. However, these types of efforts require detailed, site-specific mapping. Data that is often unavailable to municipalities and funding organizations.

Infrastructure, in any form, is expensive. These types of citywide, data-driven approaches can improve strategic decision making while helping each capital investment to capture multiple benefits.

The tangle of concrete and pipes of cities is not going away. Grey infrastructure serves a critical role in making our urban places possible. The density and connectivity provided by cities is arguably a far more viable future for the world’s populations than sprawling development. But we are increasingly dealing with extreme and unpredictable environments, and the flexibility of green infrastructure has a proven place in this messy system. Using data and drawing upon the growing knowledge of how to urban ecosystems function, we can continue to find ways to make infrastructure work better.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on May 23, 2016.

IAQ is often boiled down to preventing sick building syndrome (SBS,) a complex process of poor ventilation compounded by environmental factors like outside contamination, building materials and inadequate ventilation. The latter is generally considered the primary reason for SBS complaints including cough, headaches, nasal irritation, etc. According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, bioaerosols  are connected to approximately five percent of IAQ issues. Bioaerosols are airborne particles of microbial, animal or plant origin, and include viable or inert viruses, fungi and allergens.

Inhalation of biological agents – whether transmission person to person or transfer from contaminated objects – remains a consistent public health issue in the workplace and in close quarters. Traditionally, as Dr. Brian Crook wrote in 2007, bioaerosol high-risk locations/professions have been understood as medical environments. Within the healthcare setting, airborne contaminates are plentiful, and not just biological agents. Potentially recirculating contaminated air through mechanical ventilation systems, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC ) pushes risks further into the facility beyond the point of exposure when handling diagnostic chemicals, medical waste, aerosolized bodily fluids, etc. Evidence of COVID spread in the hospital setting was studied in China, where the virus was detected on surfaces and in the air. Importantly, this early survey in a hospital setting focused on parts of the air exchange system, with 66.7% of ICU air vent swabs showing the presence of the virus (although it is unclear if it was viable or inert).

A variety of indoor locations may be susceptible to bioaerosol contamination as well, like meat and agricultural processing plants, which are also found to have risks of COVID exposure. The IAQ of processing plants, with their prevalence of hard surfaces, colder air temperatures, and the creation of aerosols along with close proximity of employees, raises the chances of contracting an airborne virus. Workplace exposure to bioaerosols requires not just human-based interventions – handwashing or masks – but long-term technical solutions such as air filtration and, if possible, future technological advances in real-time monitoring.

With COVID altering lives – professionally and personally – groups like the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recently concluded, “that airborne exposure to the virus should be controlled. Changes to building operations, including the operation of heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems, can reduce airborne exposures.” The practice of reducing indoor exposures of dander, allergens and bioaerosols is a well-established cornerstone of IAQ mitigation techniques. The two main strategies to controlling and improving IAQ remain consistent – mechanical or natural methods – with the two sometimes combined as mixed-mode ventilation. Mechanical systems are traditional HVAC, while natural methods include windows or other systems designed to bring in outside air without mechanical assistance, known broadly as stack systems. An essential piece of the mechanical IAQ system remains the air filter.

High-efficiency particulate air filters (HEPA) are filtration systems rated by the size of the contaminant caught in its filtration matrix, with the higher MERV or minimum efficiency reporting value, the more restriction of airborne particulates. It is well understood the COVID-19 size is 0.12 microns, and MERV filters rated 13-16 are considered optimal for capturing airborne viruses. HEPA filters are found primarily in commercial construction, yet some of the best data on the performance of HEPA-type filters in confined space comes from the airline industry. “No evidence has been found that microbial contamination of cabin air entails a greater risk of disease transmission aboard a commercial aircraft,” wrote WHO authors in a 2008 study of aircraft cabin air. The International Air Transport Associate writes that there is, “15 to 20 cubic feet of total air supply per minute per person … [t]he total air supply is essentially sterile and particle-free.” Modern airliners possess redundant air filtration systems that constantly circulate and completely refresh air 20 to 30 times an hour. While this level of technical intervention is not proposed for buildings, it does demonstrate the quality of air achievable through thorough mechanical ventilation.

Based on the current understanding of COVID, ASHRAE recommends specific interventions to deal with the virus: increase outdoor ventilation (which increases dilution of individual ventilation), improve central air filters to a MERV 13 standard, and reduce air recirculation within the system. Air quality engineers at ASHRAE also suggest the use of portable HEPA air filters and consider ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) for particular spaces. IEEE member Anderson Maciel notes IAQ’s best action, “seems to be the use of filters. Several ultraviolet light or ozone-based filters that kill viruses and bacteria have existed for years.” Even with the on-hand filters, UV irradiators, increase of natural airflow rates options, no one solution has been identified as we still learn about the novel virus.

And, without consensus as to how long COVID stays viable in the air or on surfaces, the distances it may typically travel, and whether speech is as distributive as a cough, IAQ elements and techniques may add to the non-pharmaceutical interventions recommended by health official`s around the world until a vaccine becomes available.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on July 23, 2020.

The displaced primarily shelter in makeshift camps on the Turkish border, exposed to the extreme weather of an unusually cold winter. Dozens of people have already frozen to death or died of asphyxiation due to crude, improvised heaters in tents. The images of children frozen in their sleep or in their parents’ embrace are the latest additions to the gallery of haunting reminders of the suffering of Syrians extending over the last nine years.

Despite the extreme conditions of displacement, a large majority of them are not willing to return to a Syria under Assad’s rule or live under Russia-sponsored reconciliation agreements, as seen in a recent snap poll conducted by the Syrian Association for Citizens’ Dignity (SACD). They are desperate to cross into Turkey and continue toward Europe in search of safety for their children.

Why is it that these desperate people, despite the uncertainty of migration and despite the extreme conditions of displacement, refuse to return to the so-called “liberated” areas under Assad’s control? Understanding the answer to this question is of crucial importance, not only for all of those tasked with responding to the largest humanitarian crisis of our time, but also those involved in seeking long term solutions for the Syrian conflict. It is especially important for European countries and EU decision makers who believe that the solutions for the massive displacement of Syrians are in cash payments to Turkey to block movement to European shores, or in erecting barbed wire fences and militarizing their borders.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Sustainability is also becoming profitable. Market forces are expanding the cleantech sector at an unprecedented rate, as entrepreneurs and governments work together to upgrade energy grids with solar, wind, and hydro power.

Since at least 2012, these factors have quietly driven the growth of companies focused on producing renewable energy, efficient technologies, and electric vehicles. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the global number of jobs in cleantech reached the impressive figure of 10.3 million in 2017. Growth in cleantech jobs means that an economy based on sustainable energy could soon gain political and financial support across the globe.

Where are the cleantech gains happening? Let’s take a deeper dive into the job growth numbers.

United States: Cleantech Sector Employs 4 Million People

In the United States, the cleantech sector hires about 4 million people for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and vehicle companies.

Renewable energy companies account for 777,000 jobs in the U.S. cleantech sector. Renewable energy companies are direct producers of alternative energy. Bioenergy producers are the largest employers in the United States. Solar energy producers are expected to grow over the coming years, but they are currently the second largest employers in the cleantech sector.

The job growth figures from the wind and solar sectors are impressive. From 2016 to 2017, solar jobs grew by 24.5 percent. During the same period, wind energy jobs grew by 16 percent.

While job contributions from renewable energy companies are significant, larger gains were realized by energy efficiency companies. Energy efficiency companies generally focus on new ways to conserve energy for things like appliances, automobiles, and energy grids. Energy efficiency companies hire engineers and scientists, so they have benefited from the recent push for STEM in universities.

According to EDF, 2.2 million people are currently employed by energy efficiency companies the United States.

Vehicle companies account for a relatively small but significant number of cleantech jobs. Companies like Ford and Chevrolet employ 174,000 people to produce advanced vehicles. 50 percent of these jobs are related to the production of hybrid electric vehicles.

Employment in the International Cleantech Sector

U.S. enterprises make large contributions to the development of the cleantech sector, but most job gains are based in other countries. The recent report by IRENA provides a helpful breakdown of job creation by country and by type of energy.

By Country

The number of cleantech jobs in 2017 was 5.3 percent higher than the equivalent jobs in 2016, indicating a gain of about 550,000 jobs. Most jobs are located in China, Brazil, India, the United States, Germany, and Japan.

60 percent of all cleantech jobs are in Asia. This trend is spurred by infrastructure-led economic development in China and India. China has contributed a large amount of its fiscal resources to develop an economy based on solar energy. The aim of the initiative is to produce jobs while improving public health. India has adopted a similar initiative, but their planners are also focusing on hydropower.

If there are no major setbacks, the cleantech sector could employ 28 million people by 2050. However, the future of China is uncertain; it is unclear whether Chinese investments and subsidies in cleantech are sustainable due to a growing deficit in China’s cleantech sector. If Chinese solar plants do not begin to offer economic returns soon, planners may be forced to reduce spending.

By Type of Energy

Solar PV firms play an increasingly important role in the global economy. These companies added 94 gigawatts to the global solar energy capacity in 2017. They also contributed 3.4 million jobs to the global economy. Meanwhile, the global wind energy sector created 1.15 million jobs.

The graph below provides an in-depth account of  the growth in cleantech jobs in the global economy.

