 |
|
|
|||||
Scores of wildfires broke out across North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia in early March 2025 as strong winds, abnormally dry conditions and low humidity combined to kindle and spread the flames. The fires followed a year of weather whiplash in the Carolinas, from a flash drought over the summer to extreme hurricane flooding in September, and then back to drought again. Storms on March 5, 2025, helped douse many of the fires still burning, but the Southeast fire season is only beginning. Wake Forest University wildfire experts Lauren Lowman and Nick Corak put the fires and the regions dry winter into context. Why did the Carolinas see so many wildfires? Most of North and South Carolina have been abnormally dry or in moderate drought since at least November 2024. Consistently dry conditions through the winter dried out vegetation, leaving fuel for wildfires. When the land and vegetation is this dry, all it takes is a lightning strike or a man-made fire and wind gusts to start a wildfire. Hurricanes did flood the region in late summer 2024, but before that, the Carolinas were experiencing a flash drought. Flash droughts are extreme droughts that develop rapidly due to lack of precipitation and dry conditions in the atmosphere. When the atmosphere is dry, it pulls water from the vegetation and soils, causing the surface to dry out. In August and September, Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Helene caused extensive flooding in the two states, but the Carolinas received little rainfall in the months that followed, leaving winter 2025 abnormally dry again. How unusual are fires like this in the region? Fires are historically fairly common in the Carolinas. Theyre a natural part of the landscape, and many ecosystems have evolved to depend on them. Carnivorous plants such as Venus flytraps and pitcher plants rely on frequent fire activity to remove shrubs and other plants that would grow over them and block the light. Even some wildlife depend on fire for their habitats and for food from the mix of native plants that regrow after a fire. The expected return periods for wildfires (how often fires have historically burned in a region) range from 1 to 10 years for the Piedmont and Coastal Plains in the east and 10 to 40 years in the Appalachian Mountains. However, many unplanned fires today are put out. That means underbrush that would normally burn every decade or so can build up over time, fueling more intense fires when it does burn. To avoid that overgrowth, land managers conduct annual prescribed fires to try to mimic that natural fire activity in a controlled way. These controlled burns are critical for removing vegetation that otherwise could provide additional fuel for more intense and damaging wildfires. Is dryness like this becoming more common? Extreme weather events are becoming more common across the U.S., including in the Southeast and the Carolinas. Increasing temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more moisture, amplifying how much water it can draw from the land surface and eventually drop in heavier storms. That can lead to more extreme storms and longer dry periods. In humid regions like the Southeast, where there is an abundance of dense vegetation, periods of warm, dry conditions that dry out that vegetation will increase the risk of wildfire. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, the southeastern U.S. experienced more droughts than other regions in the country in the first two decades of the 21st century. The weather variability also makes it harder to clear out forest undergrowth. Prescribed burns require that vegetation be dry enough to burn but also that winds are calm enough to allow firefighters to manage the flames. Studies show those conditions are likely to become less common in the Southeast in a warming world. Without that tool to reduce fuel, the risk of intense wildfires rises. Lauren Lowman is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Wake Forest University. Nick Corak is a PhD candidate in physics at Wake Forest University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trumps dramatic cuts to U.S. government grants are destabilizing every corner of the nonprofit sector, leaving organizations scrambling to adapt. Stacy Palmer, CEO of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, explores how organizations can adjust to the unpredictable philosophy of the new administration, the cuts relationship to Trumps war on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and why this moment could further fracture the ties that bind Americans together. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Thousands of not-for-profits, aid groups, universities, and hospitals rely on government grants. The Trump administration has targeted that aid, first announcing a full-on freeze of grants and loans in late January, later rescinded, but many subsequent cuts. Then in his recent address to Congress, he name-checked a litany of what he framed as wasteful, absurd grants. What’s going on? What is the mood like in the philanthropy world? Is it anger, is it fear? Are there any cheers? Nonprofits and foundations are mostly terrified, for a lot of different reasons. One is about just the philosophy of cutting off this aid. One is about the direct impact on their organizations. The other is that there’s fear for the safety of their staffsa lot of concern about whether all of this targeting of nonprofits might lead to physical or cybersecurity or other kinds of threats. So I would say most people in