 |
|
|
|||||
Some major oil companies such as Shell and BP that once were touted as leading the way in clean energy investments are now pulling back from those projects to refocus on oil and gas production. Others, such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, have concentrated on oil and gas but announced recent investments in carbon capture projects, as well as in lithium and graphite production for electric vehicle batteries. National oil companies have also been investing in renewable energy. For example, Saudi Aramco has invested in clean energy while at the same time asserting that its unrealistic to phase out oil and gas entirely. But the larger question is why oil companies would invest in clean energy at all, especially at a time when many federal clean energy incentives are being eliminated and climate science is being dismantled, at least in the United States. Some answers depend on whom you ask. More traditional petroleum industry followers would urge the companies to keep focused on their core fossil fuel businesses to meet growing energy demand and corresponding near-term shareholder returns. Other shareholders and stakeholders concerned about sustainability and the climateincluding an increasing number of companies with sustainability goalswould likely point out the business opportunities for clean energy to meet global needs. Other answers depend on the particular company itself. Very small producers have different business plans than very large private and public companies. Geography and regional policies can also play a key role. And government-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corp. control the majority of the worlds oil and gas resources with revenues that support their national economies. Despite the relatively modest scale of investment in clean energy by oil and gas companies so far, there are several business reasons oil companies would increase their investments in clean energy over time. The oil and gas industry has provided energy that has helped create much of modern society and technology, though those advances have also come with significant environmental and social costs. My own experience in the oil industry gave me insight into how at least some of these companies try to reconcile this tension and to make strategic portfolio decisions regarding what green technologies to invest in. Now, the managing director and a professor of the practice at the Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business at Georgia Tech, I seek ways to eliminate the boundaries and identify mutually reinforcing innovations among business interests and environmental concerns. Protesters call for companies and international organizations to reduce their spending on fossil fuels. [Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images] Diversification and financial drivers Just like financial advisers tell you to diversify your 401(k) investments, companies do so to weather different kinds of volatility, from commodity prices to political instability. Oil and gas markets are notoriously cyclical, so investments in clean energy can hedge against these shifts for companies and investors alike. Clean energy can also provide opportunities for new revenue. Many customers want to buy clean energy, and oil companies want to be positioned to cash in as this transition occurs. By developing employees expertise and investing in emerging technologies, they can be ready for commercial opportunities in biofuels, renewable natural gas, hydrogen and other pathways that may overlap with their existing, core business competencies. Fossil fuel companies have also found what other companies have: Clean energy can reduce costs. Some oil companies not only invest in energy efficiency for their buildings but use solar or wind to power their wells. And adding renewable energy to their activities can also lower the cost of investing in these companies. Public pressure All companies, including those in oil and gas, are under growing pressure to address climate change, from the public, from other companies with whom they do usiness and from government regulatorsat least outside the U.S. For example, campaigns seeking to reduce investment in fossil fuels are increasing along with climate-related lawsuits. Government policies focused on both mitigating carbon emissions and enhancing energy independence are also making headway in some locations. In response, many oil companies are reducing their own operational emissions and setting targets to offset or eliminate emissions from products that they sellthough many observers question the viability of these commitments. Other companies are investing in emerging technologies such as hydrogen and methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere Some companies, such as BP and Equinor, have previously even gone so far as rebranding themselves and acquiring clean energy businesses. But those efforts have also been criticized as greenwashing, taking actions for public relations value rather than real results. Fishing, like energy production, does not have to be done in ways that damage the environment. [Photo: Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images] How far can this go? It is even possible for a fossil fuel company to reinvent itself as a clean energy operation. Denmarks Orstedformerly known as Danish Oil and Natural Gastransitioned from fossil fuels to become a global leader in offshore wind. The company, whose majority owner is the Danish government, made