As the planet appears ready to blaze past the original 1.5 degrees Celsius cap on temperature rise set by the Paris Climate Agreement, the unthinkable is being considered — solar bioengineering. Otherwise known as <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/dimming-the-sun-to-cool-the-planet-is-a-desperate-idea-yet-were-inching-toward-it" target="_blank">dimming the sun</a>, it’s an insane prospect with unknown and potentially devastating ramifications, yet the likelihood that such technology will be utilized in the coming decades is rising right along with global temperatures. Of course, such a drastic measure should be both unnecessary and completely preventable through transitions to renewable energy as well as by implementing immediate <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/climate-change-scarcity-chip-away-degrowth-taboo-2022-08-08/" target="_blank">degrowth in the Global North</a>. Instead, climate denial continues as profit margins and excessive lifestyles refuse to give way, regardless of the consequences.

By continuing down this path of business-as-usual those in power are risking not only the ability of the planet to support future business, but perhaps even its ability to support life itself.

While energy transitions are happening, they aren’t happening fast enough. And while degrowth may be getting more attention amongst policymakers, <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/bill-gates-degrowth/757006" target="_blank">billionaires like Bill Gates</a> appear poised to do whatever they can to keep consumers ravenous for high-profit goods regardless of the corresponding environmental costs. As such, the New Yorker reported that NASA scientist James Hansen, often referred to as “the Paul Revere of global warming,” has predicted that Earth will break the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit much sooner than 2030. The publication quoted him as saying, “Even a little futz of an El Niño — like the tropical warming in 2018-19, which barely qualified as an El Niño — should be sufficient for record global temperature. A classical, strong El Niño in 2023-24 could push global temperature to about +1.5°C.” 

The consequences are hardly arbitrary. At 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, we are already seeing <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/net-zero-fossil-fuels/759426" target="_blank">death and destruction</a> as islands sink, superstorms and extreme hurricanes cause massive flooding in some areas while droughts dry up whole bodies of water in others, and the forests we desperately need for oxygen and carbon sequestration burn to the ground. As we leap over 1.5 degrees, the repercussions <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warming-climate-change" target="_blank">become exponentially worse</a>. Not only will <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/vanuatu-non-proliferation-treaty/756021" target="_blank">entire island systems</a> be swept underwater by rising sea levels, but mainland coastal areas will flood as well, affecting between <a href="https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/stories/population-risk.html" target="_blank">4.2 million and 13.1 million people</a> in the U.S. alone. Storms will <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1032442544/how-climate-change-is-fueling-hurricanes-like-ida" target="_blank">continue to worsen</a>. Heat waves will continue to increase along with droughts. And coral reefs will disappear altogether — along with the life they sustain.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a marine biologist with the University of Queensland, is <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warming-climate-change" target="_blank">quoted in NPR </a>as saying: "Something around 50 percent of the shallow water corals were killed literally over a couple of months, in some cases over a couple of weeks. If you extend that out into the future, we'll get to a point where the damage overwhelms the ability of corals to bounce back." He likened the present situation to staring down the barrel of a gun. In fact, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/" target="_blank">70 to 90 percent</a> of the world's coral reefs are expected to die off with a 1.5-degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures, while a 2-degree rise could kill more than 99 percent of them.

It’s under these circumstances that dimming the sun is beginning to look like a terrifying inevitability — something we have to do out of desperation as the planet becomes uninhabitable. However, pinning the world’s last hopes on solar bioengineering instead of structural change demonstrates not just a severe lack of foresight and planning, but more than likely, a ploy by billionaires and the fossil fuel industry to continue raking in the profits hand over fist while avoiding the full costs of the emissions that make them that money.

“In a few years, people like the Koch family will jump on solar dimming. They’ll say, ‘Listen, we don’t have to reduce emissions so brutally and so quickly, because we have a Plan B for the next thirty or forty years.’ It’s the same as climate denial, in that it helps people have doubts,” political scientist Frank Biermann, who was one of the original “senior scholars” to sign a letter demanding the use of such technology be prohibited, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/dimming-the-sun-to-cool-the-planet-is-a-desperate-idea-yet-were-inching-toward-it" target="_blank">told the New Yorker</a>.

So, what exactly is it? Solar bioengineering is essentially shooting sulfur, or a similar element, into the stratosphere in order to reflect some of the sun’s heat away from the Earth. In principle, this should cool the planet in the same way that <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/14/the-climate-fixers" target="_blank">a major volcanic eruption</a> does. But such eruptions can also have dire consequences. The “year without a summer” came after Mount Tambora blew in 1815, causing widespread hunger in the northern hemisphere. Even worse, an eruption in Iceland in the year 536 <a href="https://www.history.com/news/536-volcanic-eruption-fog-eclipse-worst-year" target="_blank">resulted in 18 months of darkness</a> and a famine that lasted for years.

Indeed, spraying our skies with sulfur could interrupt photosynthesis and cause unfathomable starvation, potentially leading to far more deaths than is expected from climate change. It’s also unpredictable and could do good in some areas while wreaking havoc in others, which could lead to skirmishes around the globe if one country’s solar bioengineering hurts another. There is concern that the ozone layer could be damaged as well. Indeed, untold consequences abound. Theoretically, blotting out the sun could even cause severe harm to human health in the form of lost Vitamin D. 

On the other hand, it’s cheap.

Cheaper than switching to renewables. Cheaper than degrowth. Cheaper than lost profits. Cheaper than billionaires and the fossil fuel industry paying the full cost of doing business. Ultimately, dimming the sun is likely to be sold to us as the only solution to a problem that they created and continue to profit from.

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/F-pSZO_jeE8" target="_blank">Jongsun Lee</a> via Unsplash

As Climate Denial Continues, Now There’s Talk to Dim the Sun

Investors who support the environmental, social and governance (ESG) business model got some good news last week when the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new rule that loosens restrictions on ESG investing. The federal-level support is a welcome contrast to state-based efforts aimed at thwarting climate action and obstructing corporate social responsibility goals.

<h2>Out with the old ESG rules…</h2>

The restrictions were imposed during the Donald Trump administration. The DOL announced the new rule in a press release last week. 

“After extensive consultations and feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, the department concluded that two rules issued in 2020 during the prior administration unnecessarily restrained plan fiduciaries’ ability to weigh environmental, social and governance factors when choosing investments, even when those factors would benefit plan participants financially,” the agency explained.

The two rules in question were issued on November 13 and December 16 of 2020, after former President Trump lost his bid for re-election. 

The 2020 rules limited the ability of firms to offer investment products based on “goals and purported benefits” unless they are related to financial performance.

That may seem to make common sense, but the straight-line connection to financial factors is out of step with the holistic approach that underpins ESG investing and the corporate social responsibility movement.

<h2>…back to the older ESG rules</h2>

The 2020 rules were also out of step with precedents established under the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/about-us/history-of-ebsa-and-erisa" target="_blank">ERISA</a>), which regulates private pension plans. The 2020 rules satisfied policymakers and their allies within the Trump administration, but other stakeholders objected strenuously to the restrictions.

The opponents included “asset managers, labor organizations, corporate America, consumer groups, service providers, workers and investment advisers,” as noted by the DOL.

“These stakeholders questioned whether the 2020 rules properly reflected the scope of fiduciaries' duties under ERISA to act prudently and solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries,” the DOL observed. The agency agreed with the stakeholders, who argued that the 2020 rules were inconsistent with DOL guidance going back to the 1980s.

“In its interpretive guidance during this [40-year] period, the Department has consistently recognized that ERISA does not prohibit fiduciaries from making investment decisions that reflect ESG considerations, depending on the circumstances,” the agency explained.

