Proposition 4 has No Plan

Have you ever experienced Déjà vu when reading California Propositions?

“Wait a minute.  Didn’t I vote for the environment, parks, and infrastructure in a previous bond measure for billions of dollars?”

Well, yes, since every California ballot seems to ask for billions in bonds.  For example, in 2015 California voters approved a $7.5 billion bond to build dams and water facilities and as of 2023 no projects had been built.

Proposition 4 requests $10 billion for a buffet of unspecified projects such as water management facilities, forest and coast management, land conservation, industrial wind turbines, parks, climate change, environmental, and farmland projects.

This is not a deep dive into how much California owes or what exact benefits California taxpayers have realized save to say that the state already has long-term obligations of $280.9 billion.  California’s annual payment for environment-related bonds alone is about $1.4 billion.  And everyone knows that the state had a budget shortfall this year.

I’d like more specifics on the “land conversation” part of this proposition.  It was recently announced that 25.2% of California land has now been conserved as well as 16.2% of its coastal waters.  Since 2022, 2,350 square miles have been added to conservation areas and this year alone, 861,000 acres were newly protected.  The goal is to protect 30% of the state's lands and coastal waters by 2030.

This is part of the 30x30 initiative in which the state plans to acquire six million acres, including 500,000 coastal acres, from private owners for conservation.  To do this they need the kind of funding in ballot measures.

About 46%, or 48 million acres, of California’s land area is owned by the federal government.  Of this,15 million acres are owned by BLM, which holds the lands for conservation.  If more land is owned by government then there is less land for private development.

In the Official Voter Information Guide Prop 4 states that $1.2 billion will be used for land conservation and habitat restoration to . . . “purchase land to set aside so that it is not developed.”

If you’ve read this far, you know what I’m getting to.  There will be less land for housing development (which the state adamantly insists it wants) and decreases the opportunities for supplying new or expanded local aggregate resources.  This will result in higher home prices for residents and is one more method to control private land use.

An AI Assessment

Although AI is a nascent technology already its uses are astonishing.  It’s transforming industries, increasing worker productivity, playing a growing role in scientific progress, and even beginning to determine company strategy.

But AI is still in its early stages and because of how it functions it can be wrong in multiple ways.  Some of these include giving the wrong or misleading answer, omitting information by mistake, mixing truth and fiction, making up false information, and inaccurately producing its sources.

Industries such as mining are technically oriented and generally favor adopting cutting edge technologies that benefit these businesses.  I’m sure that companies are already investigating, accessing, or adopting the latest useful versions of AI.

What these industries haven’t been as successful at is influencing public perceptions, or changing common opinion often expressed as fact in social and legacy media.   

Given the copious data and narratives that exist online related to such topics as environment and global climate change, and depending on how queries are presented and answered, AI may not be your friend.  AI’s answers to questions may not be accurate.  At a minimum that may pose a risk, and at maximum, a danger.

A former President was known for saying “trust but verify.”  The use of AI in its early stages is such a circumstance.

Digital communications are obligatory, but offloading a communications strategy to only a website, whether yours or another, is glaringly insufficient.  While you will want to reexamine and possibly reorient your digital and non-digital communications plans, it is never more important than now to be there in person before your community – to present your company transparently and to build a relationship of trust.

Saying the Hard Thing

What’s commonly called “Crisis Communications” is really about leadership as are most corporate issues.  What seemed to surprise the media more than the actual accident was how Norfolk Southern Railway managed to bungle the initial communications as badly as they did.  In this age of instantaneous Internet, when sometimes social media is the first to alert a company to its crisis, why wasn’t Norfolk Southern better prepared with their response?

Those of us who have worked in large corporations have a pretty good idea of what happened internally, but that doesn’t excuse the loss of any confidence and trust that those affected might have had towards this railroad.  Now, no matter what actions are taken, the financial, reputational, and political costs are going to be higher than they would have been had the company’s leadership been immediately on site, compassionate, and forthcoming about initial steps.

Norfolk Southern is a reminder to get that dusty “Crisis Communications Plan” off the shelf or digital file and update for emergencies.  That means anticipating and analyzing potential problems, developing scenarios, practicing responses, and reviewing team members’ responsibilities.  Assess your physical operation for potential vulnerabilities and make any changes necessary.  These are just a few of the steps to take now to protect your organization.

