 |
|
|
|||||
When the Eaton Fire burned through Altadena in January, Patricia Lopez-Gutierrez and her children had to flee from the house theyd been renting for a decade. Lopez-Gutierrez also lost work: Shes a housecleaner, and her clients lost their own homes in the fire. “I’ve been here for 18 years, and I really don’t want to leave this area,” she said through a translator. “My children and their schools are here. I’m trying to get more work so I don’t have to leave.” As she struggles to pay her billsincluding at her rental house, which ended up surviving the fire but was so heavily damaged by smoke that she’s desperate to find a new place to liveshe turned to St. Vincent de Paul, one of several local organizations providing direct assistance to fire victims. The nonprofit paid a utility bill for her in January, and then a car payment and dental bill this month. It was enough, for now, to make it possible for her to keep paying rent. The fire destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena, one of the more affordable corners of L.A. County. St. Vincent de Paul, working with a team of 18 volunteers, has helped around 150 families so far, prioritizing families with children and renters who lost their homes. In many casesparticularly for Hispanic residents who worked as housecleaners or gardenersresidents also lost their jobs. Others have minimum-wage jobs that make it difficult to afford to rent a new house or apartment. While St. Vincent de Paul covers bills directly (paying rent to a landlord, for example, or paying a doctor’s office), many other organizations are simply giving residents cash directly. Pasadena Community Foundation, a local foundation, has given grants through a wildfire fund to help support dozens of organizations doing that work. The Dena Care Collective, a new organization launched by End Poverty in California (EPIC) and FORWARD, has raised more than $1 million to help support families and businesses in the immediate aftermath of the fire with direct cash payments. “There is significant empirical data that highlights the efficacy of direct cash payments to families,” says Aja Brown, the former mayor of the city of Compton, who grew up in Altadena and is helping lead the Dena Care Collective along with former Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs. “There’s also a wealth of data that substantiates [the fact that] bureaucracy and governmental systems are slow to react. And quite frankly, they aren’t designed for emergency relief. Getting cash in the hands of families is the most impactful and the most efficient way to help families; they innately understand what’s best for [their] aid and the relief based on their current conditions.” Cash is a critical tool for people living in poverty in ordinary times; in Stockton, a study of a program that gave a series of no-strings-attached checks to low-income residents found that people who got the payments were more likely to go from unemployment to full-time employment and take other steps for their future, like moving to a better apartment or fixing their car. In a disaster, quick access to cash is even more important to help people stay afloat. “In a disaster like this, of course people need cash, because water bottles aren’t wealth,” says Tubbs. “Clothing isn’t cash. People need money to be able to rebuild, to be able to move, to be able to persist.” GiveDirectly, an organization founded on the premise that sending money to the world’s poorest households can help them begin to overcome poverty, has raised more than $2 million for low-income households impacted by the L.A.-area fires. While getting some money from FEMA can sometimes take a month or two, the nonprofit is able to act more quickly. (FEMA gave eligible residents $770 to help cover immediate needs after the disaster, but getting any additional support took longerand $770 doesn’t go far in a city like L.A. Immigrants who don’t have legal status also can’t get help from FEMA.) Two weeks after the fires, the organization sent notifications to residents via a food stamp app inviting them to enroll for the cash payments, a process that takes roughly a minute. On average, the payments arrived three days later. The organization is giving transfers of $3,500, enough to cover two weeks at a lower-end Airbnb in the L.A. area, a month of food for a family of four, and a month of healthcare and transportation. Of course, the support is only a small and temporary part of the solution. As rents have steeply risen in and around L.A.something that was happening earlier and then exacerbated by the disasterpeople who were displaced are struggling to find places to live. Some renters are now doubled or tripled up with friends in tiny apartments. Homeowners who bought homes decades ago in Altadenaor inherited mortgage-free homes from parents or grandparents who paid little for themare often now finding that their insurance won’t cover the cost of rebuilding. Others lost coverage as insurers have dropped policies in areas at risk of fires. Even those who still have housing, like Lopez-Gutierrez, are dealing with new challenges. In her case, her landlord wants to raise her rent, even though he hasn’t repaired damage from the fire (and despite the fact that price gouging is illegal). She’s trying to find a new rental, but her low credit score is making that difficult. Even if bills are covered for a month or two, many families still don’t know what will come nextespecially since the rebuilding process will be slow. Before the fires, when St. Vincent de Paul helped pay unexpected bills for residents, the situation was different. “It’s the housecleaner whose son or daughter had to go to the emergency room and there was a $1,000 bill and they can’t afford rent,” says Dave de Csepel, an investor who helps lead the volunteer work at St. Vincent de Paul. “So we come in, pay that rent, and life goes onwe bridge them to get to the next month.” Now, he says, “This is a tidal wave that has hit this community. This is the beginning. It’s hard to see how all these families come out of this. We love the diversity of our community and we want to have folks stay in the area. But it’s hard to keep everyone together, and I’m afraid that there are a lot of hard times ahead for these families.”
