 |
|
|
|||||
President Donald Trumps declaration of a national energy emergency on his first day in officeand which he reiterated during his address to Congress on March 4, 2025might have seemed to echo other national emergencies, like those presidents declared in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. But there has never before been a national energy emergency. During the energy crises of the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter declared local or regional energy emergencies in a handful of states. These actions suspended some environmental regulations, such as air-pollution limits for coal-fired power plants, for very short periods to make sure those states residents had enough electricity. When a president declares a national emergency, he claims significant powers under the National Emergencies Act, which allow him to take steps to solve the emergency. In this situation, Trump might seek to override environmental regulations, order utility companies to buy power from particular power plants, or invoke the Defense Production Act to secure materials needed for power plant construction. Six weeks into his presidency, Trump had not taken any action to address this emergency, though during his speech to Congress he said he wants to increase drilling and build a new natural gas pipeline in Alaska. And Trumps discussion of energy policy has not directly referred to the consumer price hikes expected as a result of the 10% tariffs he imposed on Canadian oil, gas and electricity starting on March 4, 2025. Critics of the presidents declaration have described it as a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry in the form of looser regulations and measures to make it easier to drill for oil on government-owned land. In fact, the executive orders definition of energy excludes energy generated from wind and solar, as well as efforts to conserve energyall of which were major parts of the Biden administrations energy strategy. As someone who has studied energy markets for decades, I have seen several events that might qualify as energy-related emergencies, such as meltdowns at nuclear power plants around the world, shortages of electricity and natural gas, and massive power blackouts. But over the past 15 years, the United States has become a global energy superpower even without any emergency declarations. The advent of hydraulic fracturing unleashed a wave of oil and gas production, even as U.S. energy demand barely budged. In a time of such energy abundance, there is no clear emergency on the scale of the energy crises of the 1970s. But there are some causes for concern. Big increases in domestic production One goal Trumps declaration sets out is to increase what the executive order calls the nations energy security. Usually that phrase refers to an ability to operate using energy produced within the U.S. rather than overseasparticularly from countries that have long-standing conflicts or disagreements with the U.S. Based on raw numbers, however, the U.S. is already quite energy secure. In 2023, the nation produced nearly 13 million barrels of oil per day, which is more than any country has ever produced in the history of the oil business. Since 2015, when a federal ban on oil exports was lifted, the U.S. has been increasing the amount of oil it exports every year. And for the past several years, the U.S. has been the worlds leading exporter of gasoline, sending 10% of its total annual production to other countries. Since the start of the shale-fracking boom in the mid-2000s, U.S. production of natural gas has also been increasing. The countrys natural gas exports have also risen over the past 10 years, though they have been limited by the number of ports that can handle liquefied natural gas cargo. Still a net importer of oil The U.S. produces plenty of oil to meet its demands, but not the kinds of oil that American refineries are designed to process into useful fuels. Therefore, despite the increases in domestic production, the U.S. is still a net importer of crude oil. In 2023, the U.S. imported almost twice as much oil as it exported. And U.S. refineries output of gasoline and heating oil depends on imported oil. Most oil refineries in the U.S. are quite old and were engineered to process heavy crude oil produced in countries such as Canada, which is historically the U.S.s biggest source of imported oil. Most of the recent increase in U.S. oil production comes from hydraulic fracturing of shale andis so-called light crude oil. Refining light crude would require new refineries or a major reengineering of existing refineries, with new equipment, expanded capacity, or both. Making those changes would be very expensive. So refinery owners are hesitant to make these kinds of investments because there is a risk that the investments wont pay off. Because U.S. refineries produce so much gasoline and have limited capacity, the U.S. also continues to import some refined petroleum fuels such as jet fuel. A fragile power grid Concern over the nations aging electric power grid is another focus of Trumps energy emergency declaration. Experts have been issuing warnings for years. A 2024 study on the national transmission grid commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy has concluded the U.S. needs to double the size of the grid in the next couple of decades. For the first time in nearly half a century, the U.S. is facing the prospect of rapidly increasing electricity demand. The demand for power has always gone up and down a bit with population and the health of the economy, but this time is different. Growth in electricity demand is now driven by the construction of massive data centers and by electrification of cars and heating and cooling systems. The DOE reports that data center electricity use in particular has tripled in the past 10 years and could easily double in the next few years. At that rate, data centers could account for more than 10% of all electricity demand in the country before 2030. The U.S. supply of power generation in many regions is not ready for this surge in demand. Many power plantsparticularly the older ones and those that burn coalhave