How Trump's Environmental Policies Can Kill 220,000 Jobs And Eradicate Dozens of Species

This story has been condensed from a piece on Ecosystem Marketplace

US President Donald Trump and his cohorts in Congress have vowed to revive rural America by eliminating what he claims are burdensome environmental regulations, but the best that can be said about the initiatives launched so far is that they  might boost profits for some of the energy and agriculture interests that support Republicans on the House Resources Committee.

You can't, however, say they'll create more jobs than they destroy, because profits aren't jobs. In fact, they're often the opposite: companies save money by cutting jobs, and in this case, the jobs they cut will be those that pay people to plant trees, restore rivers, and turn soggy, unproductive farms into wetlands that filter water, purify air, and slow climate change.

Those jobs are part of a $25 billion "restoration economy" that directly employs 126,000 people and supports 95,000 other jobs - mostly in small businesses - according to a 2015 survey that environmental economist Todd BenDor conducted through the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

That's more jobs than logging, more than coal mining, and more than iron and steel, as you can see here:

The restoration economy is already providing jobs for loggers across Oregon, and even some coal miners in Virginia, but it could disappear if the GOP environmental rollback continues. Here are 11 things you need to know to understand it.

1.   It's not Solar and Wind

The restoration economy is not to be confused with the renewable energy boom that employs 374,000 people in solar parks and 101,738 on wind farms. Like those, however, the restoration economy is part of a burgeoning "green economy" that's transforming forests, farms, and fields around the world.

2.   It's Government-Driven

State and federal governments helped the wind and solar sectors get off the ground, but both of those sectors are humming along on their own now because they provide a cost-effective way to produce electricity, which everyone needs.

The demand for restoration, however, isn't as automatic as the demand for electricity is, because most companies and even some landowners won't clean up their messes without an incentive to do so.

Economists call these messes "externalities" because they dump an internal responsibility on the external world, and governments are created in part to deal with them - mostly through "command-and-control" regulation, but also through systems that let polluters either fix their messes or create something as good or better than what they destroy.

Under the Endangered Species Act, for example, a local government that wants to build a road through sensitive habitat can petition the Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to do so. If permission is granted, it still has to make good by restoring degraded habitat in the same region.

3.   It's Often Market-Based

Pioneered in the 1960s, environmental markets offer flexibility in meeting commitments. That local government mentioned above, for example, can either restore the land itself, or it can turn to a "conservation bank".

These are usually created by green entrepreneurs who identify marginal land and restore it to a stable state that performs ecosystem services like flood control or water purification. They make money by selling credits to entities - personal, public, or private - that need to offset their environmental impacts on species, wetlands or streams.

At least $2.8 billion per year flows through ecosystem markets in the United States, according to Ecosystem Marketplace research.

4.   Infrastructure Also Drives Restoration

The federal government - especially the military - holds itself to high environmental standards, as do many states. Government activities alone support thousands of restoration jobs.

Government agencies are big buyers of credits, often to offset damage caused by infrastructure projects, but the link between infrastructure and restoration goes even deeper than that. In Philadelphia, for example, restoration workers are using water fees to restore degraded forests and fields as part of a plan to better manage storm runoff. In California, meadows and streams that control floods are legally treated as green infrastructure, to be funded from that pot of money. "Green infrastructure", it turns out, is prettier than concrete and lasts longer to boot.

Trump wants to "expedite" infrastructure roll-outs, and he can do so without weakening environmental provisions by removing unnecessary delays in the permitting process (see point 11, below).

5.   Markets Can Reduce Regulations

Nature is complex, and rigid regulations often fail to address that complexity, as environmental economist Todd BenDor makes clear when he points to regulations requiring the placement of silt fences in new subdivisions along waterways.

"They're supposed to prevent erosion, but they often fail or are put in the wrong places," he says. "Markets can simply enact a limit on erosion, allowing the landowner the freedom to be creative and efficient in any way they see fit in order to meet that limit."

Done right, environmental markets can replace overly prescriptive regulations, but they still require government oversight and regulation.