the nonprofit world are in a very bad state, worse than I’ve seen before in my history of covering these organizations, and worse than it was in the Reagan administration when we saw a lot of cuts. Even the conservatives who feel strongly about cutting government and see that there’s waste are very upset about the fact that this seems so haphazard, that there’s not a philosophy of the idea that we should ask philanthropy to take up the charge and we should be organized about how we think about that. This all seems very random. It comes, it goes. It means that nonprofits can’t make payroll. It means that foundations can’t figure out what the smartest strategy is to do. So it’s a pretty rough time in the nonprofit and foundation world. Beyond the funding, you mentioned concerns for physical safety. Are there examples of that or stories of that? Are you hearing that from certain kinds of organizations? I’ve talked to several grantmakers who said that the first request they’re getting for extra funding is to beef up security, and that organizations that deal with the most controversial issuesimmigrants, LGBTQ rights, those kinds of thingsfeel threatened. They say that they’re concerned about doxxing, and I don’t have any examples, but I can’t tell whether they’re withholding the examples because of fear. Things are moving so fast. I know youve launched special coverage to try to keep up with the Trump agenda. Is money still flowing but nobody knows for how long? Or has it been cut off, and is that what were talking aboutlike a faucet being turned all the way off? Some groups, even though a court said the money has to keep flowing, say that the money isn’t flowing and that they’ve suffered freezes. Environmental groups, for example, say that they can’t figure out what’s going on with their banks not releasing the money to them, and so there have been disputes over that. It’s not that no aid is flowing. I think some is, but it’s in no organized way that you can figure out why is it coming from some agencies and not others. And when you think about it, all the federal workers who have been laid off, those are the people who would turn on the spigots and make sure that things are flowing and happening. Well, you can’t call the person in the federal government who you used to call. They’re not there anymore. I’m curious how you would describe the sort of role of philanthropy and of nonprofit organizations overall in our economy and our society. One of the things that people don’t really understand is they see billionaires who are incredibly wealthy, and they see them giving away moneypeople like Bill Gates and Melinda [French] Gates, Warren Buffettand the dollars are striking. They give more than any of us could think about giving, but they are tiny compared to what the federal government spends. The Gates Foundation could spend all of the money in its coffers, and it would just keep the government operating for a day. It’s just the scale is quite different. So it’s very important to understand the role that government plays, and it’s twofold. One is direct funding of nonprofits. The second is when the federal government and the state and local governments pull back, there are more people in need. That means they turn to nonprofits for extra help. So often what happens in these cutbacks is not just that the nonprofits lose the support they need to provide services, but they have more people at their doors. So the scale of what philanthropy can do versus the federal government is really important to understand. Now, that’s not to say that philanthropy can’t pick up more. There has been an enormous run-up in wealth, as we all know. There are many billionaires who could give very generously and make a difference. So nonprofits are certainly calling on them to do more and calling on the nation’s foundationsFord, Rockefeller, all the names that you all knowasking them to step up. But it would be foolish to think that any private entities can make up for what the government’s doing. I have to ask you about Elon Musk. What do folks think of him in the philanthropy world? I mean, there is a Gates Foundation. Bloomberg has a foundation. Musk is not necessarily known for that, and he’s having kind of a different impact. Elon Musk, along with President Trump, said some of the most destructive things about nonprofits themselvesthat they are horrible organizations that are just sleazy and just trying to make money off of things like homelessness. So there’s been a lot of nonprofit-bashing by both Musk and Trump, and that’s incredibly damaging. If they don’t believe in the value of these organizations, it’s going to cause damage in the short term in terms of resources. But if you were a young person trying to decide where you were going to have a career, if you were motivated to want to be a nonprofit or philanthropy worker, why would you do that after somebody has made it sound like it’s the dirtiest profession ever rather than a call to public service? And I guess in the corporate and the nonprofit reactions in their programs, on attacks on things like DEI or environmental, how much of that is a shift in semantics versus a shift in mission? I’ve seen the term green-hushing rise, sort of the opposite of greenwashing. So hiding sustainability efforts, renaming things that had been DEI to be somethingelse. What about this is semantics versus mission? I know pretty much every foundation we’ve talked to said that they’re looking at every word on their website and seeing whether there are trigger words. Just as you see in the federal