Source: IRENA

As the graph shows, solar PV has now outpaced bioenergy as the largest source of employment in the cleantech sector. Job gains in wind energy have remained relatively steady since 2014. Interestingly, jobs in the large hydropower sector have declined since 2013.

Causes of Cleantech Job Growth

The recent uptick in cleantech jobs is largely due to changing market conditions and government policies. Demand for electricity is growing in the developing world. This growth in demand coincides with high participation in international climate agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Accords. When taken together, these factors lead to high governmental investment in renewable energy technologies.

Private enterprises are also involved in the cleantech sector to a much greater extent than ever before. The growth of a sustainable alternative energy market can be credited to falling renewable energy costs. Since 2010, the costs of solar and wind energy have fallen in North America. This is a result of more efficient producers and better functioning alternative energy markets.

Source: World Economic Forum

Will the Trend Continue?

Global cleantech jobs will continue to rise as more private enterprises and governments ramp up their efforts to combat climate change and pollution. This is good news for both workers and the environment.

As a source of jobs and good public health, the cleantech sector is supported by many governments across the globe. There are strong incentives to maintain momentum. China, India, and U.S. states like California have indicated this fact by establishing goals for carbon-free energy.

Unfortunately, most of the current growth of cleantech jobs across the globe depends on support from China’s government and private sectors. In 2017, China invested $126.6 billion in the cleantech sector, leading to more R&D and job growth. Many economists agree that China will not be able to continue these investments if the growing credit bubble tanks the Chinese economy. If the Chinese economy falters, the cleantech sector may need some short-term support from advanced economies like the United States. Under the Trump administration, such support seems unlikely.

Not all hope is lost though. Cleantech markets continue to expand as profit opportunities become available for entrepreneurs across the globe. The falling price of crude oil is pushing traditional fossil fuel investors to the cleantech sector. Falling solar energy production costs and higher demand will also boost private cleantech growth.

The near-term prospects are uncertain, but, barring any unseen factors, it seems that the long-term future of the cleantech sector is secure. Expect cleantech job growth to continue in the next decade.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on October 16, 2018.

The European Union’s fisheries, i.e. zones where concentrated populations of fish spawn, are governed by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which determines things like access to fisheries, the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in one year (called the Total Allowable Catch, or TAC), and the kinds of gear fishers can use at sea. In part due to CFP regulations, cod fisheries in the North Sea recovered after a precipitous fall in the latter half of the 20^th century, and was even certified as sustainable in 2017, meaning they can be fished without worry over permanent damage done.

Yet this success hides deep tensions within the CFP, tensions which are echoed in fishery management worldwide, between fishers and fishery scientists. A study of CFP meetings and committees in the early 2000s found that despite the universality of scientific language, much of the policymaking activity was marred with conflict over different “scales of knowledge.”  This phrase refers to the differences in worldviews between the two parties, with scientists believing in the importance of broad, ecosystem-wide, long-term analysis and decision-making, and the fishers insistent on the importance of their local and practical knowledge, and their ability to “smell” the real state of fisheries. It was these tensions over CFP policy which led to regionalization efforts in 2002/2003, bringing fishers and  industry voices into policy discussions. These changes were followed up by even bigger reforms in 2013, when the CFP decentralized and ceded its policymaking power to the regional level, bringing in even more powerbrokers.

But the impact of these tensions between local fishers and industry on one hand, and scientists working for broad, ecosystem-level reforms and governance on the other, has not stopped with just reforms – it was one of the factors leading to the famous 2016 referendum on the UK’s EU membership, triggering Brexit. This is most clearly seen in the case of Scotland, which makes up a majority of fishing activity in the UK: whereas 62% of the total Scottish population voted to remain in the EU, among Scottish fishers this same number was only 7%, meaning 93% of Scottish fishers were in favor of leaving the EU. A study interviewing fishers in two of Scotland’s biggest fishing towns found that there was widespread distrust of the CFP and of scientists’ warnings and policy suggestions, which the fishers saw as too “broad and generalizing”.

The impact of this enmity on the sustainability of fisheries is not yet entirely clear, but precedent should give cause for concern. This same disconnect between fishers and the scientific community isn’t new, and was even present during the advent of industrialized fishing. The roles were initially reversed then, with UK fishermen calling for the international community to establish rules to ensure the sustainability of fisheries, while the uncertainty of the fairly young science of fisheries acted as a damping force on these efforts. Yet when further scientific study found the sustainability concern to be a valid one, the rift was already established, and the change of heart among fishers meant that no regulations were enacted until half a century after the initial attempt.

There is reason to believe that the outcome of this tension might lead to similar inertia on issues of sustainability. One study characterized the regulation which kicked off the CFP reforms of 2013 as strangely ambiguous, devolving decision-making power to the local level but not setting up guarantees of accountability, participation or transparency. The resultant institutions governing regional fishery management are extremely opaque, with many of them lacking public websites, phone numbers or even physical headquarters. Their interactions with public institutions is also worrying – according to the same study, during planning sessions the Scheveningen group, involved with policymaking in the North Atlantic, allowed an official CFP body only 15 minutes to present its suggestions, after which it was barred from attending any further deliberations.

With economic disruptions like Brexit and opaque institutions like the Scheveningen Group and Baltfish, it’s clear that if left unchecked, the rift between the scientific community and the industry can lead to outcomes that make large-scale management of fishery use very difficult. This should be concerning, since such unity is vital in a time where climate change is generating patterns that are global, not regional. It’s equally vital, then, both to bridge the gap between the local and the central in existing institutions, and to fight against their cannibalization by opaque groups captured by local interests. As true as this is for fisheries in the Atlantic, it is equally true for a whole range of industries that have an impact on our environment, from poaching endangered species to policymaking in the energy sector. This is a lesson that must be heeded wherever sustainability is a concern.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on July 15, 2020.

Since the COVID-19 virus began its spread around the globe last year, officials and health authorities have searched for ways of catching outbreaks before they surge and tax healthcare resources. In the spring of 2020, Massachusetts-based BioBot made international headlines for its discovery of COVID in Boston-area municipal wastewater. The study claimed to have clearly isolated COVID in wastewater at a regional Massachusetts treatment plant with samples collected in March. At the time, official COVID estimates for the region served by the wastewater treatment plant were under 500, but according to BioBot, the count of COVID infected was closer to 2,300.

Historical use of wastewater surveillance started in the mid-20^th century but was not until the 21^st century that its promise to a broader application to epidemiology was realized. Dealing with a polio outbreak in 2013, Israeli scientists traced the disease to a specific community after samples were automatically collected from wastewater trunk lines and analyzed for polio in fecal matter. In the same year, Swedish scientists examined wastewater for eight pathogens, hoping to create an early-warning system ahead of outbreaks, specifically for Hepatitis A and Norovirus, with the collected samples effectively identifying both illnesses before wide spread. When the cousin of COVID-19, SARS, appeared in China in 2003, the outbreak was tracked using wastewater surveillance. Today, scientists utilize similar methods to identify and track COVID-19, specifically by seeking out viral RNA in fecal matter.

Since the early April news, more time has been spent analyzing wastewater as a form of advanced warning or sentinel program in the fight against COVID. This month, the state of Utah announced the discovery of COVID in wastewater there, estimating  64% of 171 samples were positive for the novel virus. Dutch researchers reported in a pre-print that they came upon COVID in early March 2020, while municipalities in Texas and Florida have undertaken a similar analysis of wastewater, with the latter reporting “wastewater is chock-full of the virus.”

Published in the most recent Water Research, Spanish researchers found that COVID in wastewater from a specific region predicted a rise in cases among an otherwise unknown cohort. Researchers wrote their wastewater surveillance data, “were compared to declared COVID-19 cases at the municipality level, revealing that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating among the population even before the first cases were reported by local or national authorities in many of the cities where wastewaters have been sampled.”

A better view of the timeliness of wastewater-based epidemiology comes recently from Clemson, South Carolina, where the city and university have begun tracking COVID in waste streams with samples flagging cases before they appear among the public. Norman, professor at the University of South Carolina, said that with wastewater surveillance, “we’re able to test not only those people who are symptomatic … but we’re able to detect this in asymptomatic people who may not even know that they’re carrying it.” One of the continuing reasoning for social distancing and mask-wearing around the nation has been the potential spread of COVID in asymptomatic people.

Like in Massachusetts, the epidemiological surveillance provided by wastewater sampling has demonstrated the occurrence of COVID in cities earlier than expected. In the middle of June, Italian researchers reported that wastewater surveillance in Milan and Turin revealed the presence of COVID in those communities in December 2019. Utilizing samples taken between October 2019 and January 2020, researchers concluded the presence of the novel virus on the 18^th of December, predating the first official case in the region by two months. Researchers in a pre-print report the presence of COVID in Parisian wastewater samples taken on March 5 before a spike in COVID-related deaths on March 10 with concentrations of COVID in wastewater precede clinical cases.

Spain, the United States, and France join country after country, including Japan, and India in the discovery of the predictive quality of wastewater surveillance in the age of COVID. Through regular, automatic sampling of wastewater will be vital in preventing renewed outbreaks of viruses like COVID. Adding viral RNA detection protocols to wastewater samples already regularly taken to detect contamination, illicit discharges or infiltration could be less logistically burdensome,  and therefore potentially more cost-effective. The final potential social bonus is the noninvasive route of remote surveillance. And, where some communities distrust or are skeptical of broad or random testing for religious or civil liberties reasons, the use of wastewater-based epidemiology surveillance removes concerns over privacy invasion or the forfeiture of personal integrity rights.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on July 8, 2020.