"Markets are entirely reliant on strong monitoring, verification, and enforcement of limits," says BenDor. "Provisions must be made to ensure that, but in reality it's often a problem."

6.   Restoration Stimulates Rural Economies

In 2015, BenDor published a study called "Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy", which found restoration businesses in all 50 states. California had the most, but four "Red" states filled out the top five: Virginia, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. Last place went to North Dakota.

By their very nature, restoration projects are located in rural areas, and a study by Cathy Kellon and Taylor Hesselgrave of EcoTrust found that Oregon alone had more than 7,000 watershed restoration projects, which generated nearly 6,500 jobs from 2001 through 2010. Many of those jobs went to unemployed loggers.

"The jobs created by restoration activities are located mostly in rural areas, in communities hard hit by the economic downturn," report authors wrote. "Restoration also stimulates demand for the products and services of local businesses such as plant nurseries, heavy equipment companies, and rock and gravel companies."

7.   It's been Mapped

Last year, the US Department of Agriculture's Office of Environmental Markets, together with Ecosystem Marketplace publisher Forest Trends and the Environmental Protection Agency, published an online Atlas of Ecosystem Markets, which you can access here.

8.   The Jobs are Robot-Proof

Environmental regulations didn't kill coal; natural gas and renewables did. Regulations didn't stifle the western oil boom, either; that was low energy prices. Even if Trump & Co do prop the coal sector, jobs won't go to people; they'll go to machines, which took most of the jobs America lost in the last decade.

BenDor's research shows restoration jobs are evenly divided between white-collar planners, designers, and engineers and the green-collar guys doing the actual earth moving and site construction.

Almost all involve time in the great outdoors, and they can't be exported or done by robots.

9.   The Jobs are Cost-Effective

Because restoration work is labor-intensive, the money goes to people instead of machines, and every $1 million invested generates 33 jobs on average. Every $1 million invested in oil, on the other hand, generates 5.2 jobs per $1 million invested. In coal, the figure is 6.9 jobs.

10.  It Doesn't Stifle Business

Some industry groups claim the Endangered Species Act blocks development, but researchers reviewed 88,000 consultations between 2008 and 2015 and found that no projects had been stopped or even changed in a major way to protect habitat.

Even proponents of the system concede, however, that the permitting process is slow and tedious.

11.  It Can Be Improved

While the Fish and Wildlife Service administers credits for mitigation of endangered species, the Army Corps of Engineers approves mitigation credits for streams and wetlands, and they're notoriously underfunded. This leads to long and costly delays, according to unpublished research that BenDor conducted with Daniel Spethmann of Working Lands Investment Partners and David Urban of Ecosystem Investment Partners.

Delays are so costly, they argue, that companies in the restoration sector might be better off paying 50-fold higher permitting prices that would give the agencies the staff needed to properly process permits, akin to expedited building permits, rather than paying banks the interest on loans for land where environmental improvements are being held up.

Personal Finance Checklist At Age 50

In a youth-oriented culture, it is easy to feel a little over the hill by the time you turn 50. When it comes to building wealth though, your 50s are the prime of your life - a period when you have a chance to emerge from debt, enjoy your peak earning years and start to see your investments make a serious contribution to your net worth.

To take advantage of this crucial phase of your financial life, it is important to understand some key factors that can help you make the most of your 50s.

Personal finance checklist at age 50

As you look over your financial situation once you turn 50, here are some things you should attend to:

1. Shift more heavily from borrowing to saving

Early in your career, accumulated savings are likely to be modest and it seems you are taking out one loan after another: student loans, car loans, home mortgages, etc. By the time you reach age 50 though, you should have greatly reduced your debt burden. In its place, you should see a growing portfolio of retirement assets. This is the type of trend that can feed on itself: the more you retire your debt, the more of your monthly budget can go to savings rather than loan payments.

2. Estimate your Social Security benefits

The U.S. Social Security Administration will provide you with a free projection of your retirement benefits based on your career earnings so far. While this will remain subject to change based on your subsequent earnings, by age 50 you should have enough of a track record to get a sense of what contribution Social Security will make to your retirement income. This projection can also help you start to think seriously about the pros and cons of retiring early or working longer to achieve the maximum annual benefit.