government, lawyers are reviewing absolutely everything a foundation does to make sure things are okay. In the absence of really clear guidance from the administration, you can imagine why that’s taking a really long time, but it is not leading anybody to move quickly. Is there any time in history that you’re looking to as you cover this shifting dynamic in the White House and beyond, or is this so unprecedented that there’s really no place to look? The Reagan administration is the one that comes closest because there were these very serious cutbacks, and there was this whole discussion about what is the role of philanthropy and what is the role of nonprofits and how should we do it. So we have asked experts about what kinds of things they have to say. I have two conservatives and two liberals who were involved at that moment who were working in the nonprofit arena, and they all agreed it was unprecedented. And the reason they said that it is this haphazardness, and what one said, who is a very strong conservative, said, “We’ve just never seen something this nasty.” The anger, the kind of feeling that none of this aid matters, it’s deeply disturbing to people really of any ideology because they [Trump and Musk] don’t see that there is an ideology. They want to talk about the view of government. There can be robust debates on that, but this seems unprecedented to the people who have watched this over a long period, which is making it hard to have a playbook. And I think that’s why nonprofits and foundations are struggling. What do you do when you can’t look to history and you have to figure out fresh what’s happening and how to come together? Philanthropy and the work of nonprofits, in a lot of ways, is inherently optimistic. Is there anything thats making you optimistic right now? I think as long as we continue to have nonprofits that are willing to work collectively to make a difference, that does make me optimistic, because sometimes nonprofits just worry about their own communities, their own causes, their own coffers, and don’t take collective action. But if they will come together and continue to do that and stay strong, that could make a big difference.
Category:
E-Commerce
For ages, real estate has been defined by the tangible: buildings, land, square feet. Nowadays, however, the worlds most valuable businesses make their money from what is intangiblebrands, networks, knowledge, and experiences. As of 2020, 90% of the value at the S&P 500 comes from intangible assets, up from 32% 40 years ago. The equivalent figure for major European companies lags behind, at just over 74% in 2020, a factor that likely contributes to Europe’s lower growth rate and per capita GDP. Much of the difference is made by a few unmatched American technology platforms. Real estate, too, must evolve beyond its physical footprint. At Atrium Ljungberg, where I work, we started that process a long time ago. Our market offering is not only built on bricks and mortar, but interactions and services happening inside and between offices, apartments, and retail spaces. This makes them greater than the sum of its parts. Our portfolio is more than a collection of buildings: It is the life between buildings. For that reason, we dont operate buildings separately, but focus on developing large, interconnected districts. In a way, we could be seen as a platform company, enabling people, businesses, and ideas to connect and grow. This philosophy drives our megaprojects redeveloping parts of Stockholm. Real estate as a platform business At their core, platforms create value by coordinating interactions, reducing barriers and transaction costs, and enabling large-scale economic activity through network effects. The highest-performing businesses on the S&P 500 today create ecosystems where value is co-generated, but facilitated by these companies. Of the worlds 10 largest companies by market capitalizationfrom Amazon and Alphabet to Metaseven can be considered platform businesses. All sprung up in the last two decades. Sweden’s most valuable company, Spotify, fits into the platform archetype too. Let’s apply platform logic to urban environments. A thriving city district is a dynamic system where different actorsresidents, businesses, visitors, civil society, cultural institutionsinteract in ways that ideally enhance each others experience. The role of a developer, then, is not just to build and lease space but to curate and connectfacilitating an ecosystem where people and businesses can thrive. This includes thinking beyond the traditional landlord-tenant relationship. A more holistic approach ultimately delivers increased value also to individual tenants. Just as nightclub owners need the right crowd, we carefully consider the first tenants in our developments: Who will create the most value for others in future? They lay the foundations for whoever comes next. This is also how you must start growing a platform. Weve introduced flexible memberships that allow businesses to access workspaces across different locations. Weve partnered with mobility providers to offer shared transport solutions that reduce car dependency. Weve invested in cultural programming that extends a districts life beyond office hours. In each of these cases, our broader ambition is to generate lasting impact for our customers and other stakeholders, including city councils. Why we report livability to financial markets Urban environments have always derived their value from interaction, not just location. The classic example is the agglomeration effectwhy businesses cluster, for