Can we really get all of the world’s billionaires to give away half of their wealth to charity?
This article originally appeared in Blue & Green Tomorrow’s Guide to Sustainable Philanthropy 2014.
Since the Giving Pledge was made public four years ago, some 127 of the world’s wealthiest individuals have signed up to it, representing 12 countries and a strong desire to provide solutions to a wide range of global issues through philanthropy.
Business magnate Warren Buffet and founder of Microsoft Bill Gates, along with his wife Melinda, launched the campaign in 2010 in order to encourage the rich and their families to help address some of society’s most pressing problems.
Billionaires, or those that would be billionaires if not for their philanthropy, are invited to sign the Giving Pledge and commit to giving more than half of their wealth to worthy causes either through their lifetime or in their will. The idea came about following discussions between the founders and other philanthropists.
It was during one of these discussions that media entrepreneur Marguerite Lenfest proposed, “The rich should sit down, decide how much money they and their progeny need, and figure out what to do with the rest of it.”
The Giving Pledge states, “The idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and present that encourage and recognise givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of people who give generously (and often as great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.”
The pledge doesn’t involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organisations, but is instead a moral commitment. As a result, the causes supported by signatories vary widely from environmental to educational to health. In addition to encouraging philanthropic donations, the group also aims to inspire conversations that lead to innovative approaches to tackling issues and the exchange of knowledge.
Notable backers include the British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson and Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg. Their reasons for signing the pledge and the charities and causes they choose to put their money behind may differ, but all donors have a goal of contributing to making the world a better place for their children and future generations.
In his pledge, former mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg writes, “If you want to fully enjoy life – give. And if you want to do something for your children and show how much you love them, the single best thing – by far – is to support organisations that will create a better world for them and their children. Long-term, they will benefit more from your philanthropy than from your will. I believe the philanthropic contribution I’m now making are as much gifts to my children as they are to the recipient organisations.”
Another notable name on the list is the Rockefeller family, which has been associated with philanthropy for five generations. Their pledge says, “Our family continues to be united in the belief that those who have benefitted the most from our nation’s economic system have a responsibility to give back to our society in meaningful ways.”
As with all initiatives, the Giving Pledge has attracted criticism. Back in 2010, when just 40 people had signed the pledge, the idea was labelled as “ostentatious” by an asset manager of one of the billionaires contacted by Gates. He added that many of the world’s wealthiest had already transferred large portions of their assets to charitable foundations without the publicity.
German billionaire and philanthropist Peter Krämer emerged as one of the biggest critics of the Giving Pledge. He argued that it transfers power from the state to the billionaires involved, noting that whilst they may be doing good, the decisions on what to back are still “very personal”.
Speaking to German publication Der Speigel, Krämer said, “It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it’s not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That’s a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money flow?”
Another of Krämer’s criticisms, which has been noted by other critics, is that the initiative can be used as a tax break. Others have argued that a “loophole” exists because signatories can pledge their money to family-run foundations.
However, despite the criticisms the Giving Pledge has received, the donations the signatories give are undeniably having a positive impact across the world. Latest figures from Forbes show the number of billionaires now stands at 1,645, with an aggregate wealth of $6.5 trillion (£3.87 trillion). Around 8% of the world’s billionaires have committed to giving away at least half of their wealth.
If the Giving Pledge can encourage more to join, the positive social and environmental impact could have a huge and long-lasting effect.
Photo: www.401kcalculator.org via Flickr
Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?
Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?
But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?
The Big Picture
The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.
That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.
One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.
As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.
Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.
Make and Model of Car
Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.
On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.
The Bottom Line
Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?
Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.
New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035
New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.
New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.
Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.
Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”
The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.
Zero net emissions by 2050
Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.
Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.
She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.
Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”
A worldwide shift to renewable energy
Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.
Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.
Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.
- Energy3 weeks ago
How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Use, Really?
- Environment4 weeks ago
Biggest Tip to Eco-Friendly Car Ownership (Which May Surprise You)
- Energy4 weeks ago
Top 5 Changes You can Make in Your Life to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
- Energy4 weeks ago
4 Energy Efficient Home Upgrades that You Can Install Yourself