Daily Archives: December 31, 2021

When environmental protection was a barely noticed issue on the political agenda, it was able to achieve massive support from the American public. The air pollution, water pollution, solid and toxic waste programs of the 1970s and 1980s were not partisan issues. In 1972 the Water Act was enacted over then-President Nixons veto. Public support for these laws was well over 70%, and the laws were crafted by a bipartisan coalition of committed legislators. What happened?

Part of what happened was the anti-regulatory ideology of the Reagan era and the rhetoric of job killing regulations. But even President Reagan had to walk back anti-regulation moves in the EPA. EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch-Buford (yes, the mother of the Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) and her Associate Administrator for Hazardous waste, Rita Lavelle, were sent packing, and the first EPA Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus was brought back to steer EPA back to its politically moderate moorings.

EPA regulation was serious, and enforcement was real, but industry was given plenty of time to comply with rules, and generally speaking only businesses that were marginal to begin with were harmed by environmental rules. But the growing role of money in politics and fierce lobbying by ideologues and industry began to paint environmental rules as anti-freedom and anti-capitalist. In response to the climate issue, the fossil fuel industry intensified its lobbying and propaganda onslaught with a ferocity not seen since the tobacco propaganda wars of the late 20th century. In both cases, those industries understood the dangers their products posed and that they were in an existential battle for survival. By the 21st century, environmental protection had become an ideological political issue, particularly once the climate issue began to dominate.

In the early days of climate politics, the issue had little political salience because it was very different from traditional environmental politics. Despite the machinations of politicos in Washington, broad, grassroots support for a clean environment persisted. This was because air and water pollution can be seen smelled, causes and effects were local and impossible to ignore. In addition, rural people who hunted and fished understood that the natural resources they loved were in danger. In contrast, in the early days of climate politics, we saw no local climate impacts. Scientists told us that climate change was created everywhere, and its impact was in the future. We had to place our trust in, of all things, academic climate modelers and earth system scientists.

But while climate policy proved problematic, other trends actually reinforced the importance of environmental policy. People began to focus on wellness, their diet, exercise, and overall health, particularly when it came to children. Parenting had become a verb (as opposed to the status of being a parent). The not in my backyard syndrome (NIMBY) developed, in part, as a way of trying to prevent further real estate development and maintain local environmental quality. And then, over the past decade, extreme weather events began to accelerate and intensify, and the early climate models proved to be true. All the impacts that early climate models predicted were happening on our warming planet. In recent years, young conservatives have begun to accept the science of climate change while still rejecting the solutions proposed by progressive climate activists.

We live on a planet far more crowded than the one we saw when EPA was created in 1970. Back then, the global population was about four billion; today it is about eight billion. The political pressure to maintain wealth in the developed world and to build wealth in the developing world is fierce. The best way to ensure that is done is to modernize our economies in the developed world and move toward a circular, renewable resource-based economy. To do that, we need to develop and implement new sources of renewable energy and make our electric grid capable of sending and receiving energy and operating at higher levels of efficiency. We also need to develop systems to automatically separate garbage and mine it for resources that can be reprocessed. Sewage treatment must also advance so that sewage sludge can be recycled. These high-tech solutions require additional research and development and also require massive investments in public infrastructure.

But they hold the promise of a more productive and lower-cost economy. Energy is a growing household expense that can be reduced by lower-priced and more efficient solar cells and batteries. Electric vehicles are already demonstrating their high-tech appeal. Cities like New York are spending billions of dollars to remove garbage and send it away. What if our garbage could actually generate revenue by providing raw materials for remanufacture? What if those resources were lower priced than raw materials mined from the planet? We are already seeing this in one industry. J.B. Straubel, a co-founder, of Tesla recently started Redwood, a company that makes electric car batteries, in part, from recycled materials. While his company will need to mine raw materials to meet his production targets, according to Tom Randall in Fortune Magazine:

The companys target of 100 GWh in 2025 means it can nolonger rely on recycled materials alone.Unlike some consumer electronics, theres a long lag between when electric cars are made and when theirbatteries areready to be recycled. The reuse of packs in secondary applications can delay that further. Today, electric cars account for less than 10% of Redwoods recycling stock. Were going to push the recycled percent as high as possible, but that is really going to be dependent on the availability of recycled materials, Straubel said. If we end up consuming 50% or more of virgin raw materials, thats fine. In the decades to come, Straubel is confident that recycled materialswill be used for close to100%of the worlds battery production. Recycling is already profitable, he said, and eventually companies that dont integrate recycling with refining and production wont be able to compete on cost.