instance, in financial or life sciences districts, or why creative industries thrive in repurposed warehouse spaces. Its no secret that economic productivity is shaped by knowledge, relationships, and cultureand you likely see this in your own work. This is why companies pay a premium for office space in vibrant areas, why retail thrives in lively environments, and why people prefer communities that offer more than a place to live. If a company attracts or keeps better talent because of the neighborhood its in, or if a retail street sees increased foot traffic because of a carefully curated mix of tenants and public spaces, the economic impact of these factors isn’t always obvious at first. But to every CEO, CHRO, or owner, their significance grows over time. Many employers that ignored these factorswhether by relocating or staying in the wrong placelater dealt with talent flight, engagement drop, and operational struggles. In retrospect, the consequences were clear. It is no coincidence that many of the worlds most valuable companies were born in Silicon Valley, which is an exceptionally livable and well-balanced environment. The repercussions of the areas rapid economic growth have since put pressure on some livability aspects, but the livable foundation was a key ingredient to its success. Against this background, weve developed our own index to capture a wider set of critical livability values. The index not only measures factors like safety and accessibility, but also social interaction and cultural vibrancy. Over the past few years, weve significantly advanced our own index score measured across our developments. Since we are a listed company, this score is regularly reported to the stock market, alongside our financial and decarbonization reporting. However, the index is not just a reporting measureit is directly linked to our sustainability bonds, integrating these intangible values into our financial structure. The more we improve livability, the lower our cost of capital. Its a way of quantifying what the market increasingly understands: Places that cultivate interaction, well-being, and identity hold lasting value. Well-being as a shared value One of the most overlooked aspects of value, crazily enough, is well-being. Urban loneliness is rising. Stress levels are rising. The way we design and activate spaces in real life can either worsen these problems or help solve them. The platform mindset is crucial here: Isolation is the biggest obstacle to well-being, which relies on interaction, a core function of platforms. The best urban areas are those where people feel connectedto their neighbors, to culture, to work, and to nature. This is why we emphasize not just physical design but the social and emotional experience of a place. That includes shared green spaces and foodsome would argue this matters mostto diverse retail, health, and leisure offerings. Developing a place which shapes peoples daily lives comes with great social and economic responsibility, affecting their health, creativity, and sense of belonging. How urban development must evolve in the platform era As the economy continues to shift toward intangible value, championed by platforms, the best real estate developers will understand their role not just as builders or operators, but as city life shapers. This means embracing new objectives, new partnerships, and a new mindsetone that sees urban areas and individual buildings as centers for interaction rather than just physical assets. Urban planners and architects play important roles, but developers are the economic engines defining both projects and functionality over time. Still, compared to architecture, real estate often lacks an innovation mindsetsomething that has real consequences. We need platform companies in the physical world to be as ambitious as platforms in th virtual one, otherwise it will lose its relative appeal. Relying solely on digital platforms to shape how people live and interact is hardly a sustainable model. To create conditions for greater well-being, we need to strengthen the real-world layer that digital platforms cant replace. The real-world city naturally exposes us to spontaneous encounters and experiences, sparking creativity in ways algorithms cannot replicate. It engages our innate reward systems through meaningful interactions, making cities uniquely capable of driving both innovation and human well-beingwhether or not we actively seek it. This is precisely what digital platforms, with their self-reinforcing bubbles, struggle to achieve. It is also why the city remains humanity’s greatest invention, effortlessly breaking through our mental echo chambers to prove its value as our ultimate interactive platform. Real estate clearly has a void to fill, as the industry isnt fully delivering on the promise of cities as platforms. To change this, we must learn from the most successful platform companies today. They can teach us a lot about structural efficiency and capacity to shape behavior and economic activity. Digital platforms are not role models in every aspect, but they have certainly demonstrated how to challenge the status quo, link people and companies in new ways, and generate economic value on an unmatched scale. These are all needs in the physical world. There is a clear opportunity for the real estate industry to apply platform principlesand every reason for us to do it. Linus Kjellberg is the head of business development for Atrium Ljungberg. 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.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||