The new rule represents a return to precedents established under ERISA. Published in the Federal Register under the title, “<a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/temporary-postings/prudence-and-loyalty-in-selecting-plan-investments-and-exercising-shareholder-rights-final-rule.pdf" target="_blank">Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights</a>,” the new rule will take effect 60 days after publication.

“The final rule retains the core principle that the duties of prudence and loyalty require ERISA plan fiduciaries to focus on relevant risk-return factors and not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries (such as by sacrificing investment returns or taking on additional investment risk) to objectives unrelated to the provision of benefits under the plan,” the DOL explained.

Regarding climate change, the new rule clarifies that fiduciaries are permitted to take into account “the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, or governance factors,” as part of a risk and return analysis (<a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/temporary-postings/prudence-and-loyalty-in-selecting-plan-investments-and-exercising-shareholder-rights-final-rule.pdf" target="_blank">page 22</a>).

<h2>…and, in with science</h2>

The DOL also took note of charges that the 2020 rule-making process was rushed, and that it “failed to adequately consider and address evidence submitted by public commenters on how ESG considerations can improve investment value and long-term investment returns for retirement investors.”

The rush to implement <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2020/ashes-trump-presidency/707891" target="_blank">poorly informed policies</a> and the <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/anti-science-dobbs-dei/756496" target="_blank">failure to consider facts and evidence</a> have become a hallmark of the Republican party’s governance. The 2020 rules were not the only example of fact-free policy making during the Trump administration, but they were a particularly egregious example. Even as leading businesses began to embrace evidence-based decarbonization strategies like the <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2020/inevitability-sustainable-covid-19-recovery/120351" target="_blank">Science-Based Targets initiative</a>, the former president and his administration continued to foster <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2017/after-trumps-paris-debacle-leading-companies-go-full-steam-ahead-renewables/15376" target="_blank">misdirection on climate policy</a>.

The new rule is a more accurate reflection of profit-making based on observable facts and professional expertise.

“Climate change and other environmental, social and governance factors can be useful for plan investors as they make decisions about how to best grow and protect the retirement savings of America’s workers,” explained Lisa M. Gomez, the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security.

“The rule announced today will make workers’ retirement savings and pensions more resilient by removing needless barriers, and ending the chilling effect created by the prior administration on considering environmental, social and governance factors in investments,” Gomez added.

<h2>Next steps for ESG investing</h2>

By spelling out the permissibility of climate change and other ESG factors, the new rule should help relieve some of the pressure on financial institutions being imposed by state-based policymakers who are pursuing a vendetta <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/texas-blackrock-fossil-energy/754656" target="_blank">against “woke” businesses</a>.

Still, the anti-ESG movement among Republican office holders and candidates shows no sign of slowing down. To date, <a href="https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/mlbenebits/2022/08/the-state-of-anti-esg-state-legislation" target="_blank">at least 17 states</a> have imposed or are considering laws that limit the ability of businesses to consider ESG factors.

The business community can help push back against the anti-ESG movement by withdrawing financial support from Republican candidates for office that express anti-ESG views. However, they also need to dig deeper and stop supporting organizations that are administered partly or fully by partisan Republican office holders.

The nonprofit organization State Financial Officers Foundation is one example. Earlier this month, David Armiak of the <a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/11/03/republican-state-financial-officers-bring-esg-fight-to-washington/" target="_blank">Center for Media and Democracy</a> reported that “every single financial officer on the ‘team’ is Republican, mostly serving in elected positions,” even though the organization claims that it is “not involved in issue advocacy on behalf of elected officials.”

That description is supported by other news outlets. For example, in an article dated September 16, 2022, reporters Gina Gambetta and Dominic Webb of <a href="https://www.responsible-investor.com/federated-hermes-pulls-plug-on-us-anti-esg-organisation/" target="_blank">Responsible Investor</a> noted that members of the group include financial officials in Texas, West Virginia, Arizona and Kentucky.

“All four have been outspoken in their criticisms of ESG,” they observed, adding that the Foundation “has taken a strong stance against ESG on social media and appears to be supporting the pushback against it.”

The Foundation itself makes no secret of its anti-ESG stance. As of this writing, its website features a tweet purported to be from an account run by <a href="https://twitter.com/wshstand" target="_blank">The Washington Stand</a>, a publication of the ultra-conservative Family Research Council. The tweet links to an article titled, “Anti-Woke State Treasurers Ride Their Own Red Wave.” 

“Starting in 2024, Republicans will control double the number of state treasuries as Democrats,” the tweet begins, adding: “And at  @SFOF_ conference last week, conservative leaders made it clear that moving forward, <a href="https://twitter.com/WSHStand/status/1595211450368200705" target="_blank">they plan to be woke capital’s worst nightmare</a>.”

Until recently, the Foundation's website listed sponsors and “friends of sponsors,” including Fidelity Investments, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, among others. As Gambetta and Webb reported, at least two other companies have cut ties. Those remaining need to exercise their pro-ESG muscles and follow suit.

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/K5mPtONmpHM" target="_blank">Adam Śmigielski</a> via Unsplash

New Rule Supports Corporate Responsibility, but Anti-ESG Fever is Still Rising

America is putting its money where its good intentions are when it comes to fighting the climate crisis. With the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/16/politics/biden-inflation-reduction-act-signing/index.html" target="_blank">Inflation Reduction Act</a>, the U.S. makes the single largest climate investment in the nation’s history. The legislation is expected to create <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/bidens-climate-change-bill-may-produce-your-next-job-and-a-half-million-careers-in-all/ar-AA11BCh2" target="_blank">hundreds of thousands of jobs</a> in the clean technology sector. California has pledged <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-gavin-newsom-climate-and-environment-government-politics-db57a00e0a8e4ecdd15e4495166c365f" target="_blank">tens of billions of dollars</a> in budget money for climate proposals as well. Collective efforts are instrumental to combatting this crisis, and businesses that commit to climate-change fighting strategies will become the most significant agents of change for the planet’s future. Utilized to its fullest potential, intelligent automation (IA) could make all the difference.

Net-zero emissions is considered critical to insulating the world against the worst effects of climate change. If achieved, it means that human CO2 emissions will no longer exceed the amount of CO2 we remove from the earth’s atmosphere. Its importance has led to governments and corporations around the world pledging to meet such targets by 2050. But are net-zero emissions <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/net-zero-emissions-2050-iea/" target="_blank">possible by 2050</a>? Meeting this goal is not just a pipe dream, but it requires substantial change, determination and the right technology 

Digital solutions such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have the potential to accelerate decarbonization efforts and reduce emissions <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/how-digital-solutions-can-reduce-global-emissions/" target="_blank">by up to 20 percent</a>. If scaled across industries, digital solutions could be most effective at <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/how-digital-solutions-can-reduce-global-emissions/" target="_blank">reducing emissions</a> in the three highest emitting sectors – energy, materials and mobility. 

But to make this possibility a reality, high-emitting industry sectors must rethink their strategies to leverage efficiency, circularity and sustainability.

<h2>Predictions and production </h2>

Digital solutions can enable the energy sector to reduce carbon-intensive operations and, subsequently, emissions by 8 percent, according to <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/how-digital-solutions-can-reduce-global-emissions/" target="_blank">estimates from the World Economic Forum</a> (WEF). To successfully transition to more renewable energy sources, utilities suppliers need to develop better methods for estimating how much energy is required, allowing them to make better use of resources and fill any gaps with renewables. Machine learning can anticipate energy outputs and demands through its data analysis. These forecasts can then help industries effectively implement climate change strategies while reducing inefficiencies and carbon emissions. 