In other words, some raw materials are so valuable, recycling makes economic sense. What is needed to build a broad-based consensus behind environmental sustainability politics is the basic idea pioneered by Mike Bloomberg when as New York Citys Mayor, he led the development of the citys first sustainability plan: PlaNYC2030. That plan tied environmental sustainability to economic development. In some measure we are seeing the same impulse in the environmental elements of Joe Bidens infrastructure and build back better plans. Its an effort to modernize the economy. A focus on building the economy, increasing employment, and developing cleaner, less expensive energy has broad, non-ideological appeal. The popularity of elements of Bidens plan stands in contrast to the bitter partisanship in Washington, which is now reflected in many communities where all politics has become a zero-sum game. Political opponents are now seen as bad and evil people. If Biden gets something approved, even if its something everyone favors, its seen as a loss politically by his opponents.

Trumpian extreme right-wing political warfare delegitimizes the political center and any form of political consensus. Any congressional Republicans negotiating compromises risk being primaried by Trumpian extreme ideologues. On the left, we see environmentalists branding industry as evil and arguing that the only solution to climate change is to tax carbon and to live without some forms of consumption that the public values. Politics seems to be moving toward increased polarization.

Politics seems unreal, but reality is still reality. The forest fires in the west, droughts, tornadoes and floods in the Midwest, and extreme weather everywhere remind us: the issues of environmental sustainability are real. We all breathe the same air. We drink the same water. The food we eat comes from the same system of industrial agriculture. The facts of our environmental condition are not based on beliefs or values but objective conditions we all experience. We are also in a global economy in a competition with organizations from many nations. The argument that we need to ensure that our energy and transportation systems are up-to-date is a strong one when based on the need to remain competitive. Therefore, the seeds of consensus can be found in our objective environmental and economic conditions. We dont need foreign raw materials if we can mine them from garbage. Renewable energy can prevent climate change, but it also can be delivered cheaper than fossil fuel-sources energy. Electric cars are fast becoming fashionable. Economic modernization centered in the private sector but subsidized by government-funded infrastructure and scientific research is as American as apple pie. Economic modernization is how we can and hopefully will build an American political consensus behind environmental sustainability.

See the original post here:

Building an American Political Consensus Behind Environmental Sustainability - State of the Planet

12/31/2021

Act. At 10:16 CET

Joan Llus Ferrer

A multidisciplinary scientific team from the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO), the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) and the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies (IMEDEA) has published an article in the scientific journal Conservation Biology in which they present the empirical evidence that show that Unlimited economic growth is the main driver of biodiversity loss and they defend and propose measures towards sustainable degrowth.

The article involves a critical analysis of the loss of biodiversity and its causes, as well as the contradictions on which the current political agenda for biodiversity conservation is built.

The socioeconomic metabolism of capitalism (that is, the flows of materials and energy that move human societies) is based on an ever-expanding economic growth & rdquor;, indicates the first sentence of the study, whose first author is Joan Moranta, researcher at the Spanish Institute of Oceanography and first author of the work.

To meet these material and energy requirements, according to the article, an important part of the planet has been profoundly transformed, with the consequent negative consequences for biodiversity.

Coal mining in India | Altaf Qadri / AP

The expansion of intensive agriculture, forestry, fishing, aquaculture, industry, urbanization and motorized transport are just some of the economic activities that are altering terrestrial, aquaculture and marine ecosystems, which has resulted, among others , in the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the article, the authors show the relationship between economic growth and biodiversity and propose, within the framework of a sustainable degrowth strategy, some measures to tackle the socio-ecological problems derived from it.

It so happens that a large part of sustainability experts argue that economic growth is necessary to protect biodiversity, considering that such growth manages to increase benefits through improvements in technological efficiency, while reducing the consumption of materials. , energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the researchers, the defenders of this position suggest that in this way it is possible to dissociate economic growth from environmental degradation., an idea on which the so-called green economy or green capitalism is based.

However, the study recalls that new evidence continues to appear showing the devastating impacts on biodiversity derived from the extraction of natural resources associated with the expansion of economic activity. Despite this, the most recent ideas around sustainable development continue to suggest that economic growth is compatible with planetary biophysical limits and advocate for the conservation of biodiversity through unlimited growth.

The authors point out that current conservation policies follow, almost exclusively, the postulates of conventional economics, and give rise to international programs for the conservation of biodiversity whose focus is on conservation measures based on promoting new protected areas and on the amount of land and sea that must be kept isolated from production systems. It is what some authors have defined as islands of conservation in an ocean of degradation.

Cargo ship | Shutterstock

The article summarizes the main results of the existing studies on the contradictions between growth and conservation of biodiversity. After decades of defending the compatibility between conservation and growth, the scientific evidence points towards a true emergence of biodiversity.

Thus, the work concludes that capitalism is not compatible with the protection of biodiversity and that current growth-oriented conservation programs are highly ineffective, since growth is at the root of biological collapse.

