(NEW YORK) — After more than a year of working remotely through the COVID-19 pandemic, staffers at Hearst’s magazines are fighting back against a mandatory return to office.
Workers at the magazine-publishing division of Hearst — which runs outlets including Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping and Men’s Health — have filed an unfair labor practices charge against their employer with the National Labor Relations Board via their union, the Writer’s Guild of America East.
The document filed with the NLRB and shared with ABC News by the union alleges unfair labor practices because the management failed to negotiate with workers in good faith over return-to-office protocols.
The labor action from the magazine journalists comes as a slew of companies across the country are now seeking to bring employees back into the office and face new resistance after some 20 months of remote work during the health crisis.
Record-high levels of people quitting their jobs as the pandemic wanes and other unique labor market conditions have also been linked to workers being emboldened to negotiate for what they want in the workplace recently, especially as major companies have reported struggling to find staff.
Over 300 employees (out of a bargaining unit of some 450 people) from Hearst’s magazines division also signed a petition that was delivered to management demanding workplace location flexibility.
“We, the undersigned, trust in our colleagues to perform all their work responsibilities from the location that is most suitable to their needs. We have seen our colleagues adapt to unprecedented changes in our work lives without a drop in productivity,” the petition, shared with ABC News by the union, states. “We do not believe that a return to office is the same as a return to work, because for all Hearst employees, we have never stopped working, regardless of our location.”
The petition adds that while some employees require access to the office to do their work, they are simply seeking a “continuation of the functional norm that we have reached as a result of our extraordinary circumstances, with employees and teams able to make decisions that are appropriate for their work needs.”
In a Twitter thread posted by the Hearst Magazines Media Union, the group says that they have been seeking to negotiate with management “for months” over return-to-office plans but still feel in the dark. The thread adds that it was only four business days before the scheduled return that some New York-based employees learned of the COVID exposure policy, and that many health and safety questions remain unanswered.
“It’s our position that by barreling ahead with these last-minute plans, management is making a unilateral change to our work circumstances without adequately bargaining over the change as required by federal law,” the union tweeted. “We are ready to cooperate with any investigation the NLRB deems necessary and are hopeful this process will reinforce to the company how serious we are about workplace safety.”
Some journalists working at Hearst have weighed in on the debate on Twitter, arguing flexible work arrangement offers more time to spend with family and more.
A Hearst magazine’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on Tuesday.
“We recognize that returning to the office is a big step and that some people are apprehensive about it,” Debi Chirichella, Hearst’s president, said in an email to staff last month, according to the New York Times, which reported that Hearst is seeking employees to be in the office at least three days a week. Chirichella continued: “Adjusting to this new way of working will require the same flexibility, patience and collaboration that we all demonstrated when we began working from home.”
Data from the Department of Labor indicates that many companies are in the process of recalling workers back to their offices. The DOL said that 11.6% of employed person’s teleworked because of the pandemic last month, down from 13.2% in September.
(NEW YORK) — Shares for General Electric surged 6% in early trading Tuesday after the historic American conglomerate announced plans to split into three publicly-traded companies focused on aviation, health care and energy.
Investors seemed to welcome the news from the major firm, with a market cap topping $126 billion, despite further details on how the split will impact shareholders not yet fully apparent.
The more than 125-year-old company, which ties its origin to American inventor and businessman Thomas Edison, said it intends to execute “tax-free spin-offs” to form the GE Healthcare company in early 2023, and the GE Renewable Energy and Power in early 2024. The remaining company will focus on the aviation sector.
“At GE, we have always taken immense pride in our purpose of building a world that works. The world demands — and deserves — we bring our best to solve the biggest challenges in flight, healthcare, and energy,” GE Chairman and CEO H. Lawrence Culp, Jr. said in a statement Tuesday. “By creating three industry-leading, global public companies, each can benefit from greater focus, tailored capital allocation, and strategic flexibility to drive long-term growth and value for customers, investors, and employees.”
GE said it expects to retain a stake of 19.9% in GE Healthcare, which will be the first to branch out and focus on precision health. It did not disclose the stake it plans to retain for GE Renewable Energy and Power (which will combine GE Renewable Energy, GE Power, and GE Digital into one business), but said the plans are to position this offshoot of the company to “lead the energy transition” as the impacts of climate change force businesses to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy.
Following the spin-off of GE Renewable Energy and Power, the remaining arm of the company will be focused on aviation and “shaping the future of flight,” according to a company statement Tuesday.
The independent businesses will be better positioned to deliver long-term growth, GE said, by allowing deeper operational focus, tailored capital allocation decisions, financial flexibility, dedicated boards of directors and unique investment profiles that appeal to a deeper investor base.
Culp called Tuesday a “defining moment for GE,” adding, “and we are ready.”
“We have a responsibility to move with speed to shape the future of flight, deliver precision health, and lead the energy transition,” Culp added. “The momentum we have built puts us in a position of strength to take this exciting next step in GE’s transformation and realize the full potential of each of our businesses.”
Culp will continue to serve as chairman and CEO of GE until the second spin-off, the company said, at which point he will lead the GE aviation-focused company going forward. He will also serve as a non-executive chairman of the GE healthcare company upon its spin-off.