shut down in the past several years, driven by a combination of economic pressures and environmental regulations. Building new power plants in many parts of the U.S. has become bogged down in regulatory red tape, public opposition, and economic uncertainty. The North American Electric Reliability Corp., which develops standards for grid reliability, has placed over half of U.S. states at some level of risk for not having enough power generation to meet anticipated future demand. Will declaring an emergency help? Under Trumps energy emergency declaration, the administration seems likely to take actions that will make it easier to drill for more oil and gas. And the federal government may also make it easier to build power plants that run on coal, natural gas, and possibly nuclear fuel. But expanded fracking, in and of itself, will probably not address any energy security issues in the U.S., unless there are major investments in refineries to handle the increased oil production. Reducing the barriers to building power plants addresses a much more pressing problem, but the country would still need to expand the transmission grid itself, which does not get as much attention in the presidents declaration. Time will tell whether the energy emergency declaration will be used to solve real problems in the nations energy supplies, or whether it will be used to further bolster oil and gas producers that have already made the U.S. a global energy powerhouse. Seth Blumsack is a professor of energy and environmental economics and international affairs at Penn State. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Fast Company Impact Council is a private membership community of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual membership dues for access to peer learning and thought leadership opportunities, events and more. In most of the world, women are the majority of tourisms workforce. Hotels, for example, employ a large number of local people, offering economic access and opportunity for communities and often underrepresented groups, particularly women. These jobs and incomes directly affect the communities where the properties are based. There are ripple effects on broader social issues such as health, education, and social equity. When tourism represents 10% of global GDP, the opportunity to drive positive social change is enormous. As I learn more about the travel and tourism sector in my new role at Travalyst, Ive come across some incredible examples of tourism as a force for good such as SASANE in Nepal. SASANE is a social company that trains female survivors of human trafficking to become certified tour and trekking guides. Similarly, theres Amba Yaalu at Kandalama, Sri Lankas first hotel run entirely by women. From resort manager to gardener, the hotel has 80 staffall women. This groundbreaking commitment to female empowerment is what is possible when business is viewed not just to make money, but to also give back to the people and places it serves. A double-edged sword However, we know all too well that tourism can be a double-edged sword. And on the flip side, unethical and unfair practices are impacting women employed by the travel and tourism industry. For example: Economic vulnerability: Women have historically been concentrated in assistance roles, occupying positions that are often both undervalued and underpaid. In tourism, they are the cleaners working tirelessly in your B&Bs, the waitresses serving delicious local cuisine in the restaurant, and the receptionists dealing with your questions at the front desk. According to the International Labour Organization, women earn on average about 20% less than men. Women tend to perform a large amount of unpaid work in family-run tourism businesses too. Furthermore, these roles are often seasonal, involve long hours, and little job security, leaving workers exposed and unprotected. Women as spectacles: Overtourism often leads to increased risks of sexual harassment, particularly for women working in customer-facing roles. Tourism environments have been described as hot climates, where women are often positioned as the site of spectacle, display, and consumption. Think flight attendants, nightclub promoters, and dancers. Tourism practices can amplify this issue by commodifying local cultures and appropriating womens traditional roles or attire for photo opportunities, such as the Geishas in Japan. Climate change: Extreme weather events are contributing to an increasing number of natural disasters, many of which are in tourism hotspots such as the recent fires in Los Angeles. These destinations, that rely so heavily on tourism, employ a large number of women, and it’s these women that will be looking for work if tourists are put off by the apocalyptic sights of billowing clouds of smoke and the golden-orange glow of flames against the familiar Hollywood backdrop. Tourism can bring economic and social benefits to women, but the lack of fair and equitable systems often results in exploitation and degradation to local communities. According to UN Tourism, by 2030, were expecting 1.8 billion international arrivals each yearnearly double the numbers we saw just two decades ago. Accommodating those kinds of numbers can only be sustainable if we focus beyond profit, prioritizing people and places too. A force for good Travalyst is a coalition of some of the biggest names in travel and technology, founded by Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. Through Travalyst, we are looking to change the way we travel, through our industry collaboration and innovative technology solutionssuch as our bold new data hub initiativeour mission is to provide trusted information at scale to empower better decision making and accelerate impact-led change across travel and tourism.Tourism can be both a force with potential to do tremendous good, or if mismanaged, inflict significant harm, including on local communities. We aim to gain a clearer understanding of how tourism can be a genuine force for good and determine what changes are needed to ensure that it delivers on that promise. Amina Razvi is chief partnerships and development officer at Travalyst.