3. Reassess your retirement goals

In addition to Social Security, look at your other retirement savings and see how much income they project to provide. Knowing where you stand will help you make more concrete plans about the future, including when to retire and what kind of lifestyle to expect.

4. Use catch-up retirement saving opportunities

Looking at your projected Social Security benefits and your savings accounts relative to your goals may tell you that you have some catching up to do. Fortunately, the government gives you some catch-up opportunities in the form off additional tax-deferred retirement contributions to 401(k) or individual retirement account (IRA) plans that you can make once you turn 50. Use this as an incentive to start making extra contributions.

5. Keep your asset allocation aggressive

People often feel their investments should get more conservative as they get older, but age 50 is too soon to throttle back to a less growth-oriented asset allocation. At that age, you are probably still more than a decade away from retirement, and still have an investment time horizon of some 30 or so years stretched out ahead of you. Plus, if you are contributing heavily to your retirement plans, this positive cash flow will help smooth out some of the volatility from growth investments.

6. Update your will

If you first made a will when you started your family, you might find things are radically different by the time you turn 50. Your kids may be on the verge of adulthood and your net worth may be substantially greater, so it is a good time to take a fresh look at what provisions you've made for your survivors.

7. Don't be shy about discounts

Turning 50 makes you eligible for AARP membership. Don't let that make you feel old - just look at the discounts available, and think of it as an advantage you've earned.

8. Take advantage of senior checking accounts

Some banks offer checking accounts for older customers that have no monthly fees. Eligibility is often set at age 50, and with free checking getting harder to find these days, signing up for one of these accounts can be another advantage of getting older.

9. Survey your career opportunities

Since these can be your peak earnings years, you should assess whether your current employer is the best place to capitalize on those years, or whether you could do better somewhere else. To think more defensively, you should also take an honest look at whether your job skills need freshening up so your employer does not view you as out of date.

With proper attention to your finances, this could be your greatest decade for wealth building. After all, it is too late for procrastination and too early for slowing down. This is prime time.

More from Richard Barrington and MoneyRates.com:

Personal finance checklist for age 40

Turning 30? See this personal finance checklist

IRA money market accounts

Exxon Adviser Resigns Over Oil Giant's 'Targeted Attacks' On NGOs

A research scholar at New York University has resigned from Exxon Mobil Corp.’s External Citizenship Advisory Panel, citing what she calls the oil giant’s “targeted attacks” on environmental groups under former CEO Rex Tillerson’s watch.

In a letter this week to Exxon Mobil Foundation president Ben Soraci, Sarah Labowitz expressed her disgust with the company’s continued assault on organizations investigating whether Exxon covered up the risks of climate change.

Labowitz, a co-founder and co-director of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, told The Huffington Post that she has studied many companies facing serious public criticism, often in her field of human rights. For the most part, she said, “they don’t shoot the messenger ― which is what Exxon is doing.”

As Labowitz put it in her resignation letter to Soraci, “Few respond with the kind of vehemence and aggressive attack strategy that Exxon has executed over the last year.” 

Exxon’s current strain of legal trouble dates back to November 2015, when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the oil giant to obtain documents related to allegations that it had lied to the public and its investors about the risks of climate change. In March, a coalition of state attorneys general, including Maura Healey of Massachusetts, pledged to crack down on corporate climate fraud, after InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that Exxon executives were aware of the climate risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions but had funded research to cover up those risks and block solutions.

In June, Exxon hit back, filing a lawsuit against Healey in the company’s home state of Texas in an effort to bar a civil investigative demand from her office. Shortly thereafter, Labowitz told HuffPost, the company began advancing a conspiracy argument that she finds particularly troubling.

In October, Exxon filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, that sought to invalidate Schneiderman’s subpoena, arguing the investigations by the New York and Massachusetts AGs were “biased attempts to further a political agenda for financial gain.” The company claimed that “revelations from third-party disclosures about secret and deliberately concealed collaboration with anti-oil and gas activists and a private law firm” had shown the AGs were “incapable of impartial investigations” and were “attempting to silence political opponents.”