The company said GE veteran Peter Arduini will assume the role of president and CEO of GE Healthcare beginning on Jan. 1, 2022, Scott Strazik will be the CEO of the combined Renewable Energy, Power and Digital business and John Slattery will continue as CEO of Aviation.
Finally, the company said that it is on track to reduce debt by more than $75 billion by the end of the year, and said this will put it in a strong position to execute the plan to form three separate companies.
(NEW YORK) — Uber and Lyft are boasting record profits as both companies say they are aggressively recruiting drivers to fill a void created by the pandemic.
Since the pandemic, rideshare costs have exploded across the country. Uber and Lyft — the two largest rideshare companies in the United States that are responsible for 90% of the market — say many drivers left the platform early in the pandemic due to concerns about the risk of contracting COVID-19. Others shifted to food delivery, which some considered a safer alternative because there’s less human contact.
Those driver shortages have led to surging costs per ride and increased wait times, the companies said.
But despite those challenges, both Uber and Lyft recently recorded their best financial performances as the companies report a new increase in drivers — and riders.
Lyft CEO Logan Green said the company’s revenue increased 73% compared with the same time period in 2020, while Uber’s revenue increased 67%.
While many office workers continue to work from home, others who are returning to the office and previously used public transit have shifted to ridesharing to limit contact with others.
Lyft reported an increase of 2 million more riders during the third quarter, and Uber CFO Nelson Chai said as of October, Uber has recovered about 85% of its pre-pandemic business.
On airport rides, Uber has recovered 67% of its business, Chai said. Air travel, which was decimated by the pandemic, has started to return, as the third quarter of 2021 saw the most daily passengers since 2019. The demand for rides also has increased among those venturing out for dining and entertainment.
Along with that rising demand, Lyft reported a 45% increase in drivers compared with the same period last year, while Uber said it has increased its drivers by 65% since January. Both Uber and Lyft have created driver incentive programs to attract and retain drivers.
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said Thursday that the company is bouncing back faster than other transportation providers in spite of increased costs for consumers using rideshare services.
“We have come back from the pandemic faster than almost any other mode of transportation despite higher pricing,” Khosrowshahi said during a quarterly earnings call. “Now, we don’t necessarily want that to be a permanent fixture, but I do think with the increased cost of labor, and frankly inflation and the increased cost of everything, I do think that prices are going to be up on a year on year basis, and as a marketplace we get a take of that.”
While the companies both previously had said they expected ride costs to drop by the end of the year, the price increases are holding steady. Rakuten Intelligence, a company that collects and analyzes e-commerce data, said in a study of credit card receipts that costs were up 40% compared with pre-pandemic costs.
Both Uber and Lyft posted record third quarter profits, which started July 1 and ended Sept. 30. On Nov. 2, Lyft posted an adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) profit of $67.3 million. In the previous quarter, April 1 through June 30, Lyft posted an adjusted EBITDA of $23.8 million, its first profit. Uber recorded its first adjusted EBITDA profit of $8 million, up from a second-quarter loss of $507 million.
Both Uber and Lyft project increased profits in the fourth quarter.
Customers are still adjusting to the price increases and wait times. In San Francisco, Mary Ann Jones, who runs a nonprofit social services agency less than a half mile from Uber’s headquarters, told ABC News her rideshare expenses have increased dramatically.
“I’m paying significantly more to get where I need to go,” said Jones, who is walking when possible rather than hailing rides. “The surges are ridiculous.”
Jones said she’s had to pay as much as $40 to travel two miles.
Despite returning business and driver increases, drivers say the funds are not trickling down to them.
The rideshare companies, however, say driver earnings are approaching peak levels.
“Driver earnings remain near all time highs due to increased utilization,” Khosrowshahi said during the Nov. 4 earnings call.
(LOS ANGELES) — Los Angeles’ sweeping new vaccine mandate goes into effect Monday, which requires proof of vaccination in order for patrons to enter most public indoor spaces in the second most populous city in the U.S.
Believed to be among the most far-reaching vaccination requirements in the nation, the ordinance from the Los Angeles City Council was signed by Mayor Eric Garcetti in October but took effect Monday morning, covering everyone who is eligible for a coronavirus vaccine (or people ages 12 and up).
The mandate requires proof of vaccination to enter the indoor portions of any establishment where food or beverages are served (such as restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc), gyms and fitness venues, entertainment and recreation venues (including movie theaters, music and concert venues, museums and shopping centers), personal care establishments (like spas and nail salons), and any facilities or buildings owned or operated by the City of Los Angeles.
Effective November 8, 2021, @LACity will require proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test to enter most public indoor places. pic.twitter.com/4ctWBMv71C
It will also require proof of vaccination for large outdoor events with 5,000 or more attendees.
To demonstrate proof of vaccination, people can use their CDC-issued vaccination card or a similar document issued by a foreign government agency, a photo of both sides of their vaccination card, documentation of vaccination from a licensed health care provider or a personal digital COVID-19 vaccine record issued by the State of California or similar entities (such as the State of California’s Digital COVID-19 Vaccine Record, which can be downloaded onto a smartphone and show proof of vaccine via a QR code).