Finally, this is a reminder what “License to Operate” actually means.  It’s not about permits per se, but rather having the public’s permission to operate.  That should always be kept top of mind.

Welcome to 2023: This Blog Was Not Written by an AI

Everyone is talking about how impressive AI is and how it's not only "writing" so much of what we're already reading, but affecting every industry, and soon every job.  Just recently ChatGPT - launched by OpenAI in November - passed all three parts of the comprehensive US Medical Licensing Exam.

Forefront to the management of AI is the recognition that it's only as good as the data fed into it.  This is quickly becoming a major concern as it propagates more and more "misinformation" regarding facts and data that exceed the political arena. 

So, it shouldn't be surprising that recently hard rock miners were caught between humor and bafflement about how dumb AI's information was about mining.  Not only did it get facts about copper producing countries and production levels wrong, the worst of it was that the images shown of miners were likely to have been taken from the era of the Great Depression!

Although the AI's data was wrong, it may have been correct about the perception of mining in the public's mind.  Even though most mining companies have contemporary information on their websites concerning technologies, environment, climate, and sustainability, this tells us that we have a long way to go and a massive image problem.  The importance of this should not be underestimated or "played down" because it affects attracting a new workforce, critical mineral and mining strategies, and national/international policies.

Mining products are valuable and essential to the wellbeing of everyone, and the biases of hidden programming sources should not only not be accepted as fact, but must be robustly replaced - even if it takes a Human to do that.

Sharon Prager

eConcepts Communications

www.econceptscommunications.com

A LABOR DAY TRIBUTE TO OUR INDUSTRY

Sometimes I receive a puzzled look when people find out my career has concentrated on the aggregates and mining industries through all the years and upheaval of technology and social change.  Partly this is because of my background, and partly because old stereotypes and assumptions about our industries tend to linger on in the public’s mind.

I always find it amusing and interesting because dig down into studies about consumer behavior and perceptions about business, and you will find that one of the most highly appreciated values is authenticity.  I’ve always admired that about our industry.  (And just think about what everyone’s daily lives would be without what we provide).

Contrast that to some of the more flamboyant businesses of today:  as a Barron’s article puts it, social media concerns are “fundamentally advertising businesses”; hundreds of other corporations are regularly accused by the FTC of deceptive trade practices, and in juxtaposition to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) arose because of companies that regularly “greenwash” or that fail to act responsibly towards stakeholders, society, and the environment.

Certainly, no person or organization is perfect, but there is much to respect and value when an industry’s compass is based on honesty, accountability, sincerity and a commitment to continuous improvement – in other words, authenticity.

 Happy Labor Day to all!

Fossil Fuels and the Importance of Words

Through the recent decades of environmental history, an extensive and expanding vocabulary has developed with terms such as global cooling, global warming, greenhouse gases, greenwashing, climate deniers, and global climate change - to name but a few.

It should be stated at the outset that this blog is not a climate change discussion but rather how words are used to propel a position. Repeated often enough phrases either become “facts” or accepted as a placeholder for a point-of-view.

With today’s major environmental topic being the transition to renewable energy, the phrase “fossil fuels” is repeatedly used to denote the oil, gas, and coal industries. Those of you who are scientists know that technically these resources are not “fossilized” as that is a different process.

While the term was likely coined in the late 18th century, the incessant use in our current conversation is recent, and directly linked to the rapid thrust for renewables.

What picture does “fossil fuels” present? Something definitely ancient, frozen in time, non-adaptable, out-of-date, and so forth.

What picture does “renewable” present? Although it has come to be associated almost entirely with energy, it also means “bountiful,” “inexhaustible,” and “sustainable.”

And once again, although more subtly, in practicality the word choices are substitutes for “good vs. evil.”

Those of us who work with words understand how terms affect perceptions, and how different word pictures are most effective with specific audiences and desired goals.

It’s worthwhile to link mission to societal benefits, and awareness of how language affects stakeholder perceptions is critical.

Proud of What We Do and How We Do It

The abhorrent situation in Ukraine is a reminder to speak up and to speak out. Sometimes I think that all the resource industries feel intimidated - hesitant to speak out firmly due to the fear of repercussions: by the media, by politicians, by those with the power to permit. Too many times energy, mining, and others are faced by those who believe - often sincerely - that they possess the “moral high ground”. Too often they are also funded and encouraged by background interests with competing financial and political goals.