Researchers from the Department of Energy (DOE) are relying on ML as a tool to search for materials that can be used as solar absorbers. They’re studying a class of material called halide perovskites which has shown promising results in converting sunlight to electricity.  According to a DOE report, solar energy could power <a href="https://www.electronicsforu.com/news/whats-new/artificial-intelligence-for-extracting-energy-from-the-sun" target="_blank">40 percent of the nation’s electricity by 2035</a>.

The benefits of ML algorithms extend beyond the utilities sector and can be used in any business, across industry verticals. As a result, more accurate supply and demand forecasting contributes to drastic cuts in manufacturing and transportation waste through improved understanding of what’s needed, and when. Targeted suggestions for low-carbon items can also drive ecologically responsible purchases by helping to optimize power usage and avoid unnecessary storage and waste.

<h2>Enhance the algorithm</h2>

Intelligent automation solutions can also improve sustainability in vital industries, such as manufacturing, infrastructure and data centers. Organizations can reduce emissions by employing data automation and modeling to digitize and analyze processes, and develop predictive maintenance and monitoring capabilities. 

Although IA algorithms that anticipate energy consumption already exist, there is room for improvement to ensure they can keep up with the multiple sources of energy production today and the need to meet new and evolving regulatory and measurement requirements. Complex algorithmic features also need fine-tuning to be able to react to changing trends or behaviors, and to expand beyond the industrial level to cater to family and individual demands. 

One-stop digital solutions such as IA not only boost efficiency and production, but they also enable the development of new procedures that reduce power consumption and harmful emissions. 

<h2>AI-powered waste reduction</h2>

Artificial intelligence has the power to support climate action by reducing waste. The problem is that even among the many firms that utilize a high level of automation, a fragmented approach to AI is often adopted. This is inefficient, stifles transformation, wastes valuable time and racks up “technical debt” (referring to the costs that arise from organizational reworks needed due to sub-optimal solutions being originally chosen for fast, short-term results). 

Organizations need to reimagine their existing strategies and use varied yet complementary technologies that work together, rather than in isolation, to maximize efficiency and reduce waste. AI-managed energy systems can then identify the appropriate amount of energy consumption needed at any given time. These insights support the fight against climate change by minimizing energy waste, simplifying processes and maximizing productivity by creating efficient and unified workflows.

<h2>Innovation driven climate action</h2>

AI-enhanced digital solutions can assist with the development of tools that will help individuals and businesses understand their carbon footprint and outline steps to decrease it. For example, the <a href="https://worldbeeproject.org/" target="_blank">World Bee Project</a> harnesses the power of technology and science to enhance the wellbeing of bees and other pollinators. The collective effort has created the world's first global bee database. Monitoring sensors capture and combine data points, such as hive temperature, humidity, pollinator decline and deficiencies. This data supports the creation of solutions that maintain a healthy and sustainable ecosystem.

Automation technology has progressed significantly in the last five years with billions of dollars being invested in research and development. The prioritization of generating digital solutions has done much to accelerate the journey to reaching net-zero. Businesses and organizations that have committed to such targets will continue to move toward their goals by committing to digital solutions. Implementing intelligent automation may be the turbo boost they need on the road to simplifying work processes, reducing waste, and contributing to a sustainable and brighter future.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at <a href="mailto:editorial@3BLMedia.com?subject=3p%20guest%20article%20pitch">editorial@3BLMedia.com</a> and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: <a href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/white-wind-turbines-on-brown-grass-field-under-the-sky-9800104/" target="_blank">Pexels</a>

How Intelligent Automation Can Pave the Road to Net-Zero

The countries most vulnerable to climate change eked out a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/countries-agree-loss-damage-fund-final-cop27-deal-elusive-2022-11-20/" target="_blank">historic deal</a> at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, as wealthier nations finally agreed to pay into a so-called “<a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/climate-finance-cop27-human-rights/756856" target="_blank">loss and damage</a>” fund that will provide payments to poor nations for losses and damages associated with disasters related to climate change.

Vulnerable nations are often the smallest-emitting countries, and for years they have been petitioning historically wealthy, high-emitting countries to help pay for natural disasters linked to climate change. Leading up to COP27, leaders from developing countries promised that the annual climate conference would not end with a final agreement unless their demands for loss and damage payments were met, and they emerged from the negotiations victorious. However, while negotiators agreed to help fund climate-related restitutions for vulnerable nations, they could not agree on language related to the phasing out of fossil fuels, so progress on global carbon emissions reductions remains stagnated.

<h2>Funding for loss and damage — and climate change adaptation</h2>

As the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gasses, the United States opposed loss and damage funding, because it feared that a commitment to funding climate damage mitigation in vulnerable nations could be construed as an admission of liability. However, as negotiations ran overtime, countries opposed to loss and damage funding, primarily the U.S. and European Union member nations, capitulated. The fund is likely years away from being operational, as negotiators have yet to determine who will oversee the funds and how they will be dispersed. 

Governments also made significant advancements in <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries" target="_blank">adaptation funding</a> negotiations. Adaptation planning helps vulnerable countries become more resilient to climate change, and countries pledged over $230 million to the United Nations Adaptation Fund while at COP27. However, the U.N. estimates that it will take $4 billion to $6 billion to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to a warming climate, and some participants expressed concern that developed countries have never met previously made financial commitments to fund climate transitions and adaptation measures in poor countries. 

<h2>COP27’s omission of emissions </h2>

Unfortunately, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/20/cop27-agrees-to-historic-loss-and-damage-fund-to-compensate-developing-countries-for-climate-impacts" target="_blank">approving loss and damage funding</a> came at the cost of updating emissions reductions targets. Language about phasing out the use of fossil fuels was rejected by oil-rich nations, and the agreement lacked an acknowledgment that global emissions must peak before 2025 to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

At the <a href="https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2022-11-19/statement-the-secretary-general-the-conclusion-of-cop27%C2%A0-sharm-el-sheikh%C2%A0%C2%A0" target="_blank">close of the conference</a>, U.N. secretary general Antonio Gutteres expressed his disappointment in the outcome and said, “We need to drastically reduce emissions now – and this is an issue this COP did not address. A fund for loss and damage is essential – but it’s not an answer if the climate crisis washes a small island state off the map – or turns an entire African country to desert. The world still needs a giant leap on climate ambition. The red line we must not cross is the line that takes our planet over the 1.5 degree temperature limit. To have any hope of keeping to 1.5, we need to massively invest in renewables and end our addiction to fossil fuels.”

Current climate pledges and targets place the world on track to hit 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century. Prior to COP27, the 193 nations that signed the Paris Agreement were required to update their current climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, to keep emissions in line with a 1.5 degree Celsius warming limit. However, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/11/23/cop27-whats-next-climate-now-debate" target="_blank">only 29 countries did so</a>. 

<h2>Where do we go from here? </h2>

While loss and damage funding is an enormous climate victory and an important milestone in the global fight against climate change, the omission of language surrounding the phasing out of fossil fuels and the need for drastic reductions in emissions is an embarrassment for COP27. Organizers dubbed COP27 “<a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/keep-paris-agreement-alive/758361" target="_blank">Implementation COP</a>,” but in reality, as countries ignored their commitments to update their NDCs and curb emissions, and lead negotiators refused to address fossil fuels as the main source of greenhouse gas emissions, there was little implemented that will slow humanity’s race toward catastrophic climate outcomes.

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/cs8Xa4t1hvc" target="_blank">Melissa Askew </a>via Unsplash

COP27 Addressed Some Effects, but Not Causes, of Climate Change

Climate-related disasters and natural hazards push 26 million people into poverty each year, according to the <a href="https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/we-can-do-more-help-countries-deal-climate-disasters" target="_blank">World Bank</a>. The plight of these vulnerable communities worsens without funding, technical skills and access to reliable sources of energy and electricity so citizens have the tools necessary to take on climate change.