The mandate has exemptions for those who are not vaccinated due to a medical condition or religious belief, but still requires those individuals to have proof of a negative COVID-19 test that was administered within 72 hours prior to seeking entry to an indoor facility or large outdoor event.
“Vaccinating more Angelenos is our only way out of this pandemic, and we must do everything in our power to keep pushing those numbers up,” Garcetti said in a statement last month when he signed the ordinance.
Garcetti added that the rules will help encourage more people to get the shot and make businesses “safer for workers and customers.”
Operators of indoor locations or large outdoor events are asked to check for patrons’ vaccination statuses under the new rules and may be issued a citation for non-compliance. On first offense, the operator will receive a warning and notice to correct. The operator of the venue could then face a fine of $1,000 for a second violation, $2,000 for a third violation and $5,000 for a fourth and each subsequent violation.
While the mandate kicks in on Monday, enforcement — through inspectors from the city’s Department of Building and Safety — will begin starting on Nov. 29.
Los Angeles County data indicate that some 80.2% of residents ages 12 and older have received at least one does of a COVID-19 vaccine as of last week and 72% are fully vaccinated.
Los Angeles joins a growing number of municipalities mandating the coronavirus vaccine for indoor venues. A similar indoor vaccine requirement went into effect in New York City in August, though its rollout sparked backlash.
Despite a small yet vocal faction of Americans opposing the shot, health officials have reiterated that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths from the virus.
(WASHINGTON) — Hiring gained steam in October, with U.S. employers adding 531,000 jobs and the unemployment rate edging down by a fraction of a percentage point to 4.6%, the Department of Labor said Friday.
Job growth was widespread and beat economists’ expectations — with major gains in leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, manufacturing, and in the transportation and warehousing sectors — the DOL said, indicative of the the post-pandemic recovery rebounding in the labor market after months of disappointing hiring figures. In September, employers added some 312,000 jobs, according to revised figures released Friday.
Employment has increased by 18.2 million since the recent low seen in April 2020, when the pandemic raged, but remains down by some 4.2 million, or 2.8%, from its pre-pandemic levels. The unemployment rate in February 2020 was at a historic low of 3.5%.
Notable job growth was seen in the hard-hit leisure and hospitality industry last month, which saw some 164,000 jobs added. Employment in this sector is still down by 8.2%, however, compared to February 2020 levels.
Other notable job gains occurred in professional and business services, which added 100,000 jobs in October, including a gain of 41,000 in temporary help services, the DOL said. Manufacturing added 60,000 jobs last month, and the transportation and warehousing sector saw employment increase by 54,000 jobs.
Moreover, the average hourly earnings for all employees last month increased by 11 cents to $30.96. A shortage of workers accepting low-wage jobs in the wake of the pandemic shock has been linked to the rising wages seen in recent months, as many major companies have struggled to hire back staff let go in the early days of the pandemic.
Disparities still lurk in the recovery. The unemployment rate for Black workers last month was nearly double that of white workers at 7.9% compared to 4%. The unemployment rate for Hispanic workers was 5.9% in October, and 4.2% for Asian workers.
Finally, the DOL data indicates some companies are recalling workers back to the office after the vaccine rollout. The DOL said that some 11.6% of employed persons teleworked because of the pandemic last month, down from 13.2% the month prior.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — Dubbed a “code red for humanity” by the head of the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its most-recent report that the impacts of human-induced climate change are already being seen in “every region across the globe” and urgent action must be taken immediately, not decades into the future, to mitigate the devastation.
As scientists sound the alarms, it has become near-impossible for business leaders to ignore the research — or the global, youth-led protests spurred by activists like Greta Thunberg, who view climate change as an intergenerational justice issue — as a new generation of consumers accuse major greenhouse gas-emitting corporations of robbing the young of their future.
In recent years, a slew of high-profile announcements have followed from hundreds of major U.S. companies, pledging to achieve “net-zero” emissions by a date often decades in the future. Some have welcomed these public-facing commitments as positive indicators that the private sector is heeding to public pressure, but the scientific community says a lack of universal accounting standards results in most of these promises being ineffective, unjust and the latest form of “greenwashing” from corporate America.
Scientists are urging that at this point, with the impacts of climate change already manifesting, the “net” part of these “net-zero” announcements are coming too late and have shifted the focus from reducing emissions to simply “offsetting” them with nature- or tech-based solutions that simply don’t yet exist at the scale necessary to meet the need. Some researchers have used the analogy that if your house is flooding, you would likely focus on turning off the faucet spewing the water rather than on trying to mop the floodwaters up.
“The word ‘net’ is really the key to the zero,” Rahul Tongia, a senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, told ABC News of these recent pledges from major companies.
“What that means is relying on offsets, where I don’t actually ‘zero’ my emissions, I don’t stop completely, but I compensate for them, I adjust for them, I offset them,” Tongia added. “And this is really a very long, complex challenge of understanding what these mean.”