For several decades the West has had vociferous groups that proclaim most natural resources and the industries that provide them are not only obsolete, but dangerous, unnecessary, and mostly irrelevant to the new humans that are “connected globalists”. This is a false narrative. One of the most insightful methods for studying geopolitics and the shifting balances and rising tensions between nations can be attained by understanding energy and mining. Monumental strategic, economic and military decisions made by countries such as China and Russia often hinge on the importance of access to resources.

While many have heard about rare earths needed to run their electric cars, cell phones and laptops, few know that it will take commodities such as copper and nickel to manufacture the next generation technology products. Nor do they seem to know they can cross off airline or ship travel or even dental implants without access to titanium. Steel needs iron ore, agriculture potash, and roofing requires zinc. Mining is ahead of other industries in using autonomous vehicles and AI technologies, and research into carbon capture has advanced to the point where enzymes are converting carbon dioxide into fuel.

Aggregates and ready-mix supply our entire built environment (in addition to innumerable other products), protect our natural environment and are absolutely critical to our safety, security, and economy.

The tragic events in the Ukraine should remind us that countries will continue to determine their futures substantially by access to natural resources - even if that means taking them by force. Let this be a learning opportunity to those who may be innocently misguided, but put the security, safety, and economies of their communities and countries at risk.

RE-EVALUATING VALUE

Is it time for municipalities to re-examine value?

In an article explaining why Barron’s was bullish on mining stocks, one reason given was that because it is so difficult to permit a mine, and there are so many delays, those currently operating have become even more valuable.   Using copper an as example, Bloomberg Intelligence recently affirmed that the average time to permit a mine from discovery to production has increased from 10 to 14 years.  Oddly paradoxical is that every aspect of the “clean economy” is dependent on mined materials.

Now, a large and much needed infrastructure bill is likely to be passed soon, but do our communities and political leadership recognize and appreciate the value of local aggregate and ready-mix sites, or how fortunate they are to have these facilities?  Or are these businesses regarded as expendable in order to mollify a minority that perpetrates a false narrative of “dirty industries”?

Perhaps it is time to emphasize the importance, access, and value of these local assets to successfully achieve the intent and outcome of the bill, and to include such stipulation in the written legislation.

Climate Change Zoning

Last month the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to develop a “Climate Action Overlay Zone” for Coyote Valley that reserves the area south of San Jose for wildlife habitat, farmland, and “climate resilience.” Details of what this Overlay Zone will include aren’t finalized, but ultimately the intent is to move forward with a development moratorium.

This decision halts any plans for development in Mid and South Coyote Valley which are in the County’s jurisdiction.  Previously in 2019 more than half of the land in North Coyote Valley – 1000 acres – was permanently protected, and currently the City of San Jose is moving towards changing their General Plan so that the North portion is designated for agriculture and open space and not industrial development.

This may be a good decision for Coyote Valley, but it is important to acknowledge that a designated “Climate Action Overlay Zone” may also be another nomenclature for stopping development throughout California.  The reasoning for the Coyote Valley decision is that “widespread development is incompatible with its natural resources and would result in suburban sprawl,” and “Sprawl development in rural areas like Coyote Valley is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. . .”

Two unintended (or intended) effects of this zoning statewide is to 1) support more high-density multifamily housing and prohibit single family zoning; and 2) use climate change as a new element in order to disallow development.

Be prepared of potential risks, build complimentary coalitions, and implement your communications’ action plan to guide local and county governments, community leaders, and constituencies that could experience negative outcomes.

The Connection Between Ancient Roman Concrete and a Modern Nuclear Power Plant

A guilty pleasure during the pandemic has been reading ancient history.  Much of what we think is unique to today – global climate change – pandemics – political unrest - globalization - economic dislocation and more – was just as prevalent hundreds of years ago.

Which got me thinking about the concrete building material that the Romans used 2,000 years ago and is still standing strong today.  Modern science has found that sea water caused a chemical reaction and rare minerals to form that strengthened the concrete, yet nobody knows the exact recipe for how the concrete was made.