The metabolism of capitalism is not compatible with an economy that respects the limits of the biosphere. Environmental and biodiversity conservation programs based & NegativeMediumSpace; & NegativeMediumSpace; on economic growth are ineffective. To ensure growth, the continuous extraction of value and the commodification of nature are required to safeguard capital, which in itself constitutes one of the most critical contradictions of capitalism & rdquor ;, notes the study.

A capitalist economy not only depletes the material basis for their reproduction, but also deteriorates the biophysical conditions that allow life on Earth, he adds.

In this situation What is the alternative? The authors point out that it is possible to guarantee better conservation and preservation of biodiversity through a global sustainable degrowth strategy, that is, reducing the global volume of the current economy, with the aim of reducing deterioration of the planetary resource base and consequent planetary environmental degradation.

It is necessary that the nations of the world advance towards an economy less material-based and more oriented towards social services. This model will lead to new social goals, beyond GDP, and will improve human well-being and nature & rdquor ;, the study notes.

It is necessary to change the functioning of financial, political, academic and social institutions. A better future can be achieved through a democratic and redistributive reduction in the biophysical size of the global economy through sustainable decline, rather than economic decline leading to capitalist crises causing recessions and deteriorating social conditions & rdquor ;, add the authors.

Open pit mine | Pixabay

Sustainable degrowth would also help humanity adapt to a future with fewer resources and more social conflict, they say. Necessary take into account the limits of growth on a planet with finite resourcess, as well as the limited ecological and social carrying capacity; it is not enough to pursue efficiency gains & rdquor ;.

According to the researchers, some of these activities that could be promoted under a global sustainable degrowth strategy would be a just energy transition, the reduction of waste generation through the redesign of production processes to facilitate the reuse and recycling of the components of products, the prohibition of planned obsolescence, the promotion of agroecology or the promotion of care, health and education services.

The study authors are Joan Moranta and Manuel Hidalgo, researchers at the IEOs Balearic Oceanographic Center; Catalina Torres and Ivan Murray, from the University of the Balearic Islands; Hilmar Hinz, from the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies (IMEDEA, CSIC-UIB); and Adam Gouraguine from the University of Newcastle.

Full Study: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13821

Read more:

Is capitalism compatible with the conservation of the planet? - Central Valley Business Journal

When the Soviet Union dissolved 30 years ago this month, on December 25, 1991, its end followed decades of economic dysfunction. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, hoping to implement reforms, referred to the 1970s and 1980s as zastoi, the era of stagnation. Yet though he recognized the problem, Gorbachev couldnt save the ailing socialist system. Indeed, his failed attempt at systematic reform ultimately led to the Soviet Unions collapse.

On the surface, Russias economy appears similarly dysfunctional today. Per capita incomes have not improved over the past decade. Russias share of global output has declined since 2008. And large sectors of the economy remain technologically backward or in desperate need of modernization. The general economic state could once again be described as stagnation.

Yet Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government are unlikely to suffer the same fate as their Soviet forebears. Just as Communist Party leaders in Beijing have studied Soviet history in an effort to avert its repetition, so have leaders in the Kremlin. They have learned the lessons of failed Soviet attempts to reverse decline in the 1970s and 1980s, and many key attributes of the Russian economy and Russian economic policy reflect a desire to avoid repeating the Soviet experience under Gorbachev. As the Russian economist Sergei Guriev recently remarked,Russias macroeconomic policy is much more conservative, inflation is under control, there are large reserves, a balanced budget and no external debt, and as a market economy Russia is much more efficient and resilient than the Soviet Union.

To be sure, Russia still struggles to find an economic model capable of generating continued growth and reduced dependency on resource exports. That said, Moscow has managed to fortify itself for a sustained competition with the United States. Rather than a major weakness, the economy represents a durable part of Putins strategy for ensuring regime stability, maintaining continuity, and weathering Western-imposed sanctions.

Russian policymakers have drawn lessons from the tumult of the late Soviet experience, as well as the economic disruptions of the 1990s. Oil market crashes in 1986 and 1997 inflicted enormous budgetary shocks upon the Soviet Union and the fledgling Russian Federation. Among policymakers in Moscow, these shocks generated deep-seated fears of the impact that resource market volatility can exert on the financial stability of export-dependent economies.

The creation of new stabilization funds, shortly after Putins accession to the presidency in 2000, was a direct response to these anxieties. These funds allowed Russia to accumulate reserves from export earnings that would help it weather the macroeconomic effects of oil price shocks and declining export revenues. Despite a significant drop in oil prices from the highs of the latter years of the first decade of this century, and an economic recession in 2014 and 2015, Moscow has successfully rebuilt its foreign exchange reserves, and in holdings that are less vulnerable to future U.S. sanctions. Consequently, Russia has both adapted to much lower oil prices and built in shock absorbers that make dependency on energy exports much less of a vulnerability.