In Operation Unified Response, well-coordinated efforts between the government of Haiti (GOH), the U.S. State Department, UN, USAID and the U.S. Department of Defense resulted in the allocation of critical resources where and when they were most needed. Due to the absence of well-developed institutions in Haiti, U.S. and coalition partners were required to funnel in critical resources throughout each phase of the crisis management response. Civilian and military partners brought immediate life-saving medical treatment, food, water and shelter in the near term and facilitated vital infrastructure-rebuilding projects over the long term. Given the extant institutional deficiencies within Haiti, the overwhelming civil-military response became a critical capacity-building bridge for the nation. However, despite well-intentioned efforts to allocate critical resources, multinational partners failed to incorporate the Haitian population’s more protracted needs in their decision-making process. As such, these capacity-building efforts yielded limited results over time. Isolated from important UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) and U.S. military decision-making cycles, key policy makers within the GOH were unable to create lasting beneficial reforms for the larger Haitian population.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Empowerment is an essential component of individual wellbeing, but also of the wellbeing of societies, according to the Global Solutions Recoupling Dashboard, a new tool for measuring wellbeing beyond traditional economic approaches. Alexandra Kodjabachi, a Young Global Changer from Lebanon is working towards empowering young people through education.

While aware that there are significant global development challenges, Alexandra is optimistic that today’s youth can – and should – play a prominent role in helping to overcome them. “Knowing that there are people from Costa Rica to Liberia to Tasmania actively impacting their communities and beyond gives me back hope in what we can build together,” she confidently states.

Having been selected as a 2017 Young Global Changer, her passion is to empower other young people to be who they are and all they can become. She does this by helping them tap into their own potential in order to embrace their authentic self, develop 21^st century skills and identify opportunities to unleash their ideas and power. “Wherever I looked around me, I’d find young minds full of potential yet clueless about the value that they can bring and unsure of what they can and want to do,” she notes.

Wanting to continue promoting and inspiring change amongst young people, Alexandra was motivated to establish PersEd, a training, coaching and consultancy enterprise guiding personal education, professional growth and lifelong learning. Cultivating the power of “network thinking” and “network doing,” it empowers young minds to get ready for the challenges and opportunities of the 21^st century.

Initiatives like PersEd aim at strengthening ‘Agency’ in young people. Agency describes the ability of people to influence their own fate through their own efforts, which according to the Recoupling Dashboard is one of the key indicators of any society’s wellbeing.

Establishing her own social enterprise

Founded in Lebanon in 2016, PersEd provides experiences for learning and inspiration by bringing young people together and helping to “connect the dots.” Activities offered include the organisation as well as facilitation of experiential and holistic workshops based on non-formal education techniques (such as dance, simulation and games), the creation  of masterminds that build upon the collective intelligence of small youth community venues for guided growth, the offering of individualised one-on-one and group coaching sessions with young students and professionals for clear goal setting and, last but not least, the delivery of motivational speeches.

While proud of her achievements to date, and aware of her desire to empower and support increased numbers of young people, Alexandra is conscious of her journey to get to this point and the hard work required.

A lifelong process of self-reflection and learning

Her learning process has been both international and multidimensional. Part of this journey has seen her receive training from Hasso Plattner Institut  School of Design coaches while in Berlin for the inaugural Global Solutions Summit in 2017, explore Deloitte’s innovation process in Singapore and undertake a two year leadership program with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Other avenues of learning have included extensive reading, independent research, interviews with others and ongoing self-analysis.

Empowering others

Ultimately, “amazing initiatives” can only be built on and strengthened if they are known about to begin with,” says Alexandra. This should not just be a process of learning about such initiatives “randomly through a quick conversation at a conference, but globally and with a depth that will allow changemakers to know more about it and engage with it for further collaborations.” Being aware of innovative programs, initiatives and networks “driven towards sustainability” can be the inspiration “for more young entrepreneurial minds to join this global movement of positive changemaking.”

Building further on her views, she believes being aware is not enough. Having “ongoing conversations” and “exchanging thoughts” are essential for facilitating connections and partnerships, breaking down barriers and proceeding forward in a systematic way. “We need to find end-goals inspired by similarity and complementarity where parties can contribute to each other’s objectives in clusters of mutual support and/or combine their strengths to coordinate at a larger scale.”

What next?

Alexandra and her team are continuously expanding their outreach and activities outside Lebanon. For example, one of PersEd’s most recent projects, Better Me 2020, collaborated with ambassadors from seven countries across four continents, and surveyed youth from all over the world through social media to know what skills they need and want to learn. They gathered more than 16,700 interactions, leading up to the selection – by the youth – of top five skills (creativity, self-awareness, public speaking, self-discipline and sleep management) that will be tackled through fun and practical online learning experiences.

Important too, is building off the work of other established and engaged youth networks such as the World Youth Forum network who Alexandra was invited to speak at in late 2019, and the Young Global Changers alumni network. “By starting a borderless conversation” we help reinvent existing models and systems and “build bridges between theory and practice, between what needs to be done to successfully shift paradigms and [determine] what each [person or organisation] is willing to do to make that happen.”

Ultimately, her call to action is “Whoever you are – young professional, university student, innovator in education, human resource manager, thinker, futurist [and/or] entrepreneur – we would love to start a borderless conversation. Let’s help each other. Let’s work together. Let’s change the world together.”

The coronavirus is inflicting a heavy toll on America: Over 100,000 dead, almost two million infected, and more than 40 million unemployed. Beating the virus is the top priority. But we also need to put people back to work as fast as safety allows. How we go about that now will determine our nation’s economic future for decades.

To achieve lasting prosperity, we need to rebuild better by investing in jobs that restart the economy, improve the environment and move us to a cleaner future.

Energy jobs in free fall

Before the pandemic, clean energy was one of the U.S. economy’s fastest-growing job creators — up more than 10% between 2015 and 2019, employing nearly 3.5 million people (three times the number working in fossil fuels). The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted last year that solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians would be two of the fastest growing occupations of the next decade.

But then clean energy lost at least 600,000 jobs in March and April alone, according to BW Research. More than 95,000 workers in the renewables industry found themselves on the street. But the largest share came from energy efficiency — the building trades that install new lighting or heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems in homes and offices.

While California lost the most, Florida, Georgia, Texas and Michigan each shed over 22,000 clean energy jobs in April alone. This comes on top of news from the oil patch, where tens of thousands of workers have been furloughed or laid off due to the historic drop in global oil and gas demand.

Clean energy as key to economic recovery

It is hard to imagine rebuilding our economy without a strategy for getting America’s energy workers back to work. There is not a moment to lose for those folks facing next month’s mortgage payment.

So what can we do right now?

For starters, Congress could bring back direct payments and expanded tax credits to renewable energy developers, and expand existing incentive programs already in place. Lawmakers could also revive successful programs to fund energy efficiency investment in homes, schools and municipal buildings nationwide — precisely the workforce hit hardest in the pandemic. They could also pass a bill to step up construction of electric vehicle infrastructure.

E2, a nonpartisan group of over 8,000 business leaders, investors and other professionals, assembled a much more detailed list in a recent letter to Congress.

We know how effective these policies are. In fact, the pre-virus clean jobs boom was due at least partly to the stimulus bill passed after the 2008 financial crisis, which provided the biggest investment in clean energy in U.S. history. That package funded 100,000 projects, provided loans to help companies like Tesla build new factories and tripled our wind and solar capacity.

Oil & gas workforce, today and tomorrow

There are plenty of valuable skillsets across the oil and gas industry that could also do a lot of good for the environment. Putting oil patch workers back in the field to plug and remediate the tens of thousands of old, orphan wells could stop untold amounts of methane and other pollution from leaking into the air and water indefinitely.

There’s also an urgent need to fix leaks and cut emissions at active oil and gas facilities still operating. The Canadian government included support for such measures in its energy stimulus plan. Ironically, U.S. oil and gas companies have been pressing to roll back rules that already require some of this.

In the face of a contracting industry, oil and gas workers will confront a changing energy job market, marked by increasingly stiff competition from zero-emission energy sources and the wave of automation and consolidation that has followed every down cycle in the history of their boom-and-bust industry.

That’s why a smart and equitable national energy strategy would be structured to put people back to work immediately, taking full advantage of the skills they currently have, even as we invest in the technologies and skills necessary for a cleaner and more sustainable future.

Over the longer term, the skills of many traditional oil and gas workers will be in demand constructing and maintaining offshore wind turbines, engineering and operating industrial carbon capture and storage projects, or producing and distributing the ‘green’ hydrogen that could one day play a role in meeting the energy needs for transportation, industry and buildings.

It’s time to rebuild better

Shocks to the system, from the global pandemic and civil unrest to devastating weather events made worse by climate change, have all underscored the importance of decisive policy action.

Restarting the American economy and pointing ourselves in the direction of sustained growth requires us to embrace and accelerate the many changes that were already underway to transition the global energy system toward a net-zero economy by 2050.

There are plenty of good clean energy-related jobs at the ready for oil and gas and clean energy workers together, if federal policymakers embrace a clean energy future and take the actions necessary to achieve it. American energy workers are counting on them to do their part and get the job done right.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 17, 2020.