Category:
E-Commerce
I have spent my career watching companies make bold declarations about gender equality, only to see those promises fade when tested. Women are often spotlighted in recruitment campaigns but left behind in promotions, appointments, and development opportunities. Policies designed to level the playing field disappear without explanation, replaced with vague references to merit, culture fit, and the elusive gravitas. The 2025 U.N. International Womens Day themeFor ALL women and girls: Rights. Equality. Empowermentis urgent. However, progress in gender equity is not accelerating; it is stalling. In recent months, executive orders have gutted diversity programs, corporate leaders have distanced themselves from gender equity initiatives, and public figures like Mark Zuckerberg have called for more masculine energy in corporate America. These moments reinforce outdated narratives about leadership and limit opportunities for women at every level. History has shown that progress does not advance on its own. It must be built, reinforced, and protected. And when companies pull back, the consequences reach far beyond the workplace. The economic case for investing in women Supporting women’s advancement is not about generosity but a strategic decision that strengthens businesses. Companies that fail to integrate women into leadership and decision-making structures actively undermine their potential. The economic benefits of diverse leadership are clear: Businesses with diverse leadership teams outperform competitors by 35%, yet women hold only 10% of executive leadership roles in Fortune 500 companies according to a McKinsey & Co. study. Companies with fewer women in leadership experience higher attrition rates among female employees, which can lead to productivity loss, increased turnover costs, and knowledge drain. The gender pay gap costs the global economy $172 trillion in lost lifetime earnings according to the World Bank. When leadership teams reflect diversity on all spectrums, companies become more resilient, adaptive, and successful. The unwritten rules of leadership Leadership is shaped by vision, resilience, and the ability to unite teams toward a shared goal. Yet the standards used to evaluate leaders continue to be uneven. I remember coaching a senior executive who had just been hired into a leadership role with overwhelming support. Her credentials were impeccable, and her experience outmatched that of many of her peers. Within weeks of joining, however, she was pulled aside and advised to soften her approach and adjust her communication style to better fit the leadership culture. Her male colleagues, known for their direct and assertive styles, were praised for their confidence. No one asked them to adjust. The unwritten leadership rules determine who is seen as competent, who is given room to grow, and who gets access to certain networks and circles to gain the critical mentorship and sponsorship needed to advance. These rules are still stacked against women, and they are even harsher for women of color. Organizations that police the style of women leaders while excusing the same behaviors in men limit their own growth. Instead of pushing women to fit outdated leadership models, they should be evaluating what leadership actually requires, who possesses these attributes and is already demonstrating them, and then uplift, promote, and celebrate these behaviors. The silent retreat from progress The backlash against DEI has led many organizations to reduce gender equity efforts under the radar. Instead of announcing program eliminations, they allow them to fade. Budgets shrink. Reports disappear. Hiring goals go unmentioned. This is how progress is undonenot through open resistance but through defunding and de-prioritization. Yet I also see organizations that refuse to retreat. Companies like Cisco and JPMorgan Chase continue to invest in womens leadership programs, sponsorship initiatives, and pay equity efforts. For instance, Cisco’s Women in Technology program has been instrumental in promoting gender diversity in the tech industry, and JPMorgan Chase’s Women on the Move initiative has significantly increased the representation of women in leadership roles. They recognize that the future of work belongs to companies that retain top talent, reflect their customer base, and make decisions informed by an array of diverse perspectives, ideas, and approaches. The cost of doing nothing Companies that fail to invest in women will experience immediate and long-term consequences: Losing the next generation of leaders: High-performing women are leaving companies that fail to support their growth. A 2024 Deloitte report found that 60% of women under 35 would leave their jobs within two years if they did not see a clear path to leadership. This is not just a statistic. It’s a warning sign of the talent drain that could result from neglecting gender equity. Disconnecting from evolving consumer bases: Women control 85% of consumer spending decisions. Companies that fail to reflect their audience in leadership will lose the ability to connect and serve their largest customer base. Falling behind in talent attraction and retention: The most competitive organizations are integrating gender equity into their core business strategy. Those who deprioritize it will struggle to attract top-tier candidates who expect psychologically safe, welcoming, and inclusive workplaces. Ignoring the power of female-driven investment: With women becoming the largest benefactors of inherited wealth and shaping the philanthropic and financial sectors, more investments and resources will now be directed toward social impact, education, and equity-focused initiatives. Companies that fail to engage with this shift risk losing critical partnerships and funding opportunities. Undermining women’s leadership benefits: Research consistently shows that when women participate in leadership and decision-makingwhether in business or global diplomacythe outcomes are more effective and sustainable. Organizations that overlook diverse perspectives miss opportunities for innovation, market expansion, and long-term success. Neglecting the growing presence of women in the workforce: By December 2024, the labor force participation rate for prime-age women reached 78.2%, reflecting a steady increase in workforce engagement. However, without meaningful pathways for leadership, businesses risk stagnation and suffering from untapped talent, potential, and innovation. Gender equity is not a social issueit is a business imperative that enables organizations to be competitive, progressive, and drive business outcomes. What real investment looks like Achieving progress for all women takes more than corporate statements. Leadership development must be tied to measurable outcomes, ensuring women advance based on their contributions and ensuring they have opportunities to develop, grow, and succeed. Pay equity efforts such as audits, standardized compensation structures, and pay transparency should be as routine as revenue tracking, because addressing wage gaps supports a fair and equitable workplace and builds a high-performance workforce. Mentorship and advocacy play a critical role in career advancement. Women need advocates at all levels of an organization to ensure they are seen, supported, and developed while removing bias from HR processes impacting leadership evaluations, performance reviews, and compensation structures to drive lasting change. Companies that embed gender equity into their business strategies will shape and lead the future of work. The question is not whether businesses should invest in women but whether they can afford the cost of failing to do so.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||