Under Putin, Russia has also sought to reduce its dependence on imports. Here, too, policy thinking was shaped by the experiences of the late Soviet era, when a chronic failure to produce adequate volumes of strategically vital goodsincluding consumer staples such as grain as well as high-technology machineryled the country to rely heavily on imports, increasing its dependence on revenues from oil exports. When the 1986 oil shock hit, one in three loaves of Soviet bread was produced using imported grain.

Russias leadership has also absorbed the lesson that financial weakness curtails a countrys freedom of action on the international stage. In the late 1980s, Gorbachev faced limited options when confronted by tumult in the Warsaw Pact and the prospect of German unification. Leading states in the Warsaw Pact were heavily indebted to the West, while Moscow was constrained in its ability to prop up the faltering economies of these satellite communist regimes. Attaining German financial support was also a factor in Soviet acquiescence to German unification.

Subsequently, Russia was, in the eyes of most in Moscow, ignored on foreign policy matters throughout the 1990s. It was a great power in name only. Once Russias leadership paid back the countrys debts and reduced the states dependence on external finance, it began to restore the countrys global position.

Despite superficial similarities,particularly to the Brezhnev and Andropov periods,in practice the Kremlin today faces the world with an economic system quite different from that which hindered the ambitions of its late-Soviet-era predecessors. And despite Russias economic malaise, the policymakers who oversee this system have learned from the Soviet leaderships bungled attempts to manage socioeconomic stagnation. Several key differences have emerged.

Consider food production. The Soviet Union possessed one of the most inefficient agricultural systems in human history. By the 1980s, a large proportion of the Soviet budget was devoted to subsidizing food production. The Soviet Union was full of paradoxes: a leading producer of agricultural equipment, yet at the same time the worlds largest importer of food, placing huge pressure on the countrys budget and necessitating enormous sales of oil to finance the bulging food import bill. By contrast, Russia today is the worlds largest wheat exporter and is close to becoming a net food exporter as well. Although still dominated by the state, the Russian economy is far more market-based and far less inefficient in vital sectors compared with the Soviet economy.

The Russian leadership is also keen to avoid the profligate military spending of its predecessors. Estimates of Soviet military expenditure vary, but most contemporary analysts place the Soviet defense burden at somewhere between 15 and 25 percent of annual output. Military spending on this scale often left other economic sectors starved of resources. Today, Russias overall defense burden is lower than five percent of GDP. This level of military expenditure has been demonstrably sustainable under conditions of low growth and unlikely to bring Moscow to economic ruin. More important, it is not a significant driver of internal economic inefficiencies, nor does it starve other sectors of resources as the Soviet defense burden did.

In addition to the massive military burden borne by the Soviet Union, the countrys leadership funded a hugely expensive foreign policy, competing for leadership of the socialist world with China and against the capitalist world led by the United States. Moscow propped up living standards in Eastern Europe and subsidized client states around the world. In practice, Russia has no such commitments today. Compared with the Soviet foreign policy overstretch of the 1970s, Moscows current engagements and relationships overseas are far less costly, and many are more business-driven. Russian elites today are interested not in competitions over ideology but in opportunities for material gains. Russia has focused more on global status than on global leadership and has kept its vital interests closer to home, focusing on neighboring states and in the former Soviet space.

Finally, the Soviet economy in the 1980s faced a systemic crisis in part because of its integration with global oil and grain markets, with the Soviet collapse vividly demonstrating how exposure to international market forces carries risks for economic security. Policymakers in Moscow today are only too aware of these risks, especially since hydrocarbons continue to account for an overwhelmingly large proportion of Russias exports (though the economy itself is much more diverse). Ensuring the economic security of the country while managing the risks of integration with the global economy is a crucial component of Moscows wider strategy to enhance its sovereignty and independence. Moscow has learned that it must play an active role in key global markets such as oil to shape the external environment to its advantage. At the same time, Russian leaders have buttressed the system to reduce exposure to economic coercive instruments that countries such as the United States wield by virtue of their position and structural influence in the global economy.

Three interrelated problems confront Russias economy today. First, at around 20 percent of GDP, the level of investment is too low to generate broad-based economic modernization. Russias leaders openly acknowledge that investment levels of 25 to 30 percent of GDP would need to be sustained over a period of decades for it to become a high-income, technologically competitive country. Second, owing to a host of chronic maladies such as low investment, pervasive rent seeking among patronage networks, and inefficient state-dominated enterprises, the annual rate of economic growth is, at 0.8 percent since 2013, lower than the global average of around three percent. This means that Russias share of global economic output is declining and leads to the third problem: declining living standards. Real disposable incomes are now lower than they were a decade ago.