With businesses and industry contributing to an outsized share of greenhouse gas emissions, it’s going to take more than individual lifestyle changes to tackle the crisis. Here is how scientists say the private sector’s “net-zero” emissions pledges could end up having “net-zero” impact.
Already decades off track to meet climate goals, ‘offset’ commitments don’t cut it
Data directly ties greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions — the largest source of which in the U.S. comes from humans burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation — to the rising average surface temperature on our planet. This research led to the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, which sought to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably to 1.5 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels by drastically reducing emissions.
In a subsequent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that the world must bring its carbon dioxide emissions to “net zero” by 2050 in order to keep global warming below the 1.5 degrees Celsius benchmark.
More recent data from the U.N., however, suggests that at the current rate of emissions (if the world continued emitting the same amount of carbon dioxide as it did in the pre-COVID year of 2019), we would surpass our carbon budget necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in approximately eight years. This means that on our current trajectory, the plans for “net-zero” by 2050 as outlined in the Paris accord likely won’t cut it anymore as the planet could surpass the dire 1.5 degrees Celsius mark around 2030.
A world warmed by just the 1.5 degrees Celsius benchmark would already look vastly different than today, the IPCC has warned, with some 70 to 90% of coral reefs projected to be gone at that temperature (and 99% disappearing at the 2 degrees Celsius mark). Moreover, a warming of just 1.5 degrees Celsius “is not considered ‘safe’ for most nations, communities, ecosystems and sectors and poses significant risks to natural and human systems,” the IPCC has stated, saying some of the worst impacts are expected to be felt among agricultural and coastal-dependent communities.
With the consequences dire, experts say the stakes are too high to rely on vague promises of “net-zero” emissions — with the emphasis on “net” — or offsetting in the future. Over 350 climate-focused nongovernmental organizations recently released a statement directed toward the Biden administration and lawmakers decrying “net-zero” as a “dangerous distraction.”
“Net-zero pledges delay the action that needs to happen,” Diana Ruiz, a senior campaigner at the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace USA, one of the statement’s signatories, told ABC News. “What we’ve seen is more of the abuse of these pledges by corporations to allow them to continue to pollute and and continue business as usual.”
Ultimately, net-zero emissions pledges “can mean a very wide variety of things,” Joeri Rogelj, the director of research at the Grantham Institute and a reader in climate science and policy at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, told ABC News.
“There are lots of net zero targets out there today,” Rogelj added. “What do they mean? It’s not always equally clear.”
In a recent commentary published in the scientific journal Nature, Rogelj and his team of researchers argue that net-zero targets are too vague, and while they are welcome signs of intent, they are fraught with difficulties that impede their effectiveness at reaching climate change goals, and the stakes of climate change are too high to take comfort with mere announcements.
“First of all, a net-zero target can be applied to either carbon dioxide or all greenhouse gases. Very often, that’s not really clearly specified,” he told ABC News, adding the scope of the pledges can also refer to just the tail-end emissions versus the sum of all the activities along the supply chain and distribution of products or services a company delivers.
Greenpeace’s Ruiz, said they ultimately view net-zero pledges as a way for corporations “to greenwash their pollution by using carbon offsets and other false climate solutions.”
“It allows the corporations to continue to pollute while claiming to reduce their emissions somewhere else,” Ruiz told ABC News. “The key here is that net zero doesn’t mean companies will stop polluting.”
Swedish teen activist Thunberg summed up what net-zero pledges mean to her on Twitter as the COP26 conference commenced, writing: “I am pleased to announce that I’ve decided to go net-zero on swear words and bad language. In the event that I should say something inappropriate I pledge to compensate that by saying something nice.”
How a computer model ‘opened Pandora’s box’: Where does ‘net-zero’ come from?
Climate scientist Wolfgang Knorr, a senior researcher at Sweden’s University of Lund, has said he now feels remorse over how some of his earlier climate research, built by computer models, was coopted by policymakers and the private sector to contribute to the rise of net-zero pledges.
“Basically, what happened is the Paris Agreement was signed, but then nobody actually knew what it meant,” he said. “And then the scientific community, the IPCC tasked to actually figure out what 1.5 meant in two ways — what’s the difference between climate impacts with 1.5 versus 2 degrees of warming? And the other question is what needs to be done and/or what can we still emit to stay within 1.5 degrees?”
To solve for the latter, Knorr said he was running integrated assessment computer models that looked at how the economy works and calculating in emissions from industrial activity, the agricultural sector and more to figure out the best pathway to keep the rise in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably within 1.5 degrees Celsius, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.
“Personally, my job was and has been for most of the time to devise mathematical models,” he said, adding that in these models, “the ‘net’ exists as an abstract idea, but what it means in reality, that didn’t actually affect these models at all by the way they were constructed.”
The models they ran, he said, found “it’s just not possible” to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius with all of the other variables, and he wrote in his research that in the end, “any remaining emissions would have to be offset.”
“We actually really wrote, then, by some ‘artificial means,'” he added of offsets, but stressed that this was still “just existing in a computer model and their lines of code.”
“By bringing that offsetting on the table, we have basically opened Pandora’s box,” Knorr says now. “We should have been really cautious about bring it on the table.”