Exxon Mobil then turned its attention to non-governmental organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, warning them in a series of letters not to destroy or delete communications related to their probes of Exxon ― including communications with the press. The move hinted at future subpoenas. 

At that time, a company spokesman told HuffPost that Exxon had been left with no choice but to “vigorously defend” itself. To show what Exxon was up against, the spokesman shared a link to a draft agenda for a January meeting of environmental group leaders at the Rockefeller Family Fund. First covered by The Wall Street Journal in April and later published at The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative site, the letter appears to list several of the meeting participants’ common goals, including “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.”

Created in 2009, Exxon Mobil’s External Citizenship Advisory Panel consists of five independent experts and is tasked with reviewing the company’s corporate citizenship activities, including its effects on human rights and the environment. 

Labowitz, who had served on the panel since 2014, told HuffPost that she began to notice a pattern. She raised her concerns, both privately and during formal advisory meetings, and encouraged company leaders to find alternative approaches. 

Then last week, Exxon “doubled down,” as Labowitz put it. In court papers filed Feb. 1, Exxon wrote that the Massachusetts and New York AGs were “at the forefront of a conspiracy to violate ExxonMobil’s constitutional rights,” as E&E News reported. 

“I think that’s the wrong way to go,” Labowitz said. “I don’t think it’s helpful to them and I don’t think it’s helpful to society at large.”

In her scathing resignation letter, Labowitz argues that Exxon Mobil’s approach undermines democratic principles. “I am disappointed that instead of examining its own record and seeking to restore a respected place for itself in the public debate, Exxon has chosen to turn up the temperature on civil society groups,” the letter reads.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers told HuffPost that while the company regrets Labowitz’s decision to resign, it takes issue with some of her conclusions.

“We have never characterized any action by civil society representatives as illegal,” he said in an email. “What we have done is defend the company, on behalf of all shareholders, from politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit.”

“We did not start this,” Jeffers went on, “but will vigorously defend ourselves against false allegations and mischaracterizations of our climate research and investor communications.”

Labowitz’s departure comes just days after Tillerson, the former Exxon head, took over as President Donald Trump’s secretary of state. During his confirmation process, Tillerson faced serious questions about his ties to Russia and the company’s decades-long, well-documented climate change cover-up. He refused to discuss what the company knew about climate change and when it knew it, saying, “Since I’m no longer with Exxon Mobil, I can’t speak on their behalf.”

Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that Labowitz’s departure “speaks volumes” about the kind of corporate citizen Exxon is. 

“All companies try to protect themselves, but Exxon’s recent attacks have crossed a line,” Mulvey said in a statement. “Going after nonprofits and interfering with independent state investigations shows that ExxonMobil will stop at nothing to protect its bottom line. Ms. Labowitz took a bold stand against ExxonMobil’s climate deception and bullying.”

Mulvey urged other panel members to likewise call out the company’s behavior.

Ultimately, Labowitz says it will be important for Exxon to restore itself as a credible participant in the climate change discussion. If it continues down its current path, Labowitz believes it will do so at its own peril.

“I hope they find a way out of this. I don’t think that this kind of attack strategy is the way forward,” she said. “What happens if they win in arguing this is an illegal conspiracy? I think that it erodes their credibility in a way that is so unhelpful to them, and to the broader debate about the response to climate change.” 

Labowitz - ECAP - Feb 6 2017 by Chris DAngelo on Scribd

Uberizing Big Trucks: 18 Wheels Have Never Been So Cool Or Important

For the commute-weary driver, autonomous technology represents a sexy splurge, but for fleet operations, full autonomy represents the singular business imperative of the 21st century.

When a nondescript tractor trailer trundled 120 miles down a Colorado highway completely unmanned last year, safely reaching a shipping warehouse with a cargo of 45,000 cans of beer, the experiment in autonomous freight movement was largely crowded out by flashier headlines by the big rig’s smaller cousin: the driverless car.

But while autonomous cars may be provocative, autonomous trucks are practical―and promise to be radically transformative for an industry struggling to balance hiring demands with liability, labor and safety regulations.