However, owing to a conservative approach to macroeconomic management, these weaknesses do not pose an existential threat to Russias leadership. Russia proved adaptable and resilient during the 2008 financial crisis, the more recent 201415 recession, and again during 2020s COVID-19 pandemicinduced global recession. For all its faults, Russias policy elite has built a system that is able to weather oil price shocks, recessions, and sanctions better than at any time in the past. When oil prices collapsed in 1986, the Soviet leadership was forced torun huge budget deficits, print money (which caused inflation), and borrow huge sums from international creditors. In 2020, Russia ran a budget deficit of 3.5 percent (half that of European countries) financed almost entirely from its own considerable resources. These domestic resources have also helped Russia adapt to many of the challenges it has faced since Western sanctions were imposed in 2014.

The long-term economic challenges confronting Russian leaders today are serious, but they are not deterministic of Russias future. Throughout Russias history as a great power, its per capita incomes have been substantially lower than those of its principal rivals, and it has rarely possessed the broad-based technological capabilities of its peers. Yet Russias security-oriented leaders have consistently managed to muster sufficient military power from a relatively backward economy to more than hold their own on the international stage. Russias small share of global GDP may make it appear an economic dwarf (especially when using market exchange rates), but these metrics are deceptive, speaking more to economic influence than actual state capacity or a states potential to sustain competitions. Russias ability to mobilize resources remains substantial and historically enduring.

Those expecting a repeat of the 1980s must recall that zastoi itself did not doom the Soviet system. Economic stagnation prompted Gorbachev to undertake broad systemic reforms, which set off a chain of events that substantially contributed to the Soviet Unions collapse. However, that outcome was the result of a confluence of events, ideas, and material influences, but most notably the choices made by Soviet elites. Despite slow economic growth, Russias present-day leadership favors gradual adjustment of its existing economic approaches over radical reform. Furthermore, it has studiously avoided the kinds of systemic reforms that might undermine the regimes foundation, its ability to arbitrate among elites, or its capacity to manage change.

Today, Russias economic malaise is also far less relevant to Moscows ability to pursue its interests overseas or to shape global affairs than it was in the context of the Cold War. Because global politics have changed, and Washingtons main competitor is Beijing, the economic stagnation Moscow currently faces is unlikely to result in a zero-sum decline in power the way it did for the Soviet Union during the latter part of the Cold War. In fact, with the United States locked in a confrontation with China, Russia may find that in spite of a weak economy, it has increasing room to maneuverand growing rather than declining influence on the global stage. In setting assumptions and expectations about the strategic environment, Washington should ask itself a basic question: After years of economic stagnation, is Russia an easier problem to manage today than ten years ago? If the answer is decidedly negative, then why would said stagnation dramatically ease this geopolitical burden in the coming decade?

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Continue reading here:

What Putin Learned From the Soviet Collapse: To Preserve Its Global Ambitions, Russia Is Managing Its Economic Limits - Foreign Affairs Magazine

The United Nations embraced a global call to action in 2015 to protect the environment with a comprehensive framework for global sustainable development. This motion birthed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a collection of 17 interwoven global goals meticulously designed to balance social, economic, and environmentally sustainable development across the world by 2030.

The SDGs aim to be relevant to all nations poor, rich and middle-income to promote prosperity while protecting the environment and tackling climate change. They have a strong focus on ending hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and discrimination against women and disadvantaged populations in particular so that no one is left behind.

The UN defines sustainable consumption and production to be about promoting resource and energy efficiency and sustainable infrastructure. It also includes providing access to essential services, green and decent jobs and a better quality of life for all. Its implementation helps to achieve overall development plans. Furthermore, it will reduce future economic, environmental and social costs, strengthen economic competitiveness and reduce poverty.

SDG 12 calls for a comprehensive set of actions from businesses, policy-makers, researchers and consumers to adapt to sustainable practices. It envisions sustainable production and consumption based on advanced technological capacity, resource efficiency and reduced global waste. Realising economic growth and sustainable development requires promptly decreasing our ecological footprint by altering how we produce and consume goods and resources. Agriculture is the biggest user of water worldwide, and irrigation now claims close to 70% of all freshwater for human use.

Managing shared natural resources and toxic waste disposal are essential targets to achieve this goal. Encouraging industries, businesses, and consumers to recycle and reduce waste is equally necessary, supporting developing countries to move towards more sustainable consumption patterns by 2030. A large share of the world population is still consuming far too little to meet their basic needs. Halving the per capita of global food waste at the retailer and consumer levels is vital for creating more efficient production and supply chains. This can help with food security and shift us towards a more resource-efficient economy.