“That ‘zero’ has sort of disappeared from sight, and it’s all about the ‘net,'” he added. “I think that I might have contributed to this.”
In its most-recent 2021 report, the IPCC simply defines “net-zero” as a “condition in which anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are balanced by anthropogenic CO2 removals over a specified period,” though details on this “removals” process remain sparse.
“Originally, when I was working on this topic like 10 years ago or more, we were thinking about, ‘OK, I mean, maybe a few percent of what we emit, CO2, will have to be offset,’ because for example, cement production is very difficult without producing CO2, or certain forms of agriculture might be still be emitting greenhouse gases.”
“But we were not thinking of entire sectors carrying on, like the fossil fuel sectors, for example,” he said.
Unpacking the ‘offsets’ on which ‘net-zero’ pledges are based
At the core of net-zero emission pledges is the concept of offsetting emissions, but scientists warn that the nature-based proposals are limited and fraught with potential environmental justice issues and the technology-based proposals haven’t nearly caught up with the scale and pace of emissions. The myriad of net-zero pledges are likely betting the planet’s future on the possible development of carbon removal technology emerging at some point.
“The potential for that carbon dioxide removal is very limited,” Rogelj, who has been a lead author for multiple annual Emissions Gap Reports by the United Nations Environment Programme, said. “First of all, because it’s expensive, because we have limited land and because we can’t scale those technologies up quick.”
Rogelj said ultimately, the science shows that rather than offsetting, the focus should be on deep reductions of emissions in the first place. What has emerged, however, is “companies that basically are not focusing on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, but rather are buying very cheap offset credits, not all of which are very reliable or trustworthy.”
“For a very small cost, they just continue polluting while giving the impression of trying to achieve ‘net-zero,'” he said.
There is no universal standard for offsetting or offsetting credits, Rogelj added, which is why it is important for the public to unpack what a company or even country means when they say their emissions are “net-zero” versus “zero.”
Knorr said there have been offsetting proposals “that basically allow a company or country to emit more than pledged for when another entity does less of that.”
“That’s often called avoidance offsetting, and it’s really important to stress because it’s often not very clear,” he said, arguing that this system needs to be entirely done away with. Among the worst net-zero pledges he’s seen emanating from Eastern Europe simply counted the nation’s existing forest lands as an “offset” that then by their calculations meant they essentially had to take no action on reducing emissions while claiming a goal of “net-zero.”
The second two forms of offsets, according to Knorr, are “nature-based solutions” (like planting trees) and “technological solutions” (that use emerging tech to remove carbon from the atmosphere and often store it underground).
Nature-based solutions often rely on land in poorer or developing nations to make up for the carbon emitted by wealthier countries, Knorr said, adding, “We currently have far too many tree-planting pledges for there being places, and there are also people living in these areas that might actually be then claimed for that.”
Thunberg said in a tweet that these nature-based offsets are also often fraught with human rights and environmental justice issues.
“Nature-based offsetting that relies heavily on land use in the Global South and in Indigenous lands risks shifting responsibility for emissions made by Global North countries to those already struggling with the impacts of the climate crisis and are least responsible for it,” she wrote from COP26.
While technology is rapidly improving in carbon capture and removal techniques, it has been hard for them to keep up with the amount of emissions being spewed.
The world’s biggest carbon capture facility opened in Iceland just last month to much fanfare. According to the calculations posted to Twitter by climate scientist Peter Kalmus, however, “If it works, in one year it will capture three seconds worth of humanity’s CO2 emissions.”
Echoing the questions of fairness raised by Thunberg and others, Tongia said that the impacts of carbon dioxide emissions on the globe are indiscriminate — highlighting the need for wealthier nations and corporations to take actions beyond just exploiting the land or lack of carbon coming from poorer nations.
“It doesn’t matter if a rich person or a poor person emits or cuts down, carbon is a global externality or pollutant,” he said. “So by saying all carbon is equal, that’s what offsets are intellectually driven by, that lets someone richer pay for the offset in a poor country.”
The real, capital-intensive challenges require changing industrial processes and the infrastructure that relies on fossil fuels, according to Tongia, which can take decades before seeing a return on investments.
“Instead of doing all of that, if you have an offset mechanism, the rich are able to say, ‘Oh, I’ll take an offset through low-hanging fruit that happens to be with a developing country,'” he added, such as a forestation project, which is a relatively cheap endeavor. “But that doesn’t actually reduce their emissions, it’s just a zero-sum game at one level.”
“The problem becomes, now let’s say some years later, the poor country needs to reduce its emissions as well, there’s nothing for them to offset against,” Tongia said. “And at that point we’ll be such far along this trajectory of total emissions, that we can’t rely on offsets anymore.”
Ultimately, with the damage already done, Knorr said this “net” or “offset” faze is “quite tangential in the current debate,” admitting that “to a large degree we have failed, also as scientists for example, for not calling that out.”
Looking beyond net-zero pledges
Tongia said that in his research, these offsets seem to have emerged in the private sector as short-term solutions while tackling the climate crisis needs to have a much broader approach.