the shift, however, with the help of significant public and political support. But most large oil companies arent likely to completely reinvent themselves anytime soon. Making that change requires leadership, investor pressure, customer demand and shifts in government policy, such as putting a price or tax on carbon emissions. To show students in my sustainability classes how companies choices affect both the environment and the industry as a whole, I use the MIT Fishbanks simulation. Students run fictional fishing companies competing for profit. Even when they know the fish population is finite, they overfish, leading to the collapse of the fishery and its businesses. Short-term profits cause long-term disaster for the fishery and the businesses that depend on it. The metaphor for oil and gas is clear: As fossil fuels continue to be extracted and burned, they release planet-warming emissions, harming the planet as a whole. They also pose substantial business risks to the oil and gas industry itself. Yet students in a recent class showed me that a more collective way of thinking may be possible. Teams voluntarily reduced their fishing levels to preserve long-term business and environmental sustainability, and they even cooperated with their competitors. They did so without in-game regulatory threats, shareholder or customer complaints, or lawsuits. Their shared understanding that the future of their own fishing companies was at stake makes me hopeful that this type of leadership may take hold in real companies and the energy system as a whole. But the question remains about how fast that change can happen, amid the accelerating global demand for more energy along with the increasing urgency and severity of climate change and its effects. Michael Oxman is a professor of the practice of sustainable business at the Georgia Institute of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As of this month, 34 states and Washington, D.C., have policies aimed to reduce cellphone use at school, including complete or partial bans. One of the key figures who is credited with inspiring this movement is Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. In his book The Anxious Generation, published last year, Haidt makes the case that the rise in social media and cellphone use is a major factor behind what’s making kids more anxious and depressed. Research shows that in the early 2010s, the prevalence of mental health disorders among young people started to climb rapidlya trend that coincided with an increase in social media use among teens on digital platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. At the Fast Company Innovation Festival in New York on Wednesday, Haidt pointed out that cellphone bans have been an easy win, because teachers already wanted the phones out of their classrooms. The teachers have hated the phones for 10 or 15 years. How can you teach when your kids are watching TikTok and porn? he said. Moreover, Haidt pointed out, kids are also worried about the impact social media is having on them. We’ve done a lot of surveys of Gen Z. They don’t like social media, but they feel trapped,” he said. “Fifty percent of Gen Z said they wish social media had never been invented.” [Photo: Eugene Gologursky for Fast Company] Haidts antidote to the damage that social media has wrought is based on four pillars: no smartphones before high school; no social media before age 16; no phones at school; and more independence, free play, and responsibility. However, when it comes to partial bans in schools, Haidt is lukewarm. While he believes they are better than nothing, he likens them to addiction treatments that go nowhere. With partial cellphone bans, he said, its as though we’ll take a whole bunch of addicts, and we’ll say, Eight times a day, we’re going to take your drug away from you. Then you can sit there for 45 minutes, thinking about the drug. Then we’ll give the drug back to you eight times a day. He also discussed how social media is linked to political polarization and, in turn, possibly a rise in violencesuch as the assassination of conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk earlier this month. I can’t say exactly what happened with Tyler Robinson [who is suspected of killing Kirk], but this is what’s happening to our boys, Haidt said. Boys in particular have been made to feel that they have to get rich quick or famous quick, otherwise they’ll lose in the mating game. He added: We’ve abandoned kidsand especially boys, who need guidance to go from boy to man. We’ve said, Nah, we’re too busy here. Just spend your whole life on Discord, TikTok, and porn. Haidts critics say hes inciting moral panic, similar to when each generation fixates on a harmful new technology that kids are using, whether its TV or listening to rock music on the radio. Haidt pushed back, saying that, traditionally, moral panic comes from the media. In this case, its the opposite. Why are parents so freaked out? Are they freaked out because Jonathan Haidt says it’s bad for your kids? he asked. Or are they freaked out because they saw their nephewthis fun, bright kidget lost in a web of porn? Or maybe their kid is five years younger, and they don’t want that to happen to their kid? Plus, Haidt argued, in the past, kids would fight back against moral panic. This time, they arent. They agreeor at least appear to. The universal thing that we hear when a school goes phone-free, he said, “is we hear laughter in the hallways again. The lunchroom is really loud.