A recent study by Nagoya University found that the concrete walls at the decommissioned Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant in Japan became stronger over their lifetime.  Similar to Roman concrete, the original concrete mixture contained volcanic ash, and when saltwater dissolves that ash it creates aluminous tobermorite whose crystals made the power plant walls more than three times stronger than when first built.

Scientists hope the latest research will result in a new recipe to make an environmentally friendly and longer lasting concrete.

A Reminder About Reputation

I have jury duty next week which brought to mind my last experience.

That was the time I sat in a room with a huge number of potential jurors for eight hours straight.  The case was about a woman whose home had been foreclosed and she was suing a well-known bank.

The lawyers were having a hard time seating the jury, and I soon realized that while the case was about a foreclosure, what it was really about was that the bank’s reputation was on trial.

The comments that came from my fellow citizens during questioning were more fascinating and revealing than any marketing survey could ever capture.  It took a full day to finally find twelve people who could seemingly hear the facts of the case objectively.

No matter the industry or size, business reputation is always on trial.  From the smallest of actions to customer service to decision making there are unseen eyes watching and forming judgments – fairly or not.  Similar to computer security and virus protection running silently in the background, it is beneficial to include reputational risk in every business step.

The New Normal Requires a New Approach

It has been widely acknowledged by opinion leaders that one of the pandemic’s effects has been to accelerate trends that were already underway.  Of the top 10 issues affecting industries, Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) is frequently mentioned as a major concern, and it is the “S” that has moved to center stage.  While good corporate governance and environmental stewardship have long been recognized by investors, it is now all aspects of the social that will determine which companies outperform.

ESG criteria have been primarily used by socially conscious investors to evaluate whether they want to invest with a company based on these indicators, and increasingly used by financial firms and brokers to help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.

While in the past ESG may have been somewhat restricted to “green bonds” and environmental issues, social principles will begin to have more representation in financial portfolios, even as that presents a challenge to financial management companies.

As an experienced practitioner of social impact and community assessment studies for mining companies, I am familiar with how this aspect has affected resource industries.  But now all companies are facing more intense scrutiny partially exacerbated by the current intersection of environmental activism and social justice.  How “social” is defined will become more granular and specific.

How do I think this will affect the future regulatory environment?  In my opinion, I believe that we will see more requirements for environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) and related plans in the context of granting permits and negotiating mining contracts.  Based on my experience local jurisdictions will be keen to adopt such stipulations.  It is a wise move for companies in our industry to prepare in a positive manner towards these requirements.

Should you have questions or require more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Seeing the Big Picture - Don’t Rule Out Art

What does art have to do with aggregates? 

As a prime influencer of the cultural zeitgeist more than you think.

The other night I sampled “Yellowstone”, a modern TV Western.  The show just entered its third season setting record ratings and was the number one most-watched cable premier of 2020.  By combining our current era’s mythology with the age-old “good vs. evil” theme, a rich rancher is pitted against land developers and the corporate interests of oil, natural gas, lumber, and mining.

In full disclosure, I turned it off after the initial anti-industry sermonizing, so it’s possible I’m being too harsh about its heavy-handed messaging.

But too often only a singular point of view is represented in art exhibitions, TV shows, movies, media, and books.  People mostly don’t follow policy discussions, but millions partake of the biases displayed in arts and entertainment.  When such claims are asserted as facts, and reinforced by mass and social media, a SARS-type social virus can be created that too often becomes government policy.

So the next time you see an exhibit at your local art gallery or museum that claims destruction of the earth by natural resource industries, contact the curator and ask to talk about another side of the story at a discussion or docent walk.  You might find that your audience will be interested and influenced by a different point of view.

Help Ensure California's Infrastructure Included in Next Recovery Package

It’s looking more and more likely that in June we could see Congress develop a Phase 4 recovery package.  Both the Senate and President Trump have sent signals that a bill might be passed before the August break, or even before July 4th.

Undoubtedly both the House and Senate will bicker about various provisions, but Senators have indicated a willingness to seriously consider putting at least a part of the infrastructure bill into this next phase.  As Senator Lindsey Graham has said, “this is the time . . .it really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. . .”

In the American Society of Civil Engineers’ latest Report Card for California’s Infrastructure (2019), the state received C’s and D’s in every category.  While California has the world’s 5th largest economy and is expected to grow 25% over the next 20 years, the state’s maintenance, renewal, and replacement programs have stagnated or been delayed due to underfunding. 