“What I worry about is we’re taking too simplistic of an approach; we’re ‘financializing’ a lot of this space,” he said. “What these companies want is just tell me how to do it today, I’ll write a check.”
“People are stepping up and saying I’m willing to write a check, but now translating that instrument, that writing-a-check into what action on the ground is needed to actually offset those emissions, that is still not figured out,” he said. “And the problem is everyone looks for quick fixes.”
“It’s not that people are inherently evil,” he added of those looking for offsets. “But in general, it’s that people are looking for things that they’re familiar with, comfortable with, that are visible and achievable. This is a long-haul problem, and so just looking for short-term wins isn’t going to be enough.”
Rogelj and his colleagues established a “checklist” for how consumers can hold leaders accountable with their net-zero plans.
The threefold checklist includes examining the scope, fairness and road map of these plans.
The scope asks what global temperature goal does the plan contribute to, what is the target date for net-zero, which greenhouse gases are considered, what is the extent of the emissions, what are the relative contributions of offsets and how will risks around offsets be managed.
The fairness arm asks what principles are being applied, what the consequences for others are if these principles are applied universally, how will the individual target affect others’ capacity to achieve net zero and more.
“Net-zero targets globally are a zero-sum game,” Rogelj said. “If one country or company reduces emissions more slowly, then another country or company needs to do more for the same global net-zero target to be met. And that is really where this question of adequacy and fairness comes into play.”
“So, based on whether one operates in a sector that has a lot of mitigation potential, that has a lot of carbon dioxide removal potential, that has really large profit margins, it can be considered more or less fair to go slow or on the other hand to go particularly fast on carbon dioxide mitigation,” he said.
Finally, the roadmap asks for milestones and policies, monitoring and review systems to assess progress, and if net zero will be maintained or if it is a step toward net negative.
“Besides net-zero pledges, it is absolutely essential that the private sector sets targets that are measurable over the near term, and targets that really show the trajectory on which a company or a sector is evolving towards a long-term pledge,” Rogelj said. “Setting pledges for three decades in the future, and not working towards them, is simply greenwash.”
Tongia similarly said there needs to be a clearer set of standards among the slew of net-zero pledges that can mean so many different things.
“There’s so many layers at which accounting gets very, very tricky and messy,” Tongia said of emissions and offsets. “So, what we need is far better accounting norms, and then we can figure out, ‘Well, these will get full [offset] credit, these will get partial credit, these will share the credit and these should just be thrown out the window.'”
Tongia also argued that in order to be conducted humanely and fairly, more onus on high emitters to reduce emissions immediately is absolutely necessary.
Knorr said he now recommends a global body dishes out strict “carbon budgets” that limit the total amount of emissions without relying on offsets.
“‘Net-zero’ allows you to reliably at least carry on your business model for quite a long time,” Knorr said. “I don’t want to say that people who come up with these pledges aren’t acting responsibly … but it is very clear that they are buying time, and that kind of rapid reduction immediately right now hasn’t happened.”
“The impact of these pledges being in the future is negative,” Knorr said, equating it to somebody battling addiction who continues to binge a substance now, but promises by a far-off date they will quit. “Everybody knows that doesn’t work.”
He added, “Without honesty and going a bit deeper into ourselves and admitting our dependence on cheap energy … I think there’s a big risk that net-zero pledges will have actually even a perverse incentive to just carry on.”
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly 100 million U.S. workers will be required to get the COVID vaccine by Jan. 4, with some workers allowed to test weekly instead, under sweeping federal rules released Thursday by the Biden administration that identifies COVID-19 as an occupational hazard.
The regulations are aimed at health care workers and businesses with 100 or more employees, covering two-thirds of the nation’s workforce. Businesses that don’t comply could be fined $14,000 per infraction, and hospitals could lose access to Medicare and Medicaid dollars.
It’s part of President Joe Biden’s aggressive new plan to try quell a pandemic that’s overshadowed his presidency and hobbled the economy. At the same time, the Jan. 4 date is a nod to industry groups that insisted the administration wait until after the holidays to impose mandates in the midst of a worker shortage.
“This is good for the economy,” a senior administration official told reporters late Wednesday on the rationale for the plan.
Since taking office, the Biden administration had avoided imposing nationwide vaccine mandates, focusing instead on incentives for businesses and individuals. But with the arrival of the delta variant, a surge in pediatric cases and pockets of the country remaining hesitant to get a shot, Biden’s COVID strategy shifted in recent weeks.
“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us,” Biden said of unvaccinated Americans on Sept. 9 when announcing his plan to draft the rule.
Biden’s plan also gives federal contractors an extra month to comply, sliding a previous Dec. 8 deadline set by the administration. Federal workers are still required to be vaccinated by Nov. 22.
Like health care workers, federal contractors and federal workers aren’t given the option to test instead of getting vaccinated. In other businesses, employees could be given the option to test weekly and would be required to wear a mask in the workplace.
When asked whether the worker shortage was a factor in the decision, administration officials said the primary focus was on making compliance easier for workers and aligning deadlines across the private sector.