This is seen most clearly not in the broad trends, but in the differences that emerge from the details. Germany, for example, has managed to keep its number of deaths below 10,000 despite having its first outbreak as early as January; the U.S., on the other hand, is more than ten times that. This divergence is nowhere more clear than in Italy however, one of the surprise protagonists of the coronavirus saga. A country thousands of kilometers from the virus’ origin in Wuhan, it nevertheless became one of the first to be hit hard and subsequently go into lockdown – it in fact surpassed China in the number of deaths as early as March.

What is even more interesting about the Italian case is how the pandemic was divided within the country: it was not the poorer and less-developed regions of its south, but the wealthy northern provinces that were hit the hardest. While Italy’s richest province Lombardy has been the worst hit with over 16,000 deaths so far, poorer provinces like Campania still remain in the low hundreds. Both the severity of the pandemic in Italy as a whole and Lombardy specifically is puzzling, considering the supposed strength of their healthcare systems. In a 2014 report the OECD called Italy’s healthcare system “uniformly impressive”, and Lombardy’s private/public partnership was considered a paragon of smart healthcare management.

Writing in the New Statesman, Ben Munster argues that the reason for this strange set of divergences was what privatization meant for the structure of healthcare in Lombardy. He writes that while on individual treatment the private hospitals and clinics were technically excellent, the incentives in a privately managed system meant that where and how they applied this excellent service varied. Seeking profit, the clinics cut costs by preferring to treat more profitable patients, thus providing less coverage but diverting more government funds away from public hospitals. When the pandemic hit, not only did the profit-motive make it such that these private clinics avoided accepting COVID patients until forcible requisitions by the government, but the lean management methods meant that they had little capacity to help even when forced to.

This example highlights an important priority in questions of management: resilience. Profit-based management incentivizes cutting costs to maximize profits, but this reduces the buffer available for when crises hit. This is true in many industries worldwide, which in the last decades have switched to the “just-in-time” model of management, organizing supply chains so that everything arrives just in time, with no slack or waste. This lack of “waste” is also a lack of space, however, and the disruption of the coronavirus has demonstrated the fragility of industries operating on this model – particularly when they rely on global supply lines.

All this should give us a broader perspective on the question of sustainability, and highlight the role of resilience in relation to it. Since things nearly never go all as planned, that a system can deliver results and grow, even indefinitely, if all goes as planned is not enough to call it sustainable. To achieve longevity, a system must be capable of responding to unforeseen shocks as well as functioning under normal conditions. A 2019 issue of Nature Sustainability highlighted this relation in an editorial, giving as an example of how the increasing connectedness and productivity of global agriculture “is actually eroding its resilience.” This erosion of resilience goes even deeper than human structures, as loss of biodiversity can lead to the fragility of entire ecosystems worldwide.

In other words, what COVID demonstrates is that the challenge of sustainability is neither a test to find the most efficient arrangement, nor a rumbling beneath the earth, set to emerge on some day of reckoning. It is a series of crises that we must be able to face, and which the most helpless among us are already facing. A system that cuts costs and heightens inequality merely increases the precarity of more and more people, inviting their ruination at the hands of the next crisis. As larger and larger sections of society are left vulnerable to such events, however, they leave the system hollow, threatening its collapse. The only other option is change.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on June 10, 2020.

Globally, around 1.6 billion people lack access to adequate housing, and it’s estimated that $11 trillion will be required to meet the current housing shortage. With a growing global population, finite resources and the effects of climate change it is evident that innovative solutions will be required. Nabeel Siddiqui, who represented Pakistan as a Young Global Changer in 2019, is promoting an alternative, yet sustainable approach to housing.

Him and his team at their start-up, ModulusTech, have “developed a flat-packed housing technology which is cost-effective, quick to set up and provides proper living conditions while being relocatable.” Flat packed autonomous houses can be raised quickly without the need for specialist equipment, can have their own renewable electricity and waste supplies and can be expanded though add-ons if required. They can also be transported easily and quickly into areas where they are needed, for example, into disaster areas.

Says Nabeel, “our long-term vision is to create autonomous communities that run completely off-grid using low-carbon energy efficient housing, smart microgrids that best utilise renewable energy, solar powered water purification systems and a sustainable food supply.” Housing and shelter are two of the most basic human needs and without these we cannot reach our true potential.

In his personal blog Nabeel mentions his shock at the large number of refugees that have arrived in Pakistan in recent years as well as other nations. “From refugees to people losing their homes due to earthquakes, and flooding, Pakistan has seen a large number of displacements and is currently facing a shortage of over 10 million housing units” he acknowledges adding that “a large urban population (over 45%) lives in slums or shanty towns.” His enterprise was born from there.

At present, each house produced is 16×16 square feet, can be assembled by only three people in about three hours. It is worth around USD 3,000 and has a lifespan of about 30 years. If necessary, such as because of an impending natural disaster warning, houses can be packed up and moved to a new location. Eleven flat-pack houses can be transported anywhere on a single truck thereby potentially enabling entire new communities of houses to be set up within as little as a month. Since 2019, his team have built almost 60 houses with more already planned.

The impacts of climate change are of major concern to Nabeel who believes no single individual or organisation can resolve it. “Given the little time to solve this crisis before it is too late” he says, “if we want to save the planet, we must all show resolve, everyone needs to do what they can and work multilaterally.” He also suggests that what’s required is a focus on “long term impact, forming partnerships and taking calculated risks [to] help expedite progress and tackle sustainable development issues.”

It is estimated that each flat-pack house has a carbon footprint 52 times lower than traditional concrete homes. Recent trials in the desert have proved their ability to remain cooler than the outside environment even when external temperatures reach 50 degrees Celsius or more. This is largely thanks to the passive strategies, use of energy efficient composite materials and the use of insulation. Current and potential uses for houses like these and off-grid, energy efficient units include affordable housing, health clinics, school classrooms, disaster response units, military camps, temporary facilities, site offices, labour housing, public toilets and eco-tourist rooms.

Innovative partnerships with other organisations and the Young Global Changers (YGC) alumni network have also been of significance to Nabeel as a start-up founder. “The sheer passion and willingness of the YGCs to take on world challenges” he says “is truly inspiring” and that “getting to know the YGCs gave me a lot of [assurances].” In the future, he believes it would be highly beneficial if “we could somehow pool this human resource to work on selective ideas” and YGCs with specific expertise and skills could be paired with others looking to tackle complex, multi-dimensional sustainable development challenges like housing.

Not being “too sure about the future” suggests that Nabeel has considered the vast scale of the housing challenge. While happy to be recognised and awarded, his immediate focus is on continuing to grow his business and providing more low-cost affordable homes to those who most need them. As he says in his blog, “the gratification makes the struggle worth it. And the sheer potential impact of the product is what keeps you going.”

Though images of felled trees, burning forests, oil-tarred birds and stranded polar bears may be the most commonplace and evocative representatives of the dangers facing our environment, the less visible and perhaps less sympathetic fisheries of the world hold just as important a role in the preservation of global sustainability as any cause. Our interactions with them being mainly marketized, it may be tempting to think of fisheries in the same way one would about cows, sheep, chickens and other livestock, as somehow separate from wilderness and thus the environment, and as such not subject to questions of endangerment or depletion. But fisheries, i.e. concentrated fishing areas where fish live and spawn, are vital both in the economic bonds linking the bounties of nature to our basic needs, and in the story of climate change and environmental degradation.

Atlantic cod is an unfortunately good example of this, as the trajectory of its fortunes follows the major shifts that have defined our interactions with nature throughout recent history. While the history of cod fishing goes much further back, the 19^th century saw a boom in cod fishing with the new capabilities provided by the industrial revolution. New fishing nets and steam engines meant that more fish could be caught with greater ease, and railroads opened inland markets to fresh fish for the first time, creating a boom in demand. As the forerunner of industrialization, the UK was also in the vanguard of industrialized fishing, expanding its operations well beyond its immediate borders. This late 19^th century boom led to a precipitous decline in the stocks of many fish, though the Atlantic cod were hit particularly badly. Trawlers scraped the bottom of the seabed where cod spawn, effectively destroying their ability to rejuvenate the stocks. This shocked both the local fishing communities who came to the brink of collapse when British trawlers started depleting the fish they depended upon, and the British fishers themselves, who pushed for international agreements to reign in this new fishing boom.

The intervening crises of WWI, the Great Depression, and then WWII stymied any efforts to organize regulations on fishing, but also gave local communities such as Iceland some breathing space to recuperate and build fishing fleets that could compete with their UK counterparts. Yet the peace following the end of WWII unleashed the fleets of the developed nations once again, and cod stocks went into panic-inducing declines. It was only with the waging of the “Cod Wars” by Iceland, a series of legal and political disputes which saw Icelandic ships physically pushing British fishing boats out of Icelandic waters, that international law moved to change the status quo. What resulted was the Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ, which stipulated that waters up to 200 nautical miles out from a nation’s coast is under their exclusive control, as opposed to the older three miles.

With this, and a series of reforms to fishery management that ran through the 1980s and 1990s, cod stocks regained some of their health, a trend that continued into the 2000s, and can be seen in North Sea cod fisheries being certified as “sustainable” in 2017. The combination of purposeful measures to protect sustainability, and increased local control by countries like Iceland, for which cod fishing is an existential issue, things seemed more promising.