Category:
E-Commerce
In summer 2022, when artificial intelligence-based text-to-image generation tools hit the mainstream, architects were cautiously excited. The ease of generating real-ish images of design concepts and buildings with just a few simple sentences was irresistible, and many architects began experimenting with ways of letting AI quickly do some of the sketching and ideating they’d gotten used to spending hours or days laboring over. It’s almost like you’re speaking a building into existence, one architect said. But now, with AI maturing and getting integrated into tools and industries far and wide, a surprisingly low number of architects are actually using AI in their work. Architects are slow to adopt AI Only 6% of architects report regularly using AI for their jobs, and only 8% of architecture firms have implemented AI solutions, according to a new report from the American Institute of Architects. Based on a survey of 541 members of the architecture profession, the report shows an industry-wide shyness around AI adoption, with many unsure what AI can do for them, and a large percentage39%downright uninterested in finding out. Some architects are making AI a part of the way they practice, though, and the report shows strong interest in using AI more, particularly among architects younger than 50. The report finds that while only 8% of firms are actively using AI on a day-to-day basis, 20% are currently working on implementing AI solutions. More than half of architects have at least experimented with AI tools, and three-quarters are optimistic about AI automating some tasks. The reality is that there are a lot of industries that are still figuring this out, says Evelyn Lee, president of the AIA. I do think that architects, when it comes to new technology implementation, we do tend to lag a little bit. But there’s big opportunity Lee, who has a tech background, says architects can do more with AI than just generate quick imagery. Other use cases include marketing, project management, and construction document creation. According to the report, image-based content production is still the main way architecture firms use AI, but Lee suggests that the tech may be more useful for the operational side of the business, where it could resolve simple tasks, like eliminating the need for manual time sheets, as well as more labor-intensive jobs, like maintaining and updating building material libraries. “There’s a really big opportunity there for AI to illuminate the library and the wealth of materials available right now,” she says. “So much of what we learn about new materials is from the individual manufacturer’s rep showing up and saying Here is the latest ceiling tile. That could help architects improve the way their projects are designed, lower their costs, and even reduce their environmental footprint by finding new sustainable materials to integrate into their projects. AI tools could speed up product delivery The biggest opportunity ultimately is on the product delivery side, Lee says. As AI begins to be more fully integrated into the software that architects use to design their projects, it can speed up the process of turning design concepts into detailed plans and eventually into the construction documents used to get projects built. That could open the door for smaller architecture firms to be more competitive. There are more than 19,000 architecture firms in the U.S., and almost three-quarters of them have fewer than 10 employees, according to another recent AIA report. The software will allow them to do more, quicker, better, Lee says. That’s a huge opportunity for AI to be leveraged to democratize the design delivery process.