The lay public’s intense fascination in driverless rides is couched in their misunderstanding, or the media’s deliberate misstatement, of the technology’s current pace. Now, understand that it’s racing, but not faster than speed-throttling government regulation will allow.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rates autonomy―that is, the level of human or alternatively computer operation of a vehicle―at five graduated tiers.

At Level Zero, the human driver controls everything from steering to throttling. Skipping up to Level Two you find combined functions of cruise control and lane-centering, at least momentarily disengaging human drivers from control of the steering wheel and throttle pedals. At Level Three you begin to find restrained autonomy: drivers are still required to perform safety-critical functions (when variable weather or traffic conditions overwhelm the vehicle’s computers).

Levels Four and Five, though, are the moonshot: drivers are not required in either instance, and at its zenith neither are conventional human controls. Otto’s beer run, which relegated the driver to the sleeper bunk, clocked in at Level Four, the first in the nation.

The freight industry entered 2016 with a deficit of 48,000 truckers, according to industry figures, and the American Trucking Association estimates that this deficit may swell to 175,000 within the space of eight years.

Increase in shipping growth coupled with a diminished labor force requires longer routes, especially for owner-operators, and these more rigorous hauls create a whole host of safety concerns for the driving public.

According to federal statistics, in excess of 400,000 trucks crashed in 2014 (the most recent year for which that data is available). Human error―failing to recognize a dangerous situation or to respond properly―was to blame in almost every instance.

Cutting-edge computers of the sort employed by the driverless, beer-loaded big rig, which married advanced mapping, locationing, and radar, are capable of reading and responding to dangerous situations in ways no human can.

Just a few months ago, a family traveling down the Autobahn was alerted by their Tesla’s autopilot system (for now, a misnomer, as Tesla’s road-legal vehicles register at Level Two autonomy) to the imminent possibility of a two-car wreck down-road. Footage from the car’s dash camera records the alert just as the two cars collide in frightening fashion.

”When it happened, when the other cars started hitting the brakes, I also started hitting the brakes,” the driver, Frank van Hoesel told NBC News. “But then the car was already almost stopped.”

Apply that same technology to a 40 ton. eighteen wheeler and you’ve dramatically reduced. Reduced risk means diminished liability, which in turn squashes cost―for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers alike.

For the commute-weary driver, autonomous technology represents a sexy splurge, an investment in safety and sanity, but for fleet operations, Levels Four and Five autonomy represent the singular business imperative of the 21st century.

Increased operational efficiency, diminished liability, and safer roads ― who says practicality can’t be sexy?

Lights, Camera, Action: Reinvigorating the Big Screen

By Andrew Solmssen, Managing Director, POSSIBLE Los Angeles

It was not so long ago that seeing the latest Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts movie meant waiting in lines 50 yards deep. Those days—along with Mr. Cruise’s blockbusters—are gone. Times have changed in the last few decades: the drive-in died, smaller theaters popped up throughout the country, the VCR came and went, and now we stream. Throughout it all, the theaters have remained. And while many a Gen Xer or Baby Boomer prefers to watch the latest movies from the comfort of home, others continue to enjoy movies on the big screen—but in smaller numbers.

CEO and co-founder of the upstart Atom Tickets, Ameesh Paleja, is a 12-year Amazon veteran who helped launch Prime Instant Video, Amazon’s Appstore, Cloud Drive, and the Kindle product line. Seeing an opportunity to bring modern ecommerce techniques to a popular and traditional form of entertainment, he and his partners started Atom two-and-a-half years ago. Since then, the company has become a popular choice, especially among Millennials. Its app and website not only sell movie tickets but also offer social features, special offers, and pre-orders for concessions. We spoke with Ameesh to learn a little more about working in the movie industry, and what we can expect from Atom in the future.

Why did you get interested in the movie space?

About three years ago, I was approached by the executives at Lionsgate. They presented me with a fascinating problem: there are five-and-a-half billion unsold seats in the U.S. theatrical market. That meant that if we could just sell one percent more seats, we’d have a billion-dollar box office opportunity.