Our aggregates and ready-mix provide critical products for roads, bridges, transit, and rail transportation systems vital for work, recreation, and shipments from online retailers.  We supply the materials for water systems to deliver clean drinking water, and for wastewater collection and treatment systems that protect our precious lakes, rivers, and beaches. We help build the schools that provide a safe learning environment for our children.

It’s important that ALL levels of government understand the broad support for infrastructure investment.  Please contact your representatives to let them know how important infrastructure is to our future, to all residents who live in our communities, and to the people who do the work.

Will the Pandemic Provide Possibilities for Positive Outcomes?

As destructive and difficult as this pandemic is, one positive outcome may be a rare opportunity to reexamine many aspects of our economic and social lives, and to reassess outdated policies.  Just as timing is critical for achieving orbit in space, this may be the window to finally implement a plan for national infrastructure investment.

President Trump has always favored rebuilding infrastructure, and for a moment last week House Speaker Pelosi said it should be part of an upcoming Phase Four of the Coronavirus relief bill.  However, she has since stated that it may have to wait for a fifth relief bill.

If we do achieve a $2 trillion infrastructure plan – either through a broader stimulus or a separate bill, the pandemic experience may influence priorities.  Some experts believe that hospitals, telecommunications, energy and utilities may be the initial recipients.  Construction and building materials’ companies will benefit from this increased economic investment. 

While finally tackling our decades-long backlog of seriously deficient infrastructure would be enormously beneficial to our country, federal and state governments will have to ensure that our regulatory environment is conducive and helpful.  We need our policymakers to support and promote regulatory certainty, decreased duplication, and streamlined permitting and approvals.

If not now, when?

“Writing the Decisive Events of our Time”

For decades a story persisted about Abraham Lincoln’s gold pocket watch housed at the Smithsonian. Finally, in 2009 the watch was very carefully opened. On April 13, 1861, the morning that the Civil War began, Jonathan Dillon, an immigrant watchmaker cleaning the watch, placed a secret message: “Fort Sumpter [sic] was attacked by the rebels on the above date. Thank God we have a government.”

Fighting COVID-19 has been compared to a war except it is an unseen enemy, attacks indiscriminately, and so potentially is an even greater threat. Our country has had to mobilize all its talent, manufacturing, and expertise to combat it, and whatever your feelings about politics, Mr. Dillon’s sentiment is just as relevant today.

Nevertheless, our form of government depends upon us – the People. And here, whether religious or not, Pope Francis’ words last week have great meaning:

. . .our lives are woven together and sustained by ordinary people – often forgotten people – who do not appear in newspaper and magazine headlines nor on the grand catwalks of the latest show, but who without any doubt are in these very days writing the decisive events of our time: doctors, nurses, supermarket employees, cleaners, caregivers, providers of transport, law and order forces, volunteers, priests, religious men and women and so very many others . . .

And to those I add the readers of this blog: those hardworking men and women who build and support out infrastructure, our sanitation systems, our hospitals, who mine the minerals, drive the trucks, enhance the environment, discover and implement new technologies, protect biological resources, reclaim land and work with multiple agencies and diverse interests.

Know that you too are “writing the decisive events of our time.”

A New Decade Under Construction

Recently Brad Smith, President of Microsoft, and Carol Browne shared their top 10 Tech Policy Issues for the 2020s.  Achieving number 1 status was “Sustainability”.  For purposes of this list, sustainability is shorthand for climate change issues.  Both governments and corporations will be expected to prioritize sustainability.  The movement is now changing from direct sources of carbon emissions to indirect sources – meaning companies’ entire value chain from manufacturing to the concrete used in new buildings.

Carbon issues are now considered “multifaceted” – defined as including impacts on water, waste, biodiversity, ecosystems and just about anything else that can be stated as affecting this category.  According to Mr. Smith, data science, artificial intelligence, and ultimately quantum computing will all be used toward new technologies and innovations directed at addressing this concern.

The other issues (in order of importance) are 2) defending democracy (both internally and internationally); 3) needing to have healthy journalism; 4) privacy in an AI era; 5) tension between digital technology and geopolitics (particularly related to the movement of large data sets and economics); 6) digital safety; 7) internet inequality; 8) a tech “cold war” (between the US and China); 9) ethnics for AI – humans need to govern artificial intelligence; and 10) jobs and income inequality in an AI economy.