Category:
E-Commerce
Charlotte Blease is an associate professor in the medical faculty at Uppsala University in Sweden. She is also a researcher in the Digital Psychiatry Program at Harvard Medical School. Whats the big idea? Humans are fallible . . . and unfortunately, that applies to doctors too. Misdiagnosis and error lead to a considerable number of deaths. Medical professionals have their own biases and limited bandwidth and time to keep up with the latest research developments. Doctors are doing their best, but its possible that AI could do even better. As eerie as it is to consider entrusting your healthcare to a bot, it could be a lifesaver. Below, Charlotte shares five key insights from her new book, Dr. Bot: Why Doctors Can Fail Usand How AI Could Save Lives. Listen to the audio versionread by Charlotte herselfbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App. 1. Medicine is failing us more than we think Every four to five days, a tragedy on the scale of 9/11 strikes, yet hardly anyone notices. On a weekly basis, the equivalent of four airplanes (each carrying 170 people) falls out of the sky, killing all the passengers onboard. These figures dont make the 24-hour news cycle, but the inconceivable is happening. Medical error is one of the leading causes of death in the United States and is responsible for over a quarter of a million fatalities annually. Around one-third of this death toll is due to misdiagnosis. Globally, most people will face a diagnostic error at least once in their lifetime. In Europe, 22 million patients with rare diseases dont have a diagnosis and 8 million wait an average of a decade to get one. In low- or middle-income countries, the misdiagnosis rate is likely to be considerably higher. Errors and misdiagnoses are not the only problems. Modern medicine prides itself on being scientific, yet, studies show that evidence-based treatments are offered only about half the time. And when it comes to accessing medical expertise, healthcare is upside down: Those most in needthe sickest, poorest, the elderly, and the most marginalized in societyare more likely to be left behind. People with disabilities, parents, and part-time workers (including those with gig economy jobs) often struggle to attend checkups. American Time Use Survey data show patients sacrifice an average of two hours for a 20-minute doctors visit, with low-income and unemployed people facing up to 28% longer burdens. Even when we manage to put a foot in the doctors office, patients are not treated equitably. Hippocratic Oaths are sometimes hypocritical oaths, leaving some of us at a disadvantage in the clinic. 2. Doctors are medicines second victims Underneath the commanding professional garb, physicians face realities that patients seldom see. In the U.S., half of all doctors say they are burned out, with 20% reporting they are depressed. An estimated 300 to 400 doctors in the U.S. take their own lives every year. Thats the equivalent of one medical school graduating class dying by suicide annually. By graduation, half of what medical students learn is already outdated. As patient numbers surge, these pressures are only mounting. Doctors are officially a scarce resource. We are not producing enough of them to meet patients needs. The UN forecasts that by 2037, we will share the planet with a billion more people. Longer life and more people carry consequences for doctors and our healthcare systems. In the U.S., by 2050, most people aged 50 or older will live with one or more chronic illnesses. Making matters worse, medical knowledge moves faster than doctors can keep up. It takes approximately 17 years for research to transition from the bench to practice. By graduation, half of what medical students learn is already outdated. And with a new biomedical article published every 39 seconds, even skimming 2% of summaries would take more than 22 hours a day. Nor is the knowledge treadmill shrinking. There are over 7,000 rare diseases, with around 250 more identified each year. Viewed from another angle, its remarkable that doctors get it right as often as they do. 3. AI is resilient Digital tools defy traditional doctor stereotypes. They dont don classic white coats with stethoscopes draped around silicon necks. But they are remarkably resilient. Being devoid of brows and brains, bots dont sweat or stress. They are not hostage to circadian rhythms, low blood sugar, or distractibility. AIs brute computational power means it isnt limited by fleshy constraints. Physicians have barely any time to read, never mind acquire the latest research. They are deprived of their sleep daily. But machines can crunch their way through open-source data at breakneck speed