According to The United Nations Office for Outer Space Activities, space can assist the realisation of SDG 12 through

In the Gambia, farmers are suffering from crop losses due to irregular rainfalls, soil erosion, degradation and sea-water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. To address these crop losses, The European Space Agency (ESA) and the Swiss Earth observation service provider, Sarmap, are leveraging radars on multiple satellites to map the entire country. The projects include observations from Japans ALOS satellite, the Cosmo-SkyMed mission, and ESAs Envisat historical data.

Together with Sarmap, ESA supports the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) by mapping the whole country using radars on multiple satellites. These include observations from Japans ALOS satellite, the Cosmo-SkyMed mission, and ESAs Envisat historical data. Under these projects, IFAD and The Gambian government are focusing on poor, rural communities and their participation in local government. This also includes improving agricultural production while safeguarding the environment.

These activities can take Africa closer to sustainable consumption and production via satellite technology. Furthermore, ESA, Sarmap and IFAD are also working with the locals to build capacity. This involves educating field technicians on collecting crop information for validating space-based maps to ensure their accuracy. This ensures that the locals can ensure sustainable production of food.

XY Analytics South Africa has also developed a technology-enabled application that is transforming the food system in the country. They created a herd management tool that leverages geospatial data to monitor livestocks health, movement, reproductive status, and location. This ensures effective monitoring of livestock to prevent avoidable their easily avoidable death. Steps like this ensure the sustainability of African livestock, and consequently, consumption.

Furthermore, Kenya is leveraging satellite data for natural resources management and monitoring its endangered wildlife. For example, the black rhino is now an endangered species in Kenya, with only 650 left out of 20,000. This is due to climate change, poaching and illegal hunting. Thus, Kenya uses satellite data to monitor weather and seasonal cycles and detect suitable grazing lands for the rhinos. The team responsible for the efforts utilises the Africa Regional Data Cube (ARDC) to look back over 20 years of satellite data. They use this to identify changes in rainfall and the vegetation state of the grazing land.

By leveraging the data cube, the team can observe and predict trends in vegetation conditions. This will help them identify suitable plots for the rhinos and develop grazing plans to prevent land decimation.

Geodata for Agriculture and Water (G4AW) also instituted a project CROPMON to develop and provide an affordable information service. The information provides farmers with information that helps them make better farm management decisions during the growing season. This improves the farmers crop productivity by ensuring that correct decisions are taken. The project provides information on:

Koolboks also intends to leverage geospatial applications to solve Africas food wastage problems. According to the company, over 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa lack access to electricity and refrigeration. Furthermore, when they have refrigeration, the cost of owning one is usually an uneasy task. To address this, Koolboks created an off-grid solar refrigerator that can generate refrigeration for up to four days. The solar generator can generate refrigeration in the absence of power, and even in limited sunlight. The initiative uses the IoT tech(Internet of things) for a GIS system. This makes it possible to monitor a refrigerators temperature from anywhere in the world. It also helps them determine the fridges location anywhere in the world.

Faleti Joshua is an avid lover of space in all its incomprehensible nature. He holds both an LL.B and a B.L degree. Joshua is a lover of music and a lawyer in his free time.

Click here to get real time data and information on every Segments and players in the African space and satellite industry.

See original here:

Employing Space Technologies to Realise SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production - Space in Africa

From high inflation rates and meme stocks like Game Stop to the economy trying to recover from the first year of the pandemic, a lot happened in 2021 that impacted our finances. As we get ready to celebrate the holidays and ring in the new year, its a good time to look back on what happened in 2021 and how we can prepare for the future.

High prices for gas, lumber, homes and groceries started making headlines as early as May of 2021. The U.S. consumer price index rose 6.2% over the previous year in October, marking the biggest jump in inflation since December of 1990. It was even worse in November, with prices rising 6.8%, the fastest pace since 1982. Despite more workers in the U.S. bringing home more in each paycheck, people cant tell due to the higher prices of consumer goods theyre seeing.

As much as we hope these increased costs will be left behind in 2021, economists arent optimistic about 2022. But there are some things you can do now to prepare for these unexpected price increases. Prioritizing your debt will give you the wiggle room in your budget to react to inflated prices at the pump or grocery store. Concentrate on paying off one debt at a time while still making minimum payments on your other debts.

Another way to combat inflation is by contributing to your emergency fund to cushion the blow of rising costs. Your emergency fund should have enough money to cover three to six months of expenses. You may also want to reach out to an expert. Financial professionals have a lot of experience fitting the cost of inflation into a budget. They can be a good resource to make sure youre on the right path when it comes to your finances.

Required minimum distributions, or RMDs, are a mandatory withdrawal that retirees must take from qualified accounts, such as 401(k)s, traditional IRAs or 403(b)s, starting at age 72 for anyone born on July 1, 1949, or later or 70- if you were born before then.