In 2020, U.S. environmental nonprofits received only 2 percent of all charitable dollars, as discussed earlier this year by Michael Thomas of <a href="https://qz.com/2115902/climate-charities-deliver-the-most-charitable-bang-for-the-buck" target="_blank">Quartz</a>. But funding is only a small part of the equation. To accomplish long-term change, equipping these organizations with the tools and expertise necessary to drive societal outcomes is even more important. There is a huge need for these resources, and therefore, organizations must step up to help make an impact and effectively address climate change. 

<h2>A formula for taking on climate change</h2>

The power of science, technology and innovation can help communities most exposed to environmental hazards become more resilient in responding to climate change. 

While digital transformation is an important component of success for environmental organizations, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/OM020190/The-Omdia-Digital-Transformation-and-Innovation-Compass-A-Strategic-Growth-Tool" target="_blank">research from Omdia</a> indicates that up to 70 percent of existing digital transformation projects fail to meet their objectives. 

When it comes to communities and organizations working to respond to climate change, failure is not an option. Helping to ensure these groups can succeed is one of the most impactful ways organizations can help tackle these pressing challenges. 

<h2>Collaboration for transformation</h2>

In order to maximize success, addressing these issues must be a collaborative effort. We need to bring together the private sector, non-profits, governmental entities and individual employees.

For example, the <a href="https://www.ibm.com/impact/initiatives/ibm-sustainability-accelerator" target="_blank">IBM Sustainability Accelerator</a> is the company’s initiative to help global organizations and locally led environmental efforts build needed digital capacities and meet their goals. The accelerator leverages IBM technologies, such as hybrid cloud and artificial intelligence, and an ecosystem of experts to enhance and scale nonprofit and government organization interventions. 

Each year, the sustainability accelerator selects new projects and organizations to help communities tackle some of the biggest sustainability issues worldwide. IBM recently announced five new members of the program, all focused on accelerating clean energy projects. It supports the transition to help the world achieve SDG 7, with a focus on inclusive solutions to bring clean energy to the most vulnerable communities. The selected organizations for the clean energy cohort are United Nations Development Programme, Sustainable Energy for All, Net Zero Atlantic, Miyakojima City Government and Environment Without Borders Foundation. 

Through IBM’s work, the company developed a framework that could be used as a model for other organizations that would like to move forward on matching business capabilities with societal and environmental needs. The steps include:

Identify and align. Determine your organization’s capabilities, offerings, and resources. Then, hone in on sectors or activities that map well to those competencies. Understanding where you can make a differentiated impact is key. For example, IBM’s technology capabilities and subject matter experts allow it to provide tech tools and expertise to make a unique impact, specifically for vulnerable populations (where the need is the greatest). 

Define smart goals. Creating goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound will provide a framework for your organization to track progress and remain accountable to its commitments.

Activate locally. Think globally, but scale and activate locally. Each community or region is unique, so it’s important to engage with local groups and individuals who can help you understand the nuances of the culture. Leverage your local employees and partners to interact with local organizations and volunteers, ensure projects are delivered with local resources, in local languages, and through local team members.

Ignite the passion. Today, employees hold their employers accountable for supporting issues they care about, and corporate responsibility initiatives are now an important talent acquisition and retention tool. So, tap into the passion and interests of your people. The causes you support as an organization should also allow employees to use their professional experience for good. 

Build connections. Collaboration is key to a successful endeavor in support of local environmental organizations. Find members of your network with similar interests and complementary capabilities that can expand or round out your projects. Call on partners, investors, universities, academic and governmental organizations that may have similar social and environmental goals.

<h2>Let’s create powerful change together</h2>

There’s real power in leveraging your organization’s expertise to help nonprofits address environmental challenges. Collaborating with other entities that have complementary capabilities and well-aligned goals creates the kind of synergy we need to make a lasting difference. IBM looks forward to expanding the Sustainability Accelerator and multiplying its impact with additional partners. The only way we can all solve these giant challenges is by working together.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at <a href="mailto:editorial@3BLMedia.com?subject=pitch%20for%20guest%20article%20on%203p">editorial@3BLMedia.com</a> and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: <a href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/photograph-of-solar-panels-7527908/" target="_blank">Pexels</a>

How Technology and Expertise Can Scale Local Solutions to Global Climate Change Challenges

Sustainability is everywhere – and now it is coming for packaging. <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/survey-consumer-sentiment-on-sustainability-in-fashion" target="_blank">Studies show</a> that more than 60 percent of consumers in 2021 went out of their way to purchase products in environmentally-friendly packaging. And if consumer demand isn't enough to motivate brands to adopt sustainable packaging, then government regulations – already in force or being strongly considered in <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/sustainability-in-packaging-global-regulatory-development-across-30-countries" target="_blank">countries all over the world</a> – will push companies to change their ways.

Plastic packaging, which nearly every sector and industry <a href="http://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics-and-catalysing" target="_blank">relies on</a> to wrap, ship and protect their goods, accounts for more than a quarter of all plastic created annually – and more than 85 percent of that is thrown away. As <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2022/02/18/gen-z-and-sustainability-the-disruption-has-only-just-begun/?sh=2d553d723eb7" target="_blank">consumers</a> — and <a href="https://sourcingjournal.com/sustainability/sustainability-news/recover-texiles-recycling-fashion-industry-regulations-waste-337870/" target="_blank">governments</a> — become more aware of these facts, the pressure on brands to adopt sustainable packaging policies will increase significantly. They will also need to understand the different options, especially the differences between recyclable and compostable materials, in order to choose the most effective packaging. 

“Sustainability in packaging” means different things to different people. To many, including those in the plastics industry, it means recycling; taking packaging that was already used once and reusing it, possibly numerous times. The idea of plastic recycling has, of course, been greatly advanced by various industries as the ultimate sustainable solution. But it turns out that plastic recycling is far less efficient than claimed; according to the <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/percent-of-plastic-worldwide-is-recycled-oecd-says-/6455012.html" target="_blank">Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development</a>, only 9 percent of plastics are recycled, with the rest either dumped in landfills or the oceans — or incinerated. 

Thin flexible plastic, often used to wrap everything from clothing to food for shipping to customers, is especially difficult to recycle, and is <a href="https://apps.npr.org/plastics-recycling/" target="_blank">often not actually recycled at all</a>.

Recycling plastic, including flexible plastic, is <a href="https://www.rts.com/blog/is-recycling-worth-it/" target="_blank">also not economical</a> in most use cases. Recycled plastic often costs more than new plastic because collecting, sorting, transporting, and reprocessing plastic waste is exorbitantly expensive. Furthermore, large amounts of plastic are sent to the dump because the items are <a href="https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/03/13/fix-recycling-america/" target="_blank">too dirty </a>to be recycled, or too mixed up with other types of waste. Sorting or cleaning it is often impossible and almost always not worthwhile economically.  As the petrochemical industry is rapidly expanding, the cost of new plastic will only get lower.

A better alternative would be the adoption of compostable packaging, which solves some of the challenges posed by recycling, and complies both with consumer and government demands for sustainable packaging. Nowadays, there is a growing awareness among consumers and governments that when it comes to sustainability, plastic recycling just won't do. That’s why brands have been considering compostable packaging – where the materials used mostly break down in the environment, leaving a footprint that is far smaller than that left by conventional plastic and even enriches the earth by producing an end-product of agricultural compost that <a href="https://www.compostingcouncil.org/page/PlantGrowthBenefits" target="_blank">helps soil</a> retain water, <a href="https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/project/carbon-sequestration-through-compost/" target="_blank">capture more carbon</a> and produce <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880900002462" target="_blank">better crop yields</a>.