The recent downturn has belied this optimistic outlook, but in some ways should not be surprising. Fishery science is still a relatively uncertain science, and as such its ability to measure the sustainability and health of a certain fishery is limited. Indeed, the improvement in the outlook of cod fisheries in the 2000s, when measured against a much longer trend from the late 19^th century until today, does not seem as decisive as when compared to the period immediately before it.

A study in 2010 in Nature argues that this is part of the problem: that in understanding fisheries, the perspective to be taken needs to be one of much broader scales, both in time and space. It isn’t the past five or even ten years that tell us the ecological trends, but the past 100; it isn’t changes in a limited local fishery that should dictate our concerns, but the entire ecosystem. Proclamations by private groups like the MSC, the majority of whose funding comes from licensing, shouldn’t determine policymaking; the broader trends, spanning decades and entire ecosystems, should. If we are going to face the environmental upheavals sending shockwaves through our whole planet, then this is the scale on which we need to think and act.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on May 27, 2016.

Renewable Energy Independent Power Procurement Programme

Ken Fullerton (KF): Moving on, let’s focus on South Africa’s internationally acclaimed Renewable Energy Independent Power Procurement Programme (REIPPP) which has helped keep on the lights and prevent more extreme load-shedding from occurring. Four bidding rounds have already occurred and projects are in various stages of operation and construction. Despite preferred bidders being selected and announced for Round 4, why was there a delay in signing he contracts? How can this be avoided in Round 5?

Chris Ahlfeldt (CA): Eskom’s historic monopoly over power generation in the country created a conflict of interest with IPPs that sell electricity through Eskom. Even though the IPP costs were a direct pass through to customers, Eskom tried to delay the signing of contracts they saw as a threat to the energy sales from their generation fleet. Fortunately, the government’s Eskom Roadmap published last year should help address this conflict by reforming Eskom and the electricity sector in a way that allows for IPPs to sell directly to an independent Transmission System Operator for future procurement rounds of the REIPPP.

KF: In what ways has Blue Horizon supported REIPPP socio-economic development related projects and initiatives?  And, how can these be transferred and scaled up on other REIPPP projects and key learnings be shared?

CA: We did a study for South Africa’s Solar PV Industry Association a few years ago on some of the lessons learned from solar projects in Rounds 1 and 2 on localization and economic development of REIPPPP. Likewise, similar research is also underway by South Africa’s Wind Energy Association (SAWEA), and other organizations so hopefully government factors in recommendations from the latest research and data on this topic to make sure Round 5 is as impactful for local communities and the economy as possible.

Empowering the next generation of energy professionals

KF: Thinking about the future, you are involved in teaching the next generation of young energy professionals at University of Stellenbosch Business School. What is your role there and why is it important to empower the next generation?

CA: I recently began teaching an Environmental Finance course at the University of Stellenbosch Business School and have helped with guest lecturing there over the past couple years. The clean energy and sustainability industries have the potential to address high youth unemployment in the country, so it’s important to teach the next generation of young professionals and future leaders in this field some of the practical skills they can apply when working in the industry.

I also volunteer my time to help run a youth sports and education non-profit in Cape Town called Yebo Volleyball, which has been another fun way to give back to the next generation. It’s been really rewarding to see some of the kids we first coached in primary school now studying at University and benefiting from volleyball scholarships while also helping us with the coaching at the primary schools where they graduated!

KF: How would you encourage more young professionals to get interested in studying energy, in particular renewables, at school and university and consider pursuing a career in the field?

CA: Taking classes on the subject is a good start if those are available at your school. If not, there are free resources online from other universities and online platforms like Coursera and the World Bank Online Class List about various renewable energy topics and entrepreneurial funding opportunities. I would also recommend speaking with people that work in the field to understand what they do for their job and what skills or qualifications they needed to get there. Likewise, trying to get up to speed on the latest current events through podcasts and local publications in the industry will help you understand what companies and potential job opportunities exist in this field.

KF: What other roles can energy experts and consultants, like yourself, play in identifying, educating and supporting young energy professionals?

CA: Looking for ways to employ, mentor, and/or volunteer time for young professionals will help them acquire the skills they need to be independent and help grow the industry for everyone involved in it. For example, there are a number of start-up incubators across the country many of which would benefit from mentors and volunteers from industry that can offer advice and referrals for young professionals to help them kick-start their careers.

KF: Power shortages, load shedding, and monopolistic national electricity providers are not unique to South Africa. What programs and policies of you are aware of in other African countries to diversify the sector, bring on more renewable energy, and develop innovative solutions?

CA: Renewable energy IPPs have had success in a number of other African countries through various procurement programs and auctions. Each market is at a different stage of development with some like Namibia having made more progress than South Africa on reforming its electricity market structure and implementing reforms for its national utility. Some countries in East and West Africa also have a thriving off-grid electrification sector, which can be further enabled by supporting regulations and policy certainty for companies operating in this market.

What next?

KF: In an ideal world, what does the future hold for energy consultants like yourself and organisations like Blue Horizon Energy in South Africa?

CA: The energy transition to a cleaner and more customer focused sector in South Africa and globally is still only in the early phase of development, so I’m looking forward to continuing to be part of this transition to help mitigate against the worst effects of climate change and help ensure that future development accounts for social and governance sustainability goals as well as the environment. For example, sustainability solutions that address inequality and climate change can’t be solved in silos, so we’ll need to continue to work across industry lines when developing and investing in these solutions over the coming decades.

Introducing Chris and his interests

Ken Fullerton (KF) Thanks Chris for your time. Can you explain how you first got interested in the renewable energy field and how you ended up coming to South Africa from the United States to establishing your own consultancy?

Chris Ahlfeldt (CA): Studying Energy Systems Engineering at Stanford University sparked my passion for clean energy and sustainability solutions that can help address climate change. After graduating, I worked for a few years within the energy practice of a management consultancy in San Francisco before moving to South Africa to get some more international experience in the clean energy industry. When I first came to South Africa in 2010 the renewable energy industry was very new here, so my experience from a more established market in the US made it easier to add value to the local industry.

KF: Through your work, what sort of positive impact(s) have you been able to have?

CA: It’s been rewarding to be part of the growth of the renewable energy sector and most of my projects have focused on enabling growth for the industry in Southern Africa. I’ve worked on a number research and advisory projects for investors, manufacturers, and public sector clients and I’m most proud of the renewable energy policy I helped draft for Namibia in 2016. As part of the policy we set a goal of 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and Namibia has since made a lot of progress to reform its electricity sector in a way that encourages more private investment in power generation to meet this goal. I’ve also been getting more involved recently in helping some impact investors identify and assess opportunities for investment in Southern Africa, which has a lot of potential for positive impact on the local economy.

KF: Times are certainly challenging at present in South Africa. Load shedding, rising energy prices, high unemployment, uncertainty over REIPPP and, of course, the President’s recent State of the Nation Address just to name a few. But as the expression goes ‘In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity’ …….

CA: Uncertainty in South Africa can make it a challenging market to work in, and you’re right that these challenges create lots of opportunity for companies. For example, the return of load shedding has increased demand for solar PV panels and batteries for homes and businesses looking to improve reliability and save money from Eskom’s rising prices. The power shortage is also increasing the pressure on government and Eskom to act quickly to reform the utility and enable a power sector that is less dependent on coal.

State of the Nation Address

KF: President Cyril Ramaphosa, mentioned the word ‘energy’ 13 times during his February State of the Nation (SONA) address. He’s obviously aware of current energy issues but is he doing enough to overcome these serious challenges?

CA: The President’s plans cover a lot of key issues to address the challenges posed by Eskom’s supply shortage and its impact on the economy. For example, unbundling the utility into separate generation, transmission, and distribution will help break-up Eskom’s monopoly and improve transparency in the industry. Likewise starting Round 5 of the REIPPPP will provide some clarity for developers and investors that government is serious about moving away from its dependency on coal. More could be done to further enable distributed generation solutions by customers which can be built within months and don’t require financing from government.

KF: Despite Ramphosa’s announcements in his SONA, current Minister of Mineral Resources, Gwede Mantashe, has since issued conflicting messages on what can be done and by when. Why do you feel this is the case?

CA: I don’t know why Gwede Mantashe would want to go against the President’s plans to solve the energy crisis, as growing the clean energy industry will create lots of new jobs and improve the affordability and reliability of the energy sector as a whole. Continuing to ask his Ministry to clarify the implementation plan, commit to a timeline, and keep his department accountable to meet commitments could help move the industry along faster.

KF: The Democratic Alliance (DA) in the Western Cape has been quite vocal calling for municipalities to be able to source their own power from independent power producers rather from the grid. They’ve even taken it to court. This is done successfully in other countries so could it work in South Africa? Why or why not?

CA: Some municipalities like the City of Cape Town have been pushing for this, and government said it will put in place measures to allow municipalities to buy from IPPs. It’s not a simple process to open the energy market to more distributed IPPs in this way and the unstable financial situation of many municipalities in South Africa will increase off-taker risk for IPPs and financing costs. In my view, municipalities should be more focused on partnering with their customers to buy excess power from them first and provide other services to improve customer loyalty which reduces the likelihood that their customers will go off-grid completely or bypass them through wheeling agreements.

KF: Like with many other poor decisions or policies, the poor are hardest hit and often powerless to act. How have they been impacted and, given their limited circumstances, what can they do?