In 2020, minimum withdrawals were suspended for retirees under the CARES Act. The idea was to give retired taxpayers some relief after the stock market dropped more than 30% in March 2020. The 2020 provision let the money retirees would have withdrawn stay in the market and hopefully recover and grow. But that change was only temporary, and in 2021 retirees were required to start making withdrawals again.

The IRS makes changes to the tax bracket thresholds each year based on inflation rates. In 2022, the changes will be significant, going from 1% to 3%. For example, if a married couple was in the upper end of the 35% tax bracket in 2021, in 2022 they can make almost $20,000 more before being bumped up into the top tax bracket of 37%.

We can prepare for changes like these by planning all year-round. Utilizing various tax-planning strategies during your working years can help keep your tax burden management during retirement. If you have concerns about how tax changes could impact your financial future, speak with a financial professional.

The IRS is also changing the maximum amount taxpayers can contribute to their 401(k)s. In 2022, the amount people can contribute to their 401(k) will increase by $1,000 to $20,500 (plus $6,500 more as a catch-up contribution if you are 50 or older, for a grand total of $27,000).

For traditional and Roth IRA contributions, the amount people can contribute is the same as in 2021 ($6,000 per year, or $7,000 if youre 50 or older). However, more high-income individuals will be able to contribute to Roth IRAs next year. The IRS increased the income phase-out range for taxpayers making these contributions. It will range from $129,000 to $144,000 for single taxpayers, and from $204,000 to $214,000 for those who are married filing jointly.

Understanding what changes are coming in the new year can make a big difference in your financial future. Sit down with a financial adviser to create a plan to help you meet your retirement goals.

Founder & CEO, Drake and Associates

Tony Drake is a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNERand the founder and CEO of Drake & Associates in Waukesha, Wis. Tony is an Investment Adviser Representative and has helped clients prepare for retirement for more than a decade. He hosts The Retirement Ready Radio Show on WTMJ Radio each week and is featured regularly on TV stations in Milwaukee. Tony is passionate about building strong relationships with his clients so he can help them build a strong plan for their retirement.

Go here to read the rest:

The Big Financial Stories of 2021 and What to Expect in 2022 - Kiplinger's Personal Finance

Bismee Taksin, a Delhi-based journalist, recently tweeted a screenshot of her Uber app in which the driver can be seen using expletives while asking her to cancel her booking.

Hi @UberINSupport @Uber_India this is how your drivers text women and harrass them. How can you run the cab company when your drivers don't even have basic etiquettes? How safe are your female passengers? (sic) tweeted Bismee.

In response, an Uber representative called up Bismee and informed her that the driver would be taken off their platform.

Bismee is not the only one who has experienced such harassment. If you frequently travel by Ola or Uber, it is common to face cancellations from two-three drivers before finding one who is willing to take you to your destination.

There was a time when both Ola and Uber had personified the dreams of an aspirational India. They challenged the conventional modes of transport like autos, taxis and public buses, all while providing free or discounted rides in well-maintained cabs for its customers and attractive cash incentives for its drivers.

All that seems to have changed over the years. While customers lament the increasing instances of bad behaviour by drivers, the latter complain of falling incomes, leaving no incentive for always being on their toes to make the customers feel good.

Abhi 5 star rating ka koi fayda nahi hai na isliye hum log wahi jaate hain jahan jaane se loss nahi hota (Since there is no point of 5-star ratings now, we only go to destinations where we dont face a loss), says Ramesh Kumar (name changed), who drives a cab for a ride-hailing company.

Customer ko gaali dena toh galat baat hai. Aisa kabhi nahi karna chahiye aur action bhi hona chahiye. Par ye bhi samjahiye ke hum log frustrated rehte hain jyada time. Company toh sunti nahi hai toh gussa customer par hi utar jata hai. (Abusing a customer is wrong. It shouldnt happen and there should be action taken against whoever does it. But you need to understand that we are frustrated most of the time."

"The company doesnt listen to us. So, some of the drivers end up taking that anger out on the customers)," adds Kumar.

The Honeymoon Period

In their initial days, these new-age companies wanted to capture the market by luring workers from the informal sector with the concept of incentives. For ride-hailing companies, drivers were promised that they could earn up to Rs 1 lakh in a month. Several people bought cars by selling farmlands or putting their lifes savings into it.

Initially, a Rs 3,000 incentive was promised at the completion of 10 trips. So, a driver would earn about Rs 4,000-5,000 in a day. Then the company came up with a minimum business guarantee scheme by which a driver was promised a specific sum after completing fixed hours of trips. This scheme was then tweaked by putting a fixed number of trips that had to be completed and the company said it would pay XYZ amount if the drivers could not generate it in that many trips. Then they came up with absolutely next-to-impossible plans like completing 20 trips in a city like Bengaluru to earn Rs 3,000. When they managed to capture almost the whole of the market, they said they would no longer pay incentives, explains Tanveer Pasha, President, Ola Uber Drivers and Owners Association.