In a future blog I will discuss how these developments will only make communications strategies and public affairs some of the most important sources of strength for successful corporate outcomes in relationships with governments and the public during this upcoming turbulent decade.

SPEEDING UP THE PERMITTING PROCESS

Although modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been under discussion and study for decades, efforts have been minimal since 1986.

However, in 2017 President Trump’s Executive Order – “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environment Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure” – requested that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) find ways to shorten the time for projects that are undergoing environmental reviews.

The Associated General Contractors of America has made several recommendations to the CEQ including:

• Eliminating an alternative to a proposed project when it would result in a significant budget overrun or change to the project’s location.

• No NEPA reevaluation for minor changes to a proposed project

• Setting time limits for routine actions

Some of the requirements to reduce the NEPA process to two years would require:

• A designated champion in the lead agency for advancing the project

• Early public outreach

• Positive and improved communications between the lead agency and project developer

• A mutually agreed upon end date

• A coordinated and concurrent permitting and review process between agencies

• Eliminating redundancies between agencies

Also, the US DOT announced two new rule changes to streamline its permitting process for infrastructure projects:  1) limiting environmental impact statements to 150 pages, and 2) that one federal agency be designated to handle a project’s environmental review and permitting process.  These changes could reduce permitting time to as few as two years.

If you’re interested in discussing these developments further please let me know.

BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE’S “STATEMENT OF PURPOSE”

If you’ve been following this blog, then this week’s “Statement of Purpose” by the Business Roundtable wasn’t a surprise.   Corporate responsibility, as defined by 181 CEOs and led by Jaimie Dimon, is that companies exist to benefit customers, employees, suppliers and communities, not just stockholders.

This is a major change, considering that since 1977, each Business Roundtable’s statement has endorsed shareholder primacy, i.e., that corporations exist to serve shareholders. 

For those that think that this is short-lived, consider that social issues have been undergoing both rapid and incremental change since the latter third of the 20th century.

Have we peaked?  From environmentalism to sustainability, corporate and social responsibility, global warming, climate change, biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, energy and food security?  No, and I will tantalize you with the comment that there is more on the horizon.

Not everyone believes that the “Statement of Purpose” is totally sincere.  Many in the environmental community have already discounted it. Some wonder how a value will be established, or prioritization made, when faced with the often conflicting interests of different stakeholders.  Others think that it is primarily “PR”, or even a form of insurance should a Democrat candidate win in 2020.  After all, it echoes Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “accountable capitalism” bill.

What if closing a plant is good for shareholders, but not for workers, suppliers or the community?  This opens up an interesting question of what that may mean for California’s class action laws.

Regardless of the immediate reason for this Statement, there is a long-term trend here that has ongoing implications regarding some of the future challenges facing business.

Avoiding a "Scarlet Letter"

Last week the Chubb Group announced that it would no longer provide insurance coverage for coal companies.  It would not underwrite construction of new coal-fired plants, nor provide coverage for companies that generate 30% of their revenue from coal mining or production.

The Chubb Group, the world’s largest publicly traded property/casualty insurer, also announced that it would drop existing clients that fail to meet those benchmarks by 2022. 

European insurers such as Swiss Re, Axa, Zurich and Allianz have already announced plans to cancel business with coal companies.

Industries that are not in the coal business may believe they’re exempt from such decisions.  Today, however, any company that is perceived to be contributing to climate change will endure a “scarlet letter” – regardless of the truth of the accusation.

In the recent televised Democratic debates, consider one of candidate John Hickenlooper’s comments on global climate change:

“If you look at real problems, CO2, the worst polluters were China, followed by the United States, and then it’s concrete and its exhalation . . .”

Although improvements continue, coal has become a much cleaner industry in recent years, but that argument is worthless in the narrative of some western countries.  How steel, or even wind turbines, can continue to be produced without coal remains unanswered.

Certainly, companies and industries under this threat should adopt new technologies that reduce their footprint.  But that is not enough. The hue of the “scarlet letter” will continue to glow without an equally determined effort to constantly and consistently communicate to every constituency such significant steps and progress.   Policies on global climate change bring new risks, and increasingly the social license to operate is a pivotal issue.