CA: Low income communities are also feeling the pressure of increasing electricity costs and load shedding. They have limited access to financing that would allow them to invest in distributed generation and energy efficiency solutions. Municipalities have an opportunity to help these customers by facilitating access to low cost financing through vehicles like Pay As You Save that leverage green bonds to finance efficiency and clean energy solutions for customers. The funding for these solutions is available, if municipalities are willing to deploy it for their customers.

During the time the Australian carbon tax was in place, carbon emissions did decline. Carbon emissions had been declining since the 2008 financial crisis, but unlike other countries, Australia continued to decline through its economic recovery period. In the year following the repeal of the carbon tax, carbon emissions increased by a net 1.3 percent, the first time an increase had been seen since 2008.

Abbots claims regarding it threatening unemployment and the economy have at this time remain dubious at best. While initial projections indicated it would damage unemployment, there did not appear to be any direct correlations between the presence of the carbon tax and unemployment.  The electricity prices in Australia did dramatically increase following the implementation of the carbon tax, but by the time the tax had been repealed, it had nearly returned to pre-tax prices. It has been suggested by experts on the Australian economy that any perceived correlation that the carbon tax had with unemployment was spurious, with the alternative explanation being a slowdown in investment. Unemployment has continued to climb since the tax was repealed.

The question of what the Australian carbon tax accomplished remains a major topic area of discussion for American energy policy wonks. While the chance of a carbon tax passing an American Congress is low at this time, the question of how to implement broad national climate policy remains intensely debated. This debate is for good reason, the pressure to develop a game plan for the United States following Paris has only increased. California has implemented a state wide cap and trade program, and the carbon tax is now a part of the Democratic Parties national platform.

The Australian carbon tax successfully begun to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions for Australia. While unemployment is rising in Australia, GDP growth has continued. We see this looking elsewhere, in countries such as Sweden and Norway as well. This is an important lesson for policymakers, as it demonstrates that a carbon tax, and in turn progress on carbon emissions, does not have to be the type of economic apocalypse described by some opponents.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on December 20, 2016.

What many analysts had previously said would be a costly, long term, and complicated procedure requiring massive manpower and facing a robust anti-air defense system was little more than an exaggeration of the capabilities of the Syrian regime. Turkey used its drones to hit tens of targets, including an active and armed Pantsir S-1 system.

This inaction by the international community, even when faced with a never-ending stream of videos of abuse and war crimes documentation has led to what has been called the worst humanitarian disaster of the century. The Syrian regime is estimated to have committed over 300 separate chemical weapons attacks using chlorine and sarin, alongside the use of airstrikes, barrel bombs, and artillery strikes that have killed tens of thousands and turned entire towns into rubble.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

While war rages, clean-ups or broad identifications of environmental harms go unregistered. The Syrian landscape, from cities to fields, hide a multitude of threats, and many will directly impact the population of survivors. Dumped chemicals and spilled petroleum will poison the earth and water, the air in war zones is polluted by pulverized concrete and smoke, and wheat fields are turned into minefields. The latter gives us one of the first insights into the fusion of warfare and environmental harm.

As of 2018, approximately 1,906 people were killed or wounded by landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) in Syria. Farmers are most likely to be impacted by landmine or UXO as their work takes them into and through the very areas sowed with area denial munitions. Within Syria, the largest casualty group can be found in Raqqa, comprising 46% of known landmine or UXO deaths and injuries, followed by 29% in the region of Aleppo. Most of the casualties come from farmers or others carrying out domestic labor. Whether blanketed by cluster munitions or mechanically laid mines, lands are rendered useless until they are effectively cleared. Nations like Bosnia, Angola, Cambodia and Colombia remained haunted by the specter of earth concealed explosives, a future now shared by the people of Syria. Minefields or areas of UXO require intensive demining in a process that can take decades, which in the case of already perilous agricultural lands, may result in soil quality degradation, infestation by weeds or pests, or require such expensive refurbishment that they are abandoned and lifeless. The decades-long worry of undiscovered landmines further degrades the social fabric of communities, while tainting any environmental recovery and denying traditional agricultural pursuits.

Landmines, however, are not the sole danger to the land and its users along the road to peace. Recent Syrian government forces shelling agricultural fields outside Aleppo denied farmers the ability to plant or harvest crops. The immediate harm to life and the environment by the shelling will be compounded by the presence of unexploded ordnance, which will result in harm to future generations of farmers.

Another byproduct of the government shelling and aerial attacks are fires, another weapon used on the people and landscape of Syria. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland have been burned throughout Syria just in the past year. Set by air-dropped munitions or artillery fired shells, fires have swept into Syrian agricultural lands, especially in the Al-Hasakeh region. Authorities believe that fires in the Al-Hasakeh region were intentionally set by non-governmental actors. An estimated 60% of the agricultural lands in the region,  encompassing 23 towns, were destroyed by fire as of 2019. And, Al-Hasakeh is the prime location for staple crops of wheat and barley in Syria, wrote Reliefweb.

In brief, while there has been a rise in agricultural production, many regions within the country still face fuel and transport shortages, lack of markets for produce, and the presence of continued fighting or unexploded ordnance, as the UN explained. Landmines, unexploded bombs, rockets or grenades, and intentional fire setting are just some of the many environmental problems bombarding Syria before even addressing anthropogenic climate change. Environmental mitigation and recovery will require concerted and unified efforts by domestic and international parties. The classic example of systemic post-war reconstruction, the Marshall Plan, stressed agricultural repair and reinvestment. It’s estimated that half of the American Marshall Plan aid was made up of agricultural assistance, or $4.4 billion in the program’s first two years.

Over the border in Iraq, post-ISIS environmental recovery was spearheaded in Ramadi, as local and international actors turned to clean up the environmental devastation left behind. Residue from chemical weapons, industrial spills, toxic compounds in the air, and tainted waterways were the environmental testimony of war in Ramadi. Similarly, during the First World War, European forests and fields were permanently changed by the conflict, from forests decimated by war-time logging to landscapes turned barren battlefields by artillery and unexploded munitions, and poisoned by lead and mercury contamination. So utter and complete was the environmental devastation, France declared 1200 sq. km uninhabitable, called “Zone Rouge.”

In The Environmental Footprint of War, Joseph Hupy captures a fundamental, if overlooked, aspect to war, writing, “Warfare, a powerful agent of landscape change … is often larger in magnitude and size than other forms of anthropogenic disturbance … because of its capability to render such widespread destruction over large areas in such short periods of time.” If Syria is the first climate change war, it also continues the anthropogenic tradition of violently reshaping the earth with untold ferocity and lingering harm. Like France’s “Zone Rouge” or the desolate and deadly K-5 minefield in Cambodia, comparable environmental hurdles will undoubtedly be found throughout Syria when the conflict eventually comes to an end, and only time will tell whether remediation will ever be addressed.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on March 3, 2020.

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we’ll need to accelerate electrification of the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in the world: medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. These include vehicles from big semitrucks and delivery vans, to city buses and garbage trucks.

Fortunately, this sector looks poised to grow through 2020 and beyond, good news for the climate and the millions of people who live in cities, where trucks and buses are leading contributors to local air pollution.

Here are four trends that I’ll be monitoring in the year ahead.

E-truck options continue to increase

Availability has long been a hurdle for fleet owners considering electrification. But as the year progresses, fleets will have access to an increasing range of electric vehicles from a number of manufacturers. Truck applications that are likely to see more EV choices include:

• Local delivery and box trucks. Peterbilt and Dana, for example, recently showcased a Peterbilt Model 220EV that will have up to 200 miles of range. The vehicle is slated for production in late 2020. Navistar also is readying a medium-duty EV under its International label. The manufacturer is promising “250 miles on a single charge” with a 312 kWh battery and full production by early 2021.
• Garbage trucks. There are over 100,000 garbage trucks operating in the U.S., and most run on diesel. Their low-speed, stop-and-go operations with predictable routes are an ideal fit with EV technology. Mack, Peterbilt and Daimler have all recently promoted their development of electric garbage trucks, and BYD already has trucks in the space, including some operating in Seattle.
• Mid-range freight trucks. Volvo has already launched pilots of its electric regional tractor. The vehicle is scheduled to go into production in late 2020. Daimler also has active pilots of its eCascadia, a vehicle that it has slated for production in 2021.

Manufacturers accelerate investments in zero-emission trucks

As they have come to the conclusion that zero emission is the future of transportation, manufacturers have begun investing large amounts of capital to develop more zero-emission trucks and buses.

This trend emerged in 2018, when Daimler announced an investment of more than $3 billion for research and development of commercial electric trucks, including a $155 million investment in Proterra. Over the past year, we saw more manufacturers getting into the game:

• Cummins acquired a fuel cell company.
• Navistar launched an entire business unit dedicated to developing electric trucks.
• Daimler acquired a stake in battery material innovator Sila Nano.

Daimler further committed to a zero-emission future when it dumped its bid to develop natural gas trucks.

Fleets double down on e-buses and trucks

Fleets made a number of notable commitments in 2019, but with New Jersey Transit setting a date for procurement of an all zero-emission bus fleet, and Los Angeles’ LA Sanitation committing to a 100% electric fleet by 2035, 2020 is off to a good start, too.