Around the world, brands are starting to adopt compostable packaging, often to replace traditional flexible plastic. Among those who have made the switch is apparel and accessory company <a href="https://www.gabrielahearst.com/blogs/stories/sustainable-practices-timeline" target="_blank">Gabriela Hears</a>t. For that brand, which makes products in limited numbers and from sustainably-sourced materials, compostable packaging was a natural next step and part of a larger commitment to protecting the environment. Sustainable textile company <a href="https://pangaia.com/pages/compostable-packaging" target="_blank">Pangaia</a> has also recently adopted compostable packaging.

Consumers have <a href="https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15087-consumers-want-sustainable-products.html" target="_blank">made it clear</a> that they want sustainability in packaging – and brands are responding, with many <a href="https://recyclinginternational.com/plastics/meet-the-plastic-pioneers-in-our-top-100/45579/" target="_blank">implementing recycling programs for the plastic</a> they use. But as consumers become <a href="https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=2_cc-session_0cdf56d4-016f-4ffe-9d8b-7e1a14c7ccd6" target="_blank">more aware </a>of the challenges with recycling, they will be seeking better end-of-life solutions. Companies that adopt those better methods will be better able to connect with consumers – developing for themselves a reputation as a company that truly cares about the environment.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at <a href="mailto:editorial@3BLMedia.com?subject=guest%20article%20pitch%20for%203p">editorial@3BLMedia.com</a> and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/pdFLNMuMuzk" target="_blank">Wander Fleur</a> via Unsplash

Consumers Want Sustainability in Packaging — But Recycling Isn't the Only Option

Earlier this month, more than <a href="https://apnews.com/article/starbucks-strike-walkout-red-cup-day-386896c728bc4a66d1aa51aa002fb1ba" target="_blank">100 Starbucks stores</a> were met by picket lines on this year’s Red Cup Day — the one day per year that the chain’s highly sought-after holiday collector’s cups are available. Striking workers set out to make a point about their employer’s practice of chronically understaffing retail locations by staging their single-day walkout on one of the brand’s highest-traffic days. The strike was also meant to draw attention to the company’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/10/02/1124680518/starbucks-union-busting-howard-schultz-nlrb" target="_blank">“scorched earth” response</a> to unionizing efforts. Such efforts could be a sign that organized labor is headed for a comeback in the U.S. as employees from food service and retail industries with historically low unionization rates have attempted to bring collective bargaining power to their workplaces over the last few years — many of them successfully.

The Red Cup Day strikes were just the latest protest from food service employees frustrated with their working conditions. Workers at a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/27/business/chipotle-workers-union-michigan" target="_blank">Chipotle Mexican Grill</a> in Michigan are among those who have done so, with more of the chain’s restaurants <a href="https://www.seiu32bj.org/chipotle-workers-union/" target="_blank">looking to follow the course</a>. Fast food services like Starbucks and Chipotle, or fast casual as the chain dubs itself, have long been thought of as almost impossible to <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/29/why-fast-food-workers-struggle-unionize/" target="_blank">effectively unionize</a>. But a Burgerville in Portland, Oregon proved that it could be done — forming the <a href="https://www.eater.com/2019/12/10/20974744/food-service-bad-conditions-lead-to-more-unionizing-organizing" target="_blank">first fast-food union in 2018</a>. The following year <a href="https://pdx.eater.com/2019/3/18/18271068/little-big-burger-fast-food-union?_gl=1*1tuy9ck*" target="_blank">Little Big Burger</a>, a Portland based chain, formed the Little Big Union.

It isn’t just better pay and benefits that are motivating fast food and other food service employees to finally unionize. Chipotle workers have been spurred into the movement in large part by a need for better health and safety measures in their restaurants — for themselves as well as their customers. Likewise, workers at a small locally owned distillery and cocktail bar in Minneapolis, Minnesota – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/dining/labor-union-restaurants.html" target="_blank">Tattersall Distilling</a> – unionized in the name of not just overtime pay but antiracism training and proper personal protective equipment. Employees at Anchor Brewing in San Francisco, California reportedly organized in part to <a href="https://splinternews.com/one-of-the-worlds-most-iconic-craft-breweries-is-unioni-1832439046" target="_blank">protect the brewery’s legacy</a> from being lost under new ownership. They’re also fighting to recover falling real wages and better labor conditions.

Working conditions are a big part of the union drive by Starbucks employees, which began almost a year prior in Buffalo, New York. Aaron Cirillo, who protested along with co-workers outside one of the Manhattan shops is quoted in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/starbucks-us-workers-100-stores-plan-one-day-walkout-2022-11-17/" target="_blank">Reuters as saying</a>, "They're working us to the bone because we're so understaffed.”  While the barista reported that he originally did not want to pursue unionization due to the likelihood of retaliation by the coffee retailer he changed his mind after waiting indefinitely for equipment to be repaired and better benefits — “This is a hostile environment and we have to do something about it.”

Red Cup Day generally boasts a substantial increase in sales over previous days the same year and was 87 percent higher in 2021. Customer typically show up early and wait in long lines for the cups until they run out. Because of this it is also a day that employees report being run ragged beyond their usual fast-food hustle. This made Red Cup Day an ideal setting for unionized Starbucks workers to get their point across to customers, who were largely supportive of their efforts. And those customers still got to take home a red cup — but this one came with the Worker’s United logo and a grinch motif to represent Starbucks’ union busting.

Striking stores represent just 1 percent of the coffee chain’s 9,000 venues. Still – with most of those 1 percent forced to close by lack of staff while those left open were operated by management and borrowed crew – the union is hopeful that its actions will have a big effect. “With 100 stores nationwide on strike today, I think it will definitely make an impact,” employee <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/11/17/23464263/starbucks-workers-red-cup-rebellion-union-strike" target="_blank">Ash Macomber told Vox</a> from the picket line outside of the closed Starbucks near Portland Maine where she works. “Not only with profits, but to show the company that we are stronger together, and once we collectively take action, then maybe change can really be made.”

Image credit: <a href="https://stories.starbucks.com/reusableredcup/" target="_blank">Starbucks</a>

Red Cup Day Strike Spotlights Workers’ Grievances and Growing Unionization Interest

As with every global climate conference across the past three decades, expectations were high at COP27 <a href="https://unfccc.int/cop27" target="_blank">in Egypt</a> for countries to work with renewed fervor in the collective fight against climate change. The world was watching to see if we would finally make significant progress in two critical areas: phasing out fossil fuels from the global economy to mitigate harmful carbon dioxide emissions, as well as financing adaptation and recovery from loss and damage in the <a href="https://germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Climate%20Risk%20Index%202021_1.pdf" target="_blank">regions most vulnerable to climate change impacts</a>. As a millennial who has now attended five U.N. climate conferences (COPs) across the past seven years, I witness the same story every time:

<ul><li>Fossil fuel lobbyists proposing false solutions, and delegates from developed countries touting themselves as leaders of addressing the climate crisis when they are the biggest current and historical polluters. </li>
	<li>A blatant disregard of grassroots voices from the Global South bearing the brunt of climate impacts which echo outside the negotiation halls during their daily actions. </li>
	<li>Negotiators working arduously day and night rewriting policy documents that would simultaneously satisfy all country, political and economic agendas while effectively and equitably addressing climate change. </li>
</ul>One of the other observations I made — now the topic of my Ph.D. dissertation — is the growing communication divide between climate scientists and policymakers in these spaces. For the 10 days I attended COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, I spent most of my time at the pavilion hosted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), located on the other side of the venue from the negotiation rooms. 