Once divided on how to address the pandemic, Republican governors have united against the plan, insisting it represents dangerous federal overreach and would cripple business owners already dealing with worker shortages.
“Rest assured, we will fight them to the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian,” tweeted the South Carolina GOP Gov. Henry McMaster last September following Biden’s announcement.
Supporters counter that many large businesses have already embraced vaccine mandates to both entice employees who want a safe workplace and end a pandemic that has hobbled the economy. They argue too that whenever employees have enacted mandates, the vast majority of workers comply.
(NEW YORK) — Warehouses in and around U.S. ports are running out of room, experts say, adding another challenge to the country’s already crippled supply chain.
“We are either at or over capacity, and demand for space is the greatest I have ever seen,” said Michael Sarcona, president of Sarcona Management Inc. He operates several warehouses in the Newark area, the third-largest port in North America.
Hundreds of thousands of shipping containers faced record backlog at U.S. ports over the past several weeks. Now that some have made landfall, the goods stored in those containers may soon outpace warehouse capacity.
Warehouse vacancy in the country has reached 3.6%, a record low, according to recent data from Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis (CBRE), an American commercial real estate services and investment firm.
“Three-and-a-half percent is effectively zero,” said John Morris, executive managing director lead for CBRE’s industrial and logistics business in the Americas. “For the year, we have basically an effective shortage of space of about 300 million square feet.”
Even if retailers can get more products shipped to the U.S., Morris explained, they will struggle to find places to store them and move them along the supply chain.
“In an efficient supply chain, you want about 15% availability of warehouse capacity in these markets and across the country,” said Craig Fuller, CEO and founder of FreightWaves, a global logistics industry data and analytics company. “At 3.6%, these warehouses are operating beyond their available capacity to even function properly.”
Warehouses in the port of Los Angeles, the largest port in North America, have a record low vacancy of 1% , according to CBRE’s analysis. This is the lowest vacancy CBRE has ever recorded for the port.
“That vacancy rate is down by more than half over the last year,” said Chris Caton, the global head of strategy and analytics at Prologis, the world’s largest logistics real estate developer. “So there is extreme scarcity in these port markets.”
Warehouse vacancy at ports in central and northern New Jersey sit around 2%. Sarcona operates eight warehouse locations in Newark with a combined capacity of almost 2 million square feet, but has a team of employees and real estate agents urgently searching for more space.
How will this impact consumers?
Consumers likely won’t be able to rely on online shopping the way they once did, according to experts.
“I’m worried that the inability of the supply chain to keep up, ends up having an impact on the wonderful growth we’ve seen in this omni-channel retail economy,” said Morris, referring to online shopping platforms that allow consumers easy and timely access to big and small brand items.
“I think we’ve lost the predictability of when products are going to be delivered to consumers,” said Fuller, explaining that sellers likely won’t be able to guarantee delivery times this holiday season. “I’ve been ordering Christmas items since mid-October — [because] if anyone tells you they can tell you when something’s going to be delivered, they’re either not truthful or they’re misinformed.”
Fuller believes the uncertainty could push consumers back into stores.
“I think people are going to find that as we get closer and closer to the Christmas holiday, that the items that they normally would be able to buy online, they’re going to have to go into stores to get it,” Fuller said.
How did this happen?
Rebounding consumer demand has led to record imports through U.S. ports on both coasts. Warehouses at those ports are the first stop for items coming into the U.S., and they’re overwhelmed.
“Are we out of space? The answer is not yet,” Morris said. “Is supply and construction keeping up with demand? Just barely… like… just barely.”
One factor: Land around these ports is becoming increasingly in demand.
“In the most sought after locations, pricing is spiking — we’ve never seen rents rise like they have,” Caton said, explaining the challenges facing warehouse creation and development.
The issues relate to the physics and scarcity of land in these key locations, per Caton.
“If you want to build a 500,000-square-foot facility in New Jersey, you need 30 to 35 acres of land that’s relatively flat and well served by infrastructure, and that is just increasingly scarce,” Caton said.
Adding to the congestion, these warehouses often send goods to distribution centers, which in turn send those items out to consumers or to brick and mortar businesses. These centers “are also at capacity or overcapacity,” Sarcona, the warehouse owner, said.
When does this all get fixed?
“Perhaps in Q3 of next year” this will all be fixed, Morris said.
The U.S. will use over 1 billion square feet of storage space this year, compared to 800 million last year. And there are already 500 million square feet of storage in development, per CBRE.
But even with more storage locations being built, supply chain issues continue.
“It’s hard to get the materials to finish that construction,” Morris said. “With a broken supply chain for construction materials, cement roofing trusses, the pins that hold the roof to the wall, they’re short on all of that.”
(NEW YORK) — Meta, the newly named parent company of Facebook, announced Tuesday that it was shutting down its use of a facial recognition system on its social media platform.
The announcement comes after mounting pressure from advocacy groups concerned about privacy issues, allegations of racial bias in algorithms and additional concerns related to how artificial intelligence technology identifies people’s faces in pictures. It also notably comes amid renewed scrutiny of the tech giant from lawmakers and beyond.