These actions follow previous commitments by New York’s MTA, Anheuser Busch and Amazon. In 2019, Amazon announced that it would purchase 100,000 electric delivery vehicles.

As more vehicles become available and more fleets gain experience with zero-emission options, we’ll see more fleets setting zero-emission vehicle adoption targets and timetables for going 100% clean.

Policy drivers strengthen and expand

Public policy will continue to significantly impact the pace of adoption for zero-emission trucks. California, already a leader in e-truck deployment due to its significant investment in incentive programs, is expected to finalize its Advance Clean Truck program in 2020.

Other states are looking to reduce emissions from trucks and buses. In December, eight states announced [PDF] their commitment to develop an action plan that will put hundreds of thousands more zero-emission trucks and buses onto their streets.

Demand for action is also strong at the local level. 34 cities worldwide — including London and Los Angeles — recently committed to ensuring a major area of each city is zero emission by 2030, and to procure only zero-emission buses from 2025. We believe this trend of creating ‘fossil fuel-free zones’ in cities is growing.

These four trends support each other and create a positive feedback cycle. As more vehicle options become available, fleets will increase their level of comfort with the technology, attracting further manufacturer investments and inspiring bolder policy action.

At EDF, we’re working with manufacturers, fleets, utilities and other stakeholders to spark the global transition to electric transportation. We’re starting with the United States, Europe and China, where we aim to have at least 30% of new trucks and buses sold be electric by 2030.

In the meantime, 2020 will be another important year for electric trucks and buses, kicking off a decade of advancement that will firmly establish these vehicles as the workhorses of the 21^st century.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Feb. 27, 2020.

In many countries, prices for fossil fuels like gasoline or natural gas are directly regulated by the government. In many others, a “basic level” of electricity consumption is directly subsidized through the use of block pricing. Block pricing is when one price is paid for the first 1000 KWh of consumption in a month, but a higher price is paid for the next 2000 KWh, for example. In some countries, like Colombia, electricity prices are based on the average income in your neighborhood, with below cost prices in the poorest neighborhoods and above cost prices in the wealthiest neighborhoods.

There are many reasons we may be concerned by this type of policy. In particular, subsidizing energy has many adverse environmental impacts, from increased air pollution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet, not only are energy subsidies present in almost every country in the world, they are perhaps the most popular policy among constituents. Many people love their energy subsidies and are willing to fight to protect them.

In Mexico, the gasolinazo, a removal of government subsidies for gasoline by the administration of current president Enrique Peña Nieto, has lead to mass demonstrations, with over fifteen hundred arrests across the country this year. In Bolivia in 2011, a government attempt to reduce government subsidies was met with such public backlash that the subsidy reform was scrapped within 5 days.

These subsidies are often part of a populist policy package designed to attract low income voters. The rhetoric associated with energy subsidies often emphasizes energy access as a right, and suggests that energy subsidies effectively redistribute income from the rich to the poor. But is this really true?

First, we should note that energy expenditures make up a much larger share of income for the rich than for the poor. This is true virtually everywhere across the world, despite the fact that wealthy individuals consume vastly more energy. This empirical observation leads many to argue that energy subsidies are “progressive”, or that any type of energy tax would be “regressive”.

If we define regressive taxes as those that will make up a larger percentage of income for the poor than the rich, then taking away energy subsidies, and in fact most subsidies for any basic necessities, would be seen as regressive. However, this does not mean that either measure is particularly effective at taking money from the wealthy to the poor.

Suppose a country raises most of its tax revenue from individuals in the middle class and wants to create a subsidy for electricity consumption paid for with income tax revenue. We know that energy consumption is increasing with income. Then the individuals who would receive the largest direct transfers from the government would be high income individuals because of their large consumption. The individuals who would receive the smallest transfers would be the poorest individuals who would consume the least electricity. Energy subsidies are effectively transferring money from the average tax payer to the wealthiest people in society.

Of course, in many countries, only high income people really pay taxes. Even if it were the case that all of the tax revenue came from the top 10% of consumers, an electricity subsidy would be a very inefficient way of redistributing from the wealthy to the poor. It still remains the case that the smallest transfers are to the poor and that the rich get the largest absolute benefits. Even block pricing at best gives as much money in subsidies to the rich as it does to the poor.

A classic paper in public economics by Atkinson and Stiglitz (1976) shows that it may be preferable to use the income tax system to redistribute across society, that is tax the rich and give checks to the poor, rather than taxing and subsidizing different consumption goods. However, many countries have challenges implementing these types of schemes, for both political and practical reasons (unbanked populations, corruption). An alternative (and rarely discussed) option that Atkinson and Stiglitz propose is to tax things that only the wealthy would use and subsidize things that only the poor would use.

In many developing countries, this can be done through the provision of public services. Most rich people have their own cars, use private health facilities, and send their children to private schools and universities abroad. It is the poor and middle-class that are more likely to consume these goods. Subsidizing these activities with tax revenues would more effectively transfer income from the rich to the poor and middle-class. Some of these investments, like higher education, are more popular with the middle class so it may be preferable to focus on things that the poor consume exclusively like public education in very poor areas.

Atkinson and Stiglitz’s result highlights how misguided it is to redistribute through energy subsidies. Energy is exactly the type of good that you should not use for redistribution. Consumption is increasing with income. The rich have larger homes and televisions. They are more likely to own a car and drive it to work instead of taking a bus. They are more likely to travel on gas-guzzling airplanes for vacations.

We are not even taking into account the fact that the poor may be more vulnerable to the negative environmental impacts from energy consumption. They are certainly more vulnerable to heat from climate change in tropical countries, with limited access to air conditioning. They are also likely more vulnerable to air pollution due to the many more outdoor occupations that low income people engage in. Finally, they are substantially more likely to live near polluting electricity generation plants and oil refineries, precisely because homes near these plants are cheaper due to high air pollution.

An effective redistributive policy through taxes and subsidies would either try to get cash directly poor individuals or would subsidize specific goods that the poor are more likely to consume than the rich. If we are trying to redistribute from the rich to the poor, we certainly should not be making it cheaper for people to drive a Ferrari or go on vacation to Hawaii. Instead, we should make it cheaper for people to ride the bus, or improve the quality of low-income public schools, because we know rich people are not going to consume either of these goods.

A final note: Protests against energy subsidy cuts may not be misguided, but motivated by political failure. Subsidy cuts are often part of a package of policies meant to reduce government spending and budget deficits. The funds for these subsidies are not re-directed to other spending for the poor. Instead, subsidy reductions make it possible to reduce income tax rates, which are less relevant for the poor than the wealthy. Neither of the reforms above was accompanied by a new and improved redistributive policy, like a check in the mail for every low-income household or more spending on rural public schools and public infrastructure. Knowing this, the poor in Mexico and Bolivia may have (rightly) interpreted these policy changes as reductions to one of the few benefits they get from the government in exchange for a balanced budget or lower income taxes for the rich. When that is the flip-side of an energy subsidy cut, it seems rather unlikely that you will get any support from the poor.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on April 14, 2017.

Despite media attention to the region in an era of increasing competition, a major lacuna is that there is very little mention of the Indian Ocean Region, colloquially known as the IOR.

Pakistan is located at the cusp of the Arabian Sea, close to the Strait of Hormuz. Despite its fortunate geographic position, Pakistan’s Indian Ocean policy is still lacking. Pakistan touts the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project connecting China’s western Xinjiang with Pakistan’s southern belt, but China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has both land and maritime elements, of which Pakistan is only involved in the former.  The CPEC is important for Pakistan due to its weak economy and isolation in the international arena, but Pakistan needs to create a holistic foreign policy that includes the CPEC, as well as a deeper strategic consideration of the IOR and the Gwadar Port.

To read the rest of the article, go to The Fletcher Forum.

Several agricultural practices increase the levels of carbon in the soil and they are usually referred to as best management practices (BMPs) or recommended management practices. These BMPs do not only provide benefits as a GHG mitigation strategy, but they also have valuable ecological, social, and economic impacts. Some of these practices include, but are not limited to, no-till farming, planting cover crops, implementing improved grazing, and rotating crops with legumes. Before I delve into the importance of increasing the levels of carbon in global soils, I will briefly mention where soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic matter (SOM) come from and why they are important.

SOC originates from the decomposition of plant residues, soil microorganisms and fauna. A large portion of the carbon from the decomposition process is emitted into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO₂). About 10-20% of that carbon forms SOM, which is also composed of essential elements like nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and sulfur (S). SOM is a strong indicator of healthy and productive soils, making it a vital component of the terrestrial biosphere. Organic matter improves soil structure, which leads to higher productivity. Good soil structure leads to greater porosity and water infiltration resulting in less soil erosion. SOM also enhances aggregation which makes soils less apt to crusting and compaction. Additionally, SOM improves cation exchange, increases plant root growth, and supports important soil microorganisms and fauna.

In the book Soil Carbon Management, Rice et al. dedicate a chapter of the book to the benefits of SOC to physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. This chapter includes the relation between SOM supporting ecosystem services like improved drought tolerance, root growth, plant production, decreased fertilizer inputs, improved water quality and decreased erosion. Furthermore, SOM plays an essential role in soil functions such as water holding capacity, soil biodiversity, nutrient reserves, bulk density, and soil structure. Therefore, adopting practices that decrease SOM and SOC depletes a source of nutrients that would have to be offset by applying higher amounts of fertilizers, and causes soils to be more susceptible to erosion. Lower SOM and SOC levels disrupt the sustainability of soils.