While a few negotiations in the first week invited these experts to share with delegates their findings from the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">IPCC’s sixth assessment report</a> on climate change, most of their insights were heard in their small pavilion and the occasional side events in front of an audience of mostly observer organizations. 

The IPCC sessions provided crucial information from the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/" target="_blank">Working Group II</a> and <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">Working Group III</a> reports on the vulnerability to climate change and evidence-based options for climate adaptation and mitigation by a range of diverse, interdisciplinary scientists traveling from all corners of the world to share their insights. 

However, their sessions were frequently overshadowed by the large, flashy neighboring pavilions, some hosted by corporations and fossil fuel-rich countries. Technical difficulties and the tumultuous surroundings of the expansive “world climate fair” made it difficult to hear the IPCC scientists present the best available evidence on the multifaceted challenge we face and potential pathways our society can embark on, such as <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-questions/keyfaq6/" target="_blank">climate resilient development</a>. The irony is that the COP is founded on these scientific findings and yet politicians and policymakers, particularly from developed countries, seemed not to be heeding their calls for more urgent action. 

I have seen a great deal of appreciation but limited attention and use of the findings from the IPCC reports by policymakers at the COPs. One potential solution is a redesign of the panel to make it more effective in meeting its mandate of directly informing policy. What could be helpful is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901117304331" target="_blank">going beyond assessments</a> to have deeper interactions and a better two-way flow of information between policymakers and scientists, with science not sidelined away from policymakers. 

As I envision it, the IPCC would not only be communicating the science to the policy arena, but policymakers would also share their policy needs with the scientists. In the best-case scenario, we’d see more coherent, evidence-based decisions that are vital for tackling this climate emergency that my generation and following generations will inherit.

As a COP veteran, I see the difficulty of navigating these multi-stakeholder, inter-governmental processes where everyone has their own agenda and ideas on the best way to address climate change. It is frustrating to realize how long it has been <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement" target="_blank">since the Paris Agreement</a> came into force and how far we still are from limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

The <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/full-ndc-synthesis-report-some-progress-but-still-a-big-concern" target="_blank">minimal progress made by a majority of the countries</a> to achieve their nationally determined contributions is disheartening. As countries continue to disagree, holding climate talks hostage, many are on the verge of giving up on this process. 

It is reasonable to ask: Is this really the best way to address the complex problem of climate change? No one has a concrete answer. The one thing we can agree on is that, for now, this is the best we have. To create and collectively agree on an alternative mechanism that would be more effective and inclusive than the UNFCCC would take time that we unfortunately do not have. 

So, time and again, we all eventually return to this space to make countries accountable for their inaction on climate adaptation and mitigation. And, with the limited power that observers have, we try to enhance the equity and evidence base of COP decisions. 

I still hold out on hope that we’ll one day see results from the <a href="https://climatenetwork.org/2022/11/20/landmark-decision-at-cop27-to-set-up-loss-and-damage-fund/" target="_blank">relentless efforts of climate justice organizations</a> that have attended COPs since the very beginning. They played a huge role in bringing adaptation finance and loss and damage to the top of the agenda at COP27, so that we prioritize the most vulnerable groups in this climate crisis. The landmark decision of COP27 in establishing a funding facility for loss and damage is largely thanks to them pressuring negotiators since day one of international climate negotiations. 

I know I can’t speak for my whole generation, but my hunch is that most millennials are aware of the daunting challenge of climate change and prepared to carry on the good fight, taking a different approach than the generations before us who caused this mess. We will do our best to prioritize people over profit, kick the big polluters proposing false solutions out of these negotiations, facilitate a just transition, bridge the silos and enhance cooperation across sectors, halt ecocide and shift finance toward climate adaptation and recovery from loss and damage in vulnerable developing countries, and make this planet habitable for animals and humans alike. It may be far-fetched, and it certainly won’t be easy. But it’s better to hold onto optimism than give in to despair and climate anxiety. After all, what is the alternative? Ours is a future worth fighting for.

Image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/32605673@N03/52507518446/" target="_blank">UNFCCC</a> via Flickr

Reflections from a Millennial Attending COP27: 30 Years Later and We are Still in Climate Limbo

Despite seismic government pledges to finance climate action in support of Indigenous, Afro-descendant and local community women and girls’ organizations, an overwhelming portion of the money has failed to reach these intended groups. <a href="https://rightsandresources.org/women-in-global-south-alliance/" target="_blank">Women in Global South Alliance for Tenure and Climate</a>, a new advocacy coalition of 41 grassroots women’s organizations from Africa, Asia and Latin America, hopes to reverse these funding deficiencies. 

The coalition launched at COP27, the U.N.’s climate summit held this year in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The alliance seeks to create an equitable shift in the climate finance landscape to ensure that the local women on the frontlines of climate action and biodiversity conservation are receiving direct, flexible and long-term funding to support their communities. 

<h2>Climate financing isn't reaching intended organizations</h2>

Historically, Indigenous peoples have been slow to receive their share of money earmarked for climate protection projects within their communities. A <a href="https://rightsandresources.org/publication/funding-with-purpose/" target="_blank">new study</a> from two nonprofits focused on rainforest conservation — Rights and Resources Initiative and Rainforest Foundation Norway — found that just 17 percent of global climate funding meant for local, Indigenous communities is led by those populations. 

The money is instead <a href="https://grist.org/article/the-world-spends-billions-to-protect-indigenous-land-only-17-goes-to-indigenous-people/" target="_blank">funneled through larger organizations</a> who have the bandwidth and resources to jump over lengthy administrative hurdles introduced by donors and governments. Indigenous peoples and local community organizations receiving a fraction of the direct funding threatens to exclude them from making important decisions that can have an impact on their communities. 

The funding disparity is even starker for women’s Indigenous groups. A <a href="https://www.awid.org/publications/call-action-insights-status-funding-indigenous-womens-groups#:~:text=Search-,A%20Call%20to%20Action%3A%20Insights%20into%20the%20Status,Funding%20for%20Indigenous%20Women's%20Groups&amp;text=Indigenous%20knowledge%20and%20sustainable%20practices,sustainable%20management%20of%20natural%20resources." target="_blank">2017 repor</a>t tracking funding data from 2010-2013 revealed that only 0.7 percent of all human rights funding went to Indigenous women’s organizations. Omaira Bolaños, director of the Latin America and Gender Justice Programs at Rights and Resources Initiative, says the alliance will “rectify this historical gap in access to direct climate finance for women and girls.” 

<h2>Will more pledges equal more direct funding for Indigenous women’s groups?</h2>

Government and donor pledges for Indigenous rights and gender equality have ticked up in recent years. In 2021, at COP26 held in Glasgow, Scotland, the governments of Canada, the U.K. and U.S. committed more than $7 billion to invest at the intersection of climate action and gender. 

Funders also pledged $1.7 billion to support collective and territorial rights for Indigenous peoples and local communities. Reflecting historical funding patterns, however, <a href="https://www.devex.com/news/only-7-of-1-7b-cop-26-pledge-is-going-directly-to-indigenous-groups-104182" target="_blank">reporting from Devex</a> reveals that only 7 percent of the $1.7 billion land tenure and forest guardianship pledge has gone directly to those groups. 

<h2>An alliance to change the funding landscape</h2>

Despite this discouraging trend of channeling money through intermediaries, the increase in pledges presents a ripe opportunity for the newly formed Women in Global South Alliance for Tenure and Climate to influence the way the funds are ultimately dispersed. In the build up to COP27, the alliance members co-signed a <a href="https://rightsandresources.org/publication/our-call-to-action/" target="_blank">call to action</a> for governments to urgently provide direct funding to the groups who have been historically under-supported and under-funded.