“We need to weigh the positive use cases for facial recognition against growing societal concerns, especially as regulators have yet to provide clear rules,” Jerome Pesenti, the vice president of artificial intelligence at Meta, said in a company blogpost Tuesday. “In the coming weeks, we will shut down the Face Recognition system on Facebook as part of a company-wide move to limit the use of facial recognition in our products.”
“As part of this change, people who have opted in to our Face Recognition setting will no longer be automatically recognized in photos and videos, and we will delete the facial recognition template used to identify them,” Pesenti added.
Pesenti said that more than a third of Facebook’s daily active users have opted in to use facial recognition, and its removal “will result in the deletion of more than a billion people’s individual facial recognition templates.”
Looking ahead, Pesenti said Meta still sees facial recognition technology as a tool that could be used for people needing to verify their identity or to prevent fraud or impersonation, and said the company will continue to work on these technologies while “engaging outside experts.”
“But the many specific instances where facial recognition can be helpful need to be weighed against growing concerns about the use of this technology as a whole,” Pesenti added. “There are many concerns about the place of facial recognition technology in society, and regulators are still in the process of providing a clear set of rules governing its use. Amid this ongoing uncertainty, we believe that limiting the use of facial recognition to a narrow set of use cases is appropriate.”
Removing the Facebook’s facial recognition system will lead to a number of changes for users, Pesenti noted, including that the platform will no longer automatically recognize if people’s faces appear in photos or videos, and people will no longer be able to turn it on for suggestions on whom to tag in photos. The company also intends to delete the template used to identify users who have employed the setting.
The change will affect the automatic alt text feature, which creates image descriptions for blind and visually impaired people, Pesenti added, saying the descriptions will no longer include the names of people recognized in photos but will function normally otherwise.
The announcement comes amid mounting controversies for the tech giant. A company whistleblower, Frances Haugen, testified before lawmakers just weeks ago, alleging blatant disregard from Facebook executives when they learned their platform could have harmful effects on democracy and the mental health of young people.
Some digital rights advocacy groups welcomed Facebook’s recognition of the pitfalls of facial recognition technology, though still urged for an all-out ban.
“Facial recognition is one of the most dangerous and politically toxic technologies ever created. Even Facebook knows that,” Caitlin Seeley George, campaign director for the nonprofit advocacy group Fight for the Future, told ABC News in a statement shortly after the announcement was made.
“From misidentifying Black and Brown people (which has already led to wrongful arrests) to making it impossible to move through our lives without being constantly surveilled, we cannot trust governments, law enforcement, or private companies with this kind of invasive surveillance,” she added. “And even as algorithms improve, facial recognition will only be more dangerous.”
The tech could allow governments to target and crack down on religious minorities or political dissenters, create new tools for stalking or identity theft and more, Seeley George added, saying simply: “It should be banned.”
(NEW YORK) — As climate change takes center stage with global leaders, it’s a perfect time to take a look around our own homes to see what small changes can help reduce one’s carbon footprint.
ABC News’ technology and consumer correspondent Becky Worley kicked off “This Green House” on Monday to share tips to help the planet and cut costs on energy bills.
Home Swaps by Room
Swap a gas range for an electric option. Gas cooking can waste 34% more energy than cooking with electricity.
Opt for an energy star-certified fridge that cuts the energy use down by nearly 50%.
Change out old incandescent light bulbs in favor of LED bulbs that cost less and use 90% less energy.
Water heaters can make up 30% of a household’s total energy cost, more than all other major appliances like the fridge, dryer and dishwasher combined, so seek out a new energy-efficient model made with new technology.
Worley spoke with a contractor who recommended a budget and planet-friendly project like adding weather stripping around windows to keep the draft out and heat inside the house.
Especially with older windows, weather stripping can help with energy savings as a whole.
“If you don’t weatherstrip, with all the leaks, it can be, like, having a window open all winter long,” Worley explained. “Home heating is one of the highest costs and the biggest energy sucks in a home.”
Other Energy-Efficient Swaps and Hacks
In order to save without swapping out each appliance, Worley shared some additional tips to save on electricity with larger appliances.
First, if replacing any appliance from a dishwasher or refrigerator to a television, Energy Star media manager Brittney Gordon told GMA to look for the blue energy star label “to get those savings that you’re looking for.”
There are also yellow energy guide labels on appliances that Worley said list the FTC’s annual cost of running that particular appliance so you know what you should be spending.
Another important swap is the hot water heater, which Worley said “cost about $600 a year to operate” and according to Lowe’s, the average life span is just 10 years.
When a hot water heater needs replacing, Gordon recommends switching to a heat pump, which she said “is the best-kept secret” and “the number one most efficient way to heat water.” Plus, homeowners with the heat pump will receive a rebate upwards of $1,000 to save even more on their home.
For folks not ready or not looking to immediately upgrade their refrigerator, Worley shared a trick to reduce the energy consumption by 30%.
“Cleaning the coils at the back. All you need is a screwdriver and vacuum cleaner and you are good to go,” Worley said. “That’s a tip for those at home who aren’t planning to upgrade.”
Worley also suggested adding a smart thermostat to the house to help regulate heat use and cut down over 20% on heating costs.