Category:
E-Commerce
As part of the Trump administrations continued efforts to attack renewable energy and bolster the fossil fuel industry, officials are considering using emergency powers to bring retired coal plants back online and prevent others from shutting down. But doing so would raise electricity prices for Americans, come with disastrous environmental impacts for the world, and only benefit coal companies. While at CERAWeek, an energy conference by S&P Global, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgim told Bloomberg Television about the potential coal resurgence. Under the national energy emergency, which President Trump has declared, weve got to keep every coal plant open, he said. And if there had been units at a coal plant that have been shut down, we need to bring those back. Coals dominance has been declining in the U.S. for years. It currently supplies just 16% of the countrys power, down from just over 51% in 2000. And since 2000, about 780 U.S. coal-fired units across the country have come offline; more than 120 coal plants are expected to shutter here within the next five years. Bringing those coal plants back is an incredibly dumb idea, says Peter Gleick, a climate scientist with a background in energy systems and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Its dangerous. Its expensive. Its impractical. The logistics alone of bringing retired coal plants online would be difficult. Its not like turning on and off a lightbulb, he says. Many plants have been entirely decommissioned, and some have even been repurposed into renewable energy and storage projects. Bringing back the equipment to allow them to burn coalor updating outdated infrastructurewould be expensive and time consuming. In the last five years, most of the U.S. coal plants that closed were, on average, 50 years old; globally, coal plants have retired at an average age of 37 years, says Christine Shearer, an analyst at Global Energy Monitor. Those coal plants were also retired for economic reasons; it’s more expensive, Gleick says, for a utility company to run a coal plant than to build renewables or operate natural gas plants. A 2019 analysis found that about three-quarters of U.S. coal plants would save money by switching to wind or solar. A 2023 analysis upped that figure to 99% of coal plants. That means utilities likely wouldn’t want retired coal plants to come back online. Any attempt to do this will raise electricity prices for everyone, he adds. Coal producers themselves would profit from more coal, of course, and some utility companies have actually delayed coal plant retirements because of concerns around grid stabilitybut the cost of keeping those “zombie” coal plants open ends up falling on consumers. One Maryland coal plant set to close in 2025 will now be kept open until 2029, a move that could cost residents up to $250 million per year through higher energy bills. Then theres the environmental and health impacts. Burning coal is linked to air pollution that contains toxins and heavy metals, and can cause asthma, brain damage, heart problems, cancer, and even premature death. Bringing back retired coal plants would have a direct environmental and health impact on the local communities around such plants. When four Kentucky coal plants were either retired or retrofitted with emissions controls, one study found, local asthma-related hospitalizations plummeted. Coal plants have also primarily been located in low-income communities, as well as communities of color. But bringing back coal would do more than just damage people in the U.S. The environmental costs would be borne by the entire globe. Coal is by far the worst offender at releasing damaging, polluting greenhouse gasses, Gleick says. Environmental experts say the world needs to completely phase out coal power by 2040 in order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals. Some places have already completely retired their coal power plants. In September 2024, the United Kingdomthe first country to build a coal power plantbecame the first major economy to completely stop using coal to make electricity when its last coal power plant shut down. Even India and China, which both still burn immense amounts of coal, are trying to transition away from that energy source, because of both the economic and environmental costs. For us to go in the other direction is just lunacy, Gleick says. Its not coal specifically that Americans want, he notes; its energy broadly, and there are far more cheaper, faster ways to produce energylike through solar and wind. “If we are in an energy emergency then we should roll back the recent pauses on wind and solar permitting, not try to bring back old coal plants already a decade past their lifetime, on the backs of American ratepayers,” Shearer says. Solar specifically is the cheapest source of electricity, the International Energy Agency says, and also the fastest energy source to deploy. (Besides finding new sources of energy, we could also work to increase how energy efficient our systems and tools are, Gleick says, which is even less expensive to do.) No country that has reduced its dependence on coal would voluntarily go back to that energy source Gleick adds. “The only people who want more coal to be burned are fossil fuel company executives. No one else wants this,” he says. “Bringing coal back to the U.S. is not making America great again.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||