without needing to stop for a breath, a break, or even to take a pee. Like speed-freak bookworms, AI has a stunning capacity to ingest medical publications and data in seconds, 24/7. Where doctors vary in unwanted ways, AI can be more consistent. AI chatbots make errors, too, but the question is, who or what makes fewer mistakes? While much more research is needed, tantalizing studies are proving hard to ignore. Studies demonstrate that some AI tools vastly outperform human doctors in clinical reasoning, including for complex medical conditions. A particular AI superpower is spotting patterns humans miss. In one recent study, researchers fed 50 clinical cases (including 10 rare conditions) into a popular chatbot. It accurately identified 90% of the rare disease diagnoses within eight suggestions, routinely outperforming the doctors in the study. For the one in 10 people worldwide who live with a rare disease, AI could be a lifeline. 4. Bots could be less prejudiced than people Bots are sometimes biased because AI reflects individual and societal prejudices. Its training can embed unwanted biasesgiving rise to the slogan garbage in, garbage out. When unwanted biases are baked into machines, leading to unfair recommendations, this is called algorithmic discrimination. In medicine, there is a huge scope for machines to perpetuate unfair treatment via coded biases. In a 2024 study of ChatGPT 4, researchers found the model was far more likely to diagnose men than women with equally common conditions like COVID-19 and colon cancer. It also recommended fewer CT, MRI, or ultrasound scans for Black patients versus white patients, and it judged white men as more prone to exaggerating pain than any other group. Examining the scope for bias, errors, and safety with AI is crucially important. But this focus often comes with a selective amnesia about the creaking, inherited systems we already rely on. It assumes the status quo of human doctors working in a traditional way is inherently superior. Unfortunately, a wealth of research demonstrates that doctors are biased, too. De-biasing AI is likely a more achievable goal than debiasing doctors split-second decisions in high-pressure clinics. Were better at spotting bias in others than in ourselves. Thats why its a game changer to train AI to do some heavy lifting in healthcare: to flag missing demographics, expose skewed findings, and identify prejudice. AI studies have, at scale, identified discriminatory language embedded in electronic medical records for patients with chronic pain, diabetes, and addictions. AI also shows us that doctors are more likely to use negative descriptors for Black versus white Americans. As uncomfortable as it sounds, de-biasing AI is likely a more achievable goal than debiasing doctors split-second decisions in high-pressure clinics. Pain, too often dismissed in clinical settings, is especially problematic for marginalized patients. In one study, AI was used to read knee x-rays to predict arthritis pain, capturing 43% of the differences across race, income, and education, compared to just 9% by radiologists. That five-fold jump shows AI could finally give every patients pain the attention it deserves. 5. People pour their hearts out to machines You know, doctor, I really like this computer better than the physicians upstairs. So proclaimed the very first person to talk to a computer about their health. The year was 1966, the location was a hospital at the University of Wisconsin, and the physician was Warner Slack. On hearing the patients candid admission, Dr. Slack was not insulted. He recognized something unique was unfolding. Dr. Slack later reflected in an academic article, The physician presents an authoritarian figure, and yet, the patient was very comfortable with the machine and criticized it freely. Many doctors still believe that AI can never replace them when it comes to face-to-face interactions. In multiple international surveys of doctors, I have asked them their opinions on what technology might do. Most tend to believe that AI can handle the routine chores, but when it comes to genuine human connection, doctors will always be indispensable. However, since Dr. Slacks first study, nearly 60 years ago, a wealth of research has demonstrated that patients tend to be more talkative with machines. Theyre more likely to disclose sensitive or embarrassing symptoms, challenge opinions, and ask questions. Sitting in front of a physician can sometimes meddle with our time-crucial medical disclosures, including red-flag cancer symptoms and our mental health. The very humanness of our doctors can undermine the delivery of healthcare. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||