Archana Soreng, a youth climate activist from the Kharia Tribe in India and a member of the U.N. Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change, says Indigenous, Afro-descendant and local community women and girls should be “leaders of climate action, not victims of climate policies.”

“Climate finance must not leave Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and local community women and girls behind,” Soreng said <a href="https://www.alianzamesoamericana.org/en/at-cop27-41-grassroots-womens-organizations-launch-new-global-south-alliance-for-indigenous-and-local-women-and-girls/" target="_blank">in a press release</a>. “We are working on a global issue that needs global perspectives which is what the formation of this new women’s alliance is about.”

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/AQxl8gSYJ-c" target="_blank">Dulcey Lima</a> via Unsplash

Women-Led Alliance Launched at COP27 Demands Climate Finance for Indigenous Peoples

First came Black Friday. Eventually Small Business Saturday, Cyber Monday and Giving Tuesday arrived. But what about the Sunday after Thanksgiving? Online marketplace Poshmark has the answer: Secondhand Sunday, <a href="https://www.secondhandsunday.poshmark.com/" target="_blank">a new holiday</a> dedicated to “supporting secondhand sellers, circular fashion and the planet.” Poshmark is calling on people to buy used instead of new on Nov. 27 and to share their finds on social media with the hashtag #SecondhandSunday. 

While this new holiday has yet to grow into an actual social movement, it is another example of how <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2021/thrifting-fast-fashion/724426" target="_blank">perceptions</a> of secondhand shopping are continuing to evolve. No longer is “buying used” something only done for oneself. It’s an opportunity to shop sustainably and affordably while buying unique, high-quality gifts for others, too. 

Call it what you will — secondhand shopping, thrifting, upcycling, vintage hunting, and so on — but consumers are buying previously owned clothing, shoes and accessories <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/secondhand-shopping-is-booming-heres-how-much-you-can-save.html" target="_blank">in record numbers</a>.  And the trend is expected to continue throughout the 2022 holiday retail season. 

<h2>Inflation’s influence</h2>

According to a <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/articles/us175738_holiday-retail-travel/DI_2022-Holiday-retail.pdf" target="_blank">September survey</a> conducted by Deloitte, the two most popular reasons people gave for gifting secondhand items this holiday season were “to save money overall” and “to afford something a little nicer." These results are far from surprising, considering the rise in costs of everything from utilities to groceries this year. Many consumers are looking to cut spending any way they can, and buying used is one way to stretch those budgets even further.

The same survey found clothing is the most popular secondhand gift category this holiday season, with more than half of respondents saying they are most likely to buy used attire.  

<h2>“Certified pre-owned” fashion</h2>

In response to this demand, many traditional fashion retailers are <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/retail-consumers-meaning-2022/735601" target="_blank">entering</a> the resale market directly. In fact, 48 percent of retail executives in Deloitte’s survey said their companies “planned to sell refurbished/used products this holiday season.”

Websites like Poshmark earn revenue by charging a commission for each transaction individuals make on their online platform. What many fashion brands are doing now, however, is selling previously owned merchandise directly to consumers, just as they would with new products. This process is often referred to as “Resale as a Service” (RaaS). RaaS programs are often likened to “<a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2022/05/10972011/fashion-brands-resale-secondhand-programs" target="_blank">certified pre-owned</a>” programs run by car companies. Both new and used merchandise are sold in the same branded retail setting (in person or online), and customers can be reassured that the used items have passed quality inspections before being resold. 

<a href="https://www.recommerce100.com/blog/thredups-recommerce-100-hits-100-resale-shops" target="_blank">ThredUp reports</a> that the number of fashion brands with RaaS programs has grown by 300 percent this year compared to 2021. Some of the biggest players entering the field include Tommy Hilfiger, Athleta, PacSun and Vera Bradley. 

As more sustainability-focused (as opposed to <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/fast-fashion-sustainability/758481" target="_blank">fast fashion</a>) brands enter the RaaS space, the hope is that the stigma of “buying used” will dissipate, and consumers will look to resale first when searching for the perfect gift. 

<h2>Millennials and Gen Z: Secondhand shopping becomes second nature</h2>

For many consumers in their twenties and thirties, secondhand shopping is <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/gen-z-millennials-secondhand/749476" target="_blank">already part of their routine</a>. PwC reports that 53 percent of millennials will include resale or upcycled items on their holiday shopping lists, compared with 37 percent of shoppers across all ages. (Specific numbers for Gen Z were not available.) 

Millennial and Gen Z shoppers are especially motivated by the “concern for and awareness of the environmental and social effects of the consumption process," Michelle Childs, an associate professor of retail merchandising and management at University of Tennessee, told TriplePundit. “These shoppers tend to think ahead about if their purchases and values align. They consider things like, ‘will this item end up in a landfill after only a handful of wears?’ or ‘was this shirt made in less than favorable conditions?’ They genuinely care about the impact.”  

Another important factor — specifically for Gen Z — when it comes to buying secondhand fashion, whether for themselves or others? Uniqueness. 

“Gen Z-ers have more discretionary income than previous generations do. They are often willing to pay more for secondhand items,” Childs said. “It used to be you only bought used because you couldn’t afford new. Now, it’s so you can be unique. Gen Z consumers participate in trends, but also want those one-of-a-kind finds. Secondhand shopping — especially vintage fashion — combines both of these desires while also helping the planet.” 

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/ycVFts5Ma4s" target="_blank">Hannah Morgan</a>/Unsplash

Secondhand Sunday is Fashion’s Latest Initiative in the Rise of Resale 

For years, we’ve been relentless in pondering the key questions about the impact of climate change: Do global citizens fear it? Are the structures we build able to withstand — and mitigate — climate change? And, who must take the lead in creating this infrastructure? 

<h2>What do citizens want done about climate change?</h2>

We rarely, if ever, get a real sense of what global citizens think about those questions. But, Edelman’s respected 22-year-old Global Trust Barometer, which the giant communications agency now employs to gauge sentiment on special subjects, has found some interesting and insightful answers in <a href="https://www.edelman.com/trust/2022-trust-barometer/special-report-trust-climate" target="_blank">securing the pulse</a> of 14,000 respondents worldwide about climate. 

The major takeaways:

Seventy-seven percent worry about climate change leading to drought, rising sea levels and other natural disasters, and 57 percent agree little or no progress has been made to address it. 

Seventy-one percent say we must move faster on climate change issues, and two-thirds say we’ll have to dramatically change our habits to address climate change because institutions alone cannot do it.

Fifty-two percent believe politics drives climate policy, edging out the 48 percent who think science drives policy. 

Fifty-four percent think national governments should take the lead in addressing climate change, followed by state/regional governments and local governments – and then comes business, media and NGOs.

<h2>Citizens aren’t seeing leadership on climate change</h2>

Yet, while respondents think governments must take the lead, a majority – 54 percent — contend governmental leaders are unwilling to pass tough legislation that would force businesses and individuals to make climate-related changes.

This finding about government action — or inaction — is disturbing when it comes to building the structures required to withstand climate change. Take what we know increasingly about local government regulation regarding green infrastructure. In rural and less-dense areas, the policy options for incorporating green infrastructure include ordinances that preserve or restore pre-construction conditions on development sites, plus ordinances that direct development away from sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams and significant natural resources. 

In cities, however, green infrastructure offers the way to protect and restore natural habitats. Such green infrastructure includes plants and permeable surfaces that infiltrate stormwater into soil, thereby reducing levels of urban runoff to city storm sewers. 