In the same book (Soil Carbon Management), Kimble et al. present the social and economic benefits from the adoption of practices that increase soil carbon sequestration. Some on-farm advantages include lower production costs, labor cost savings, reduced energy costs, reduced use of machinery, reduced maintenance and machinery repair needs, and potential eligibility to receive payments for sequestering carbon through federal programs or carbon markets. Additionally, some of the off-site benefits are better air quality from lower soil erosion, less runoff which is closely connected to better water quality, flood mitigation, protection of wildlife, and increased recreation activities like fishing. The promotion of agricultural practices that increase soil carbon content could be further promoted by either social, economic, or policy constructs. In this article, I would like to make a special emphasis on a recent effort launched at COP21.

In December of 2015, the French Minister of Agriculture, Stéphane Le Foll, launched the “4 per 1000” Initiative at COP21. This strategy is inspired by the extensive body of research showing that best management practices can lead to higher content of soil carbon, and its purpose is to increase global soil carbon content by 0.4 percent per year. Signatories to this initiative commit to a voluntary action plan to implement farming practices that increase the levels of carbon in global soils. The value 4 per 1000 is the ratio of annual global anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuels and the estimated content of global soil carbon stock to 2 m of soil depth (2,400 GtC).  If these best management practices are implemented in accordance with the 4 per 1000 initiative, global soils could sequester 1.2 GtC per year in global soils. Though 1.2 GtC seem to be a small number relative to the annual rate of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels (almost 10 GtC per year), keeping 1 GtC in the soil sink is equivalent to 0.47 ppm of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere.

The adoption of this initiative at a global scale presents many challenges. There are significant gaps in the research and literature to answer if the “4 per 1000” initiative is feasible in every country. Additionally, many countries have large numbers of farmers and small-holders with limited access to resources, which requires that these countries engage in “careful planning.” In order to address this knowledge gap, a recent study explored the question of whether the initiative was feasible in 20 regions/countries. This type of study can encourage researchers, and different stakeholders, to ask whether the initiative can be used as a framework to increase carbon sequestration rates, and how it could help pursue more targeted strategies. Additional studies could also lead to explore the several co-benefits from increasing the levels of C such as: the adaptation of the global food and agricultural systems to climate change, improvement of the health of soils, and increasing agricultural productivity. Although soil carbon sequestration may present a short-term, and small-scale, solution to the mitigation of GHG, it could provide a long-term approach to transforming our agricultural system into a more sustainable food system.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on October 3, 2017.

While you might enjoy warmer winter days that feel more like spring, those breaks from cooler temperatures are no reason to celebrate.

Our changing climate is transforming winter in some alarming ways:

1. Winters keep getting warmer, devastating crops and plants

We are seeing the results of global warming the most during winter, as it is the fastest-warming season in 38 U.S. states. In the Northeast, winter has warmed three times faster than summer in recent decades.

Northern winters have heated up the most, with more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming in Alaska, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin since 1970.

Warming rates are often greater at higher latitudes partly because of a decrease in snow cover, which exposes darker land surfaces that absorb more sunlight.

This map shows warming winter temperatures in the U.S. from 1895-2017, in degrees Fahrenheit per century. Source: NOAA Climate.gov

Warmer winter weather can be devastating to crops and plants when they lack the cooler weather they need to chill — an important life stage that, if absent, can lead to less fruit production and weakened plants that are more vulnerable to pests.

These plants also can bloom too early, before migrating pollinators arrive and the last freeze happens.

2. Cold streaks are shorter and rarer

Consecutive days of colder-than-average temperatures — which can be several weeks long — have gotten shorter in hundreds of major cities in the U.S. since the 1970s, with dozens seeing cold streaks shorten by about a week.

An “average” winter or “typical” cold streak feels colder to us now, because we are used to the warmer temperatures.

And there is evidence that strong warming in the Arctic — two times the rate of the rest of the world — can weaken the jet stream, allowing for frigid polar air to penetrate farther south than normal on occasion.

3. We’re seeing more rain and less snow, hurting recreation

Because of warmer air temperatures, every region of the U.S. has seen a decrease in the amount of precipitation falling as snow over the past 65 years. In Oregon, for example, nearly 90% of weather stations have been getting more rain during that time.

A recent analysis found: Over the past 80 years, there has been a significant decrease in the frequency of years with a large number of snowfall days in the southern United States and the Pacific Northwest.

Less snow is particularly disappointing for winter sports fanatics and the tourism industry.

Recreational activities such as skiing, snowboarding and snowmobiling have been impacted by low snow years, with an average loss of 17,400 jobs and more than $1 billion.

4. When it does snow, there’s much more of it

When temperatures do get below freezing, we actually expect more snow to fall during storms. This may seem counterintuitive, but a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere.

That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours — depending on the temperature that day when the precipitation falls.

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter — when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun — temperatures drop. Instead of downpours, we can get massive winter storms.

While the average amount of snow is declining in many areas in the U.S., the amount of snow that falls during a storm is increasing. More than 40% of counties in the country have had their biggest two-day snow totals since 1980.

5. Snowpack is shrinking, hurting water supply

Less snow has led to a decline in the amount of snow covering North America, and warmer weather has caused the snowpack — especially in the West — to melt weeks earlier than in the 1960s.

The declining snowpack and earlier snowmelt reduce streamflow, affecting crucial freshwater supply for agricultural, residential and commercial purposes. It also increases the potential for wildfires due to decreases in moisture.

There’s still time to act

Unless we take immediate action to curb climate pollution, we will experience further warming and worsening impacts.

The good news is that because we know what the cause is, we also know what is needed to stabilize our planet. We must come together now and work toward a better future.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Originally published by S&S on Feb. 12, 2020.

According to UNICEF, it is estimated that 44,000 women die due to preventable pregnancy-related causes in India each year while one in five deaths globally is likely to be an Indian lady. Aditya Kulkarni, a 2017 Young Global Changer, and the organisation he co-founded are working to change this.

Inspired by a close friend’s sister who suffered a miscarriage due to pregnancy related complications, Aditya and his business partner Shantanu Pathak, “realised the ground level need for an innovative solution to this grave problem and the idea of CareMother was born in 2015 to enhance the exiting service delivery through technological intervention.”

Together, Aditya and Shantanu have developed a mobile-based based support program which can be used by health workers to help predict pregnancy complications at an early stage. This enables “health workers to make informed decisions and refer mothers for timely intervention, improving maternal and neonatal outcomes.” The technology was developed based on World Health Organization guidelines.

The app is not intended to be a complete replacement for sonography tests, but it still serves a very important function and can be used to reach out to women in marginalised communities. In an article about the app The Better India notes “Women belonging to underprivileged communities, be it in the slums or the rural areas, often miss regular check-ups at the health camps. A major reason for this shortcoming is low awareness among the communities, leading to a lot of maternal deaths, many of which could be averted if diagnosed at the right time.”

With a vision to serve three million pregnant Indian women over the next five years, Aditya and Shantanu have bold plans but their success to date has already been widely recognised. Her Majesty the Queen of England, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and prestigious organisations and institutions including Google, the United Nations, Cisco, MIT and Vodafone (amongst many others) have all recognised the technology’s potential and ability to make a widespread and positive impact across India.

Rapid technology advances are also having a substantial impact and are already helping to challenge the current status quo. Aditya suggests this will help “democratise power/ control at all levels which will result in [the] proliferation of necessary services to improve human quality of life at economic, social and cultural levels.” For 2,500 Rupees (approx. USD35), which is less than what many people spend on a Sunday dinner, individuals and organisations can ‘Adopt a Mother’ and allow CareMother to provide complete antenatal check-ups and a doctor’s consultation to a mother from a remote village/ slum area throughout the 9 months of her pregnancy. “Wouldn’t it be worth it?” Aditya questions.

Despite their impressive growth and rollout – this innovative technology is currently present in 11 Indian states with “more than 25 partners and hospitals” and has already served over 35,000 pregnant women with the objective of serving more than 100,000 in 2020 – there have also been challenges. According to Aditya, “working with government systems at scale is challenging” as has been the need to ensure they have a “sustainable model of implementation and operations” before scaling up. Learning from past mistakes, a preference has been developed for “lean models of execution” which allow flexibility, quick adaptation and an opportunity to scale up. Furthermore, developing and implementing pilot projects can help with “perfecting” the distribution model.

Both business partners recognise they can achieve far more working in partnerships than they can do going at it alone: “We believe everyone can be a part of our mission” to help overcome maternal and neonatal health challenges across India! Already working with a range of partners from the public, private and non-profit sectors, they are striving to help “make the voices of young people heard at the global level.” Aditya notes that reaching out to the most disadvantaged (who are often also un-served or under-served), “requires different ways of service delivery which might need exclusive policy considerations to be economically efficient.”

As a Young Global Changer, Aditya, and his business partner have certainly worked to develop and implement an innovative idea to bring about positive change at a local and national level. While he is the first to acknowledge that there is a long way to go, and pregnant women across India still experience great challenges, he is “very hopeful” for the future.

His suggestions for bringing about lasting global change include nurturing local businesses through funding, mentoring and networking support; widely sharing knowledge related to successful projects and solutions and “making voices of young people heard at the global policy level.”