Cab-hailing services promised air-conditioned rides to Indias rising middle class. Comfortable rides were promised at heavily discounted prices and once the consumers got used to the comfort, the money spent on luring consumers was covered through surge pricing. While the customer network got strengthened, most of these companies did not concentrate on its service providers welfare.

The falling income level is not a complaint plaguing just the ride-hailing companies. Recently, home service provider Urban Company was in the news because its women workers have been protesting against the company over two new policies that would bring in a new categorisation of workers and a new subscription service that would force workers to take up a fixed number of jobs every month even if they do not want to. Similarly, delivery partners, who form the backbone of delivery services like Dunzo, Swiggy and Zomato, among others, have been taking on these companies, actively bringing out the unfair payment structures of these companies on various social media platforms.

We have already filed PILs in the Supreme Court on behalf of all gig workers. The basic demand of all these workers is that the commission charged by these platforms should be lesser than what they presently charge. The other is that payment should be on the basis of minimum wage. Third, everythingfrom billing to charging of GST to worker datashould be transparent. Payment mode for several of these platforms is now weekly. That should be made within 24 hours, says Shaik Salauddin, National General Secretary, Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers.

Mirroring the simmering anger among these workers, the Fairwork India Rating 2021 report has found that the take-home earnings of gig workers declined in 2021. This could be attributed, in part, to the decline in demand for some services (such as ride-hailing). Increases in work-related costs (such as fuel costs and platform commissions) during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, along with continued decrease in rate cards and incentives, also contributed to a decline in incomes, the report found.

Urban Company was rated 5 out of 10 as compared to its score of 8 last year. Flipkart scored 7, Swiggy 4, BigBasket 4, Zomato 3, Amazon, Dunzo, and PharmEasy scored 1. Uber, Porter, and Ola scored 0. The report judges these tech-based companies on how they treat gig workers.

Low Customer Income And Elusive Profitability

In the last decade, all the internet companies burnt cash to capture a customer base that was expected to become affluent in the near future. In 2010, Indias per capita income in current US dollar terms was just $1,357 per annum (Approx Rs 1 lakh).

So, a barbers home service from Urban Company, home delivery of food through Zomato or Swiggy or a ride in an air-conditioned Sedan by Ola and Uber were offered at a rate far below their actual cost of delivery to customers. It was believed that within the next 10 years, a large part of their customer base will be able to afford these services by paying a premium. It was this model of discounts that brought down the cost of travelling in a taxi from Rs 20-27 per km in a Meru cab or local taxi to just Rs 6-7 per km in Ola and Ubera 70 per cent drop. Suddenly, a large number of urban Indians, who would otherwise hail a taxi only once or twice in a year, started using them for daily commute. Call it the misfortune of the Indian economy or the over-ambitious business projections of the internet companies, the per capita income of Indians compounded at just 3.57 per cent between 2010 and 2020, reaching the level of $1927 ( approx Rs 1,44,525). It reflects on the lower purchasing power of Indians, making profitability a far cry for the internet companies.

A Goldman Sachs report in 2020 noted that the average order value in Indias food tech sector was one of the lowest across the worldhovering around $3.5 (or Rs 260)making it difficult for companies to become unit level profitable. To put things into perspective, the corresponding numbers for the food delivery sector in other countries are $6.3 in China, $12.1 in Europe and $32 in the US.

Government Plays Referee Between Workers And Companies

Gig workers have become a constituency and they are putting pressure on the government to intervene. The government introduced the Code on Social Security in 2020 that subsumed nine laws and empowered the Centre to notify various social security schemes like Employees' State Insurance and Employees' Provident Fund for workers.

These tech-based companies have built up huge central cost structures because of which they would never be able to make money. So, they want to squeeze out everything from unit economics. But these companies are aggregators and they arent adding much value. The core product is not theirs. People dont go to these service providers because of the company but because they want this service at home or a specific dish from a specific restaurant delivered to at home. So convenience tools should be able to make only that much money. Now, if these companies dont review their own models, it will become a difficult survival game, explains Aditya Somani, an independent investor.

Trade unions now want to operate in the gig economy which itself is a big change though the rules are faulty because law does not recognise them as workers yet. But the code has given a sense of assured legal benefit, thereby empowering them to speak up further, explains K R Shyam Sundar, professor in the Human Resource Management area, XLRI Jamshedpur.

Given the existing cost structures and less-than-impressive income growth of the target group of these internet companies, it would be difficult for them to become profitable anytime soon. Will investors continue to bet on these discount-driven business models over the next decade? We will only know it in a few years.

Read more from the original source:

India's Gig Economy Mess: Is The Country Unfit For Aggregation Business? - Outlook India