The proverbial carrot-and-stick approach – that combination of reward and punishment to induce desired behavior – proves particularly instructive in local regulations. 

Here’s a “stick” example: A zoning ordinance adopted in January 2018 by Norfolk, Virginia’s city council includes a unique “resilience quotient system” requiring housing developers to reach a certain point total, based on the size or number of units, by including various resilience measures in the project’s design. Stormwater management is one such measure, earning points for installing a green roof, rain gardens or other stormwater infiltration systems; or using pervious paving systems, tree planting or providing a community garden space, among others. 

In Washington, D.C., “the green area ratio” is a zoning regulation for environmental sustainability that sets requirements for landscape elements and site design to help reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, and mitigate urban heat. It sets minimum lot coverage standards for landscape and site design features to promote greater livability, ecological function, and climate adaptation in the urban environment. 

As for the “carrot” approach, Philadelphia encourages more stormwater retention and green infrastructure practices by creating subsidies, grants and rebates for both residential and nonresidential projects. The city offers a lower price for qualified nonresidential customers and contractors to design and install stormwater best management practices that reduce stormwater pollution and enhance water quality. 

In New York, a multiagency Green Infrastructure Grant program led by the Environmental Protection Department offers grants for up to $5 million to private property owners in combined sewer areas of the city who promise 20 years of maintenance. Funds are provided for green infrastructure projects that manage the first inch of rainfall, and they include blue roofs, rain gardens, green roofs, porous pavement and rainwater harvesting. 

The EPA offers a handy guide for overcoming barriers to green infrastructure as well as guides for site-scale green infrastructure practices. 

As for the Edelman Trust Barometer on climate, it maintains that institutions leading climate action must show the benefits to individuals “because people recognize the positive impacts of current climate change solutions on a societal level more than on a personal level.” 

That reminded me that in 2006 in Chicago, where I’m based, I worked with the City Council and developers to pass what may have been the first performance-based stormwater management ordinance that drove green roofs, permeable parking lots, tree planting and bioswales on private property. 

Today, my business and my community benefit from this greening’s positive impacts. Perhaps based on them, subsequent city administrations have been able to go further with green stormwater infrastructure in public capital projects, permeable alleys and natural "streetscaping."

This possibility proves instructive in contemplating a conclusion of the Edelman climate report about government’s responsibility: Regulating for green infrastructure, which grows in resilience benefit over time, even as climate change risks also grow, is one helpful opportunity. 

That message for governments is a simple one: Meet the needs of today — and build for tomorrow. 

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/Ps4SxKM15g4" target="_blank">Simon Hurry</a> via Unsplash

A Climate Change Message to Governments: Meet Today’s Needs and Build for Tomorrow

Consumer Reports presented an informational webinar on Wednesday, laying out the framework for a transition to cleaner transportation primarily via low-carbon fuels and electrification.

It’s a promising start — what with the variety of drop-in fuels that are hitting the market and price parity for electric vehicles <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/reuters-impact-envision-sees-cost-electric-cars-parity-by-202526-2022-10-04/" target="_blank">possible as soon as 2025</a>. The model has both government backing and the support of those automakers who have embraced its market potential, especially if that means convincing consumers to trade up sooner than later. But switching to EVs and low-carbon fuels ultimately fails to address the structural inefficiencies that result from dependence on the personal passenger vehicle as the primary mode of transportation in the U.S. 

As a result, the transition is less about meeting an immediate need for substantial emissions reductions and more about keeping the auto industry afloat — ultimately falling short of the overall transformation that is needed in the transportation sector to reduce the total number of passenger vehicles produced and on the road.

Transportation is the No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to Consumer Reports, with passenger vehicles responsible for 57 percent of those emissions. The present school of thought aims to fix this scenario by simply swapping out vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICE) for EVs, with low-carbon fuels potentially acting as a stopgap in the meantime. The U.S. government is so confident in this plan that it is <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-biden-us-department-transportation-releases-toolkit-help-rural-communities" target="_blank">investing $7.5 billion toward a charging infrastructure</a> that will install 500,000 EV chargers across the country.

Still, gas-powered vehicles aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Not only are many of today’s cars still going to be in operation over the next decade, but ICE vehicles are also expected to continue to constitute the <a href="https://evadoption.com/2030-20-million-more-ice-vehicles-will-be-on-the-roads-in-the-us-than-in-2021/" target="_blank">majority of sales through at least 2032</a>. This means <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200204005053/en/36-Million-More-Internal-Combustion-Vehicles-on-U.S.-Roads-by-2030-Predicts-Lang-Marketing" target="_blank">an estimated 20 million to 36 million more of them</a> could hit the road by 2030, which would put the number of personal vehicles in the U.S. running on fossil fuels at over 300 million.

Transitioning to low-carbon fuels may help lessen some of the sting from that many tailpipes, according to the information Consumer Reports presented last week. The idea is that drop-in fuels made from ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen could have a lower overall carbon output. There are caveats, of course. Ethanol and biodiesel made from corn and other foods raise ethical concerns — though moves toward producing the fuels from waste products, algae and other non-food sources are promising. Likewise, e-fuels require substantial electricity to make, and <a href="https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/only-enough-e-fuels-to-power-2-of-cars-on-the-road-in-2035-analysis/" target="_blank">the infrastructure to produce them is lacking</a>.

Regardless of whether a vehicle runs on gas or electricity, a substantial amount of carbon emissions are produced in its construction, with EVs actually responsible for a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/" target="_blank">higher initial carbon output</a> (though they make up for it after being driven for a while). Not to mention the resources and environmental degradation involved in mining lithium — a necessary evil when it comes to electrification with current mainstream technologies. In fact, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/01/south-america-s-lithium-fields-reveal-the-dark-side-of-our-electric-future" target="_blank">replacing fossil fuels with batteries</a> is starting to look a lot like swapping out one environmental catastrophe for another.

So, what’s the fix? Certainly, there comes a point where we have to accept that our Earth is finite. It does not contain unlimited resources, and it cannot absorb unlimited pollution and abuse. Transitioning to low-carbon fuels and EVs simply is not enough. What’s more, upgrading to electric while the ICE vehicle in the driveway is still running strong could <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car" target="_blank">do more harm than good</a> for the environment. The personal passenger vehicle as a primary mode of transportation is just not sustainable for a planet with 8 billion people living on it.  

Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/H-0afhW6p8Y" target="_blank">Filip Filkovic Philatz</a>/Unsplash

As Climate Denial Continues, Now There’s Talk to Dim the Sun

Prime Stories

Editor Curated

New Rule Supports Corporate Responsibility, but Anti-ESG Fever is Still Rising

How Intelligent Automation Can Pave the Road to Net-Zero

COP27 Addressed Some Effects, but Not Causes, of Climate Change

How Technology and Expertise Can Scale Local Solutions to Global Climate Change Challenges

Consumers Want Sustainability in Packaging — But Recycling Isn't the Only Option

Red Cup Day Strike Spotlights Workers’ Grievances and Growing Unionization Interest

Reflections from a Millennial Attending COP27: 30 Years Later and We are Still in Climate Limbo

Women-Led Alliance Launched at COP27 Demands Climate Finance for Indigenous Peoples

Secondhand Sunday is Fashion’s Latest Initiative in the Rise of Resale

A Climate Change Message to Governments: Meet Today’s Needs and Build for Tomorrow

Electric Vehicles Aren't Enough: We Need Fewer Cars on the Road

LATEST NEWS FROM 3BL MEDIA

Editorial Team

We report the business case for sustainability.

Leon Kaye

Tina Casey

Mary Mazzoni