It was also a field ripe for disruption. None of the innovation you’ve seen in the ecommerce space—recommendations, personalization, and machine learning—had made its way to the digital ticketing industry. There is a ton of interesting techniques we can use that have now evolved from their infancy to where consumers expect them.

Why did you start as a mobile-first solution?

Though we have a website, mobile is our primary platform. We focused on where people are engaged. Mobile phone usage in the U.S. is obviously huge and growing. When you think about outside of the U.S., it's monstrous. In China or India or Japan, it's basically the only thing people use.

I had also stumbled on an astonishing statistic that said on average, a person unlocks their smartphone 150 times a day. That's on average. My dad unlocks it maybe 10 times a day, while people like me do it more like 400. That engagement with the device was a big deal and we wanted to be close to that customer.

Why aren’t people going to the movies more?

One of the big pain points is planning. All of us have experienced it. Whether it's these crazy group texts, email chains, or posts on Facebook, nobody can get their act together. That’s why we added group invite features to the app.

There are also a lot of ambivalent people sitting on the fence. We realized that social influencers could play a big role in getting them into theaters. Most people just want to go out with their friends and family. Let's say a bunch of your friends want to go see Star Wars and you aren’t interested in it—but you are interested in hanging out with them. We found the opportunity to leverage social influencers with these people.

Can you tell us some of the ways you’re changing the buying process for moviegoers?

Most new ecommerce experiences are taking on pain points and inconveniences in the purchasing process. With Amazon Go, the new grocery store, they’ve made it so you can shop without standing in line or seeing a cashier.

We looked at the entire ticket-purchasing process and found ways to make it easier. For example, we deployed tablet scanners inside the theater so people can skip the lines.

Another of the big things we do is pre-ordering concessions, so they don’t have to wait in line for popcorn or soda. In addition, we can send targeted coupons. For example, let’s say I know you like Junior Mints. If you haven't been to the movies recently, I can offer you a box of Junior Mints if you go. And if I know that when I get you to come to the movies, you’ll bring a few other people. Then, it becomes a simple ROI equation. The studio is happy because it’s getting revenue. The exhibitor is happy because your friends are buying popcorn. And you're happy because you love your Junior Mints.

Seems like a win-win.

I am glad you pointed it out. When we talk about disruption of space, typically there is somebody that gets the short end of the stick. In this space, we make everyone happy. It’s a very unusual situation, which is one reason I was so attracted to it.

What have you found to be the major driver of adoption growth? 

It's a somewhat complicated question because we're now moving from our infancy to our adolescence in terms of customer adoption and growth. Early on, we did a very good job of engaging customers through standard digital paths. Over 50 percent of our customers came from other people inviting them to the movies. We’re seeing that those who get invited by the app are likely to download it. Then, after they use it two or three times, there is a very high likelihood that they are going to invite new friends to join.

That said, we are still at a place where our biggest hurdle is awareness. Candidly, people just don't know about us. Customer acquisition has now shifted from simply leveraging digital channels to supplementing that with un-aided awareness campaigns.

One of the more unique features of your app is the user experience. Was that by design?

With over a thousand apps deployed every day, it's incredibly hard to differentiate yourself in the app stores. Part of the way that we do that is by having an incredible customer experience. It has to be unique, it has to be innovative, but it also has to be engineered well. Our customers are getting 60 frames a second, and it's really smooth whether they have a $50 Android phone from Best Buy or a brand new iPhone.

What is the biggest difference between the movie industry and technology companies like Amazon?

Speed. Movies take two or three years to get developed and a lot of the economics are built in way up front. So there is a significant amount of lead time to affect change.

At first, I said, “Why can't we just move faster? The data says this, so let's just do that." What I have come to understand and appreciate is that the machine is extremely complicated. That's not an excuse; it's an explanation of why it takes longer to innovate in a substantial way. We’re like a tugboat trying to steer an ocean liner.

Building trust is a big part of our process. Movie people bleed for their art. I really didn't understand that until I actually sat down and saw what they have to do to get these incredible stories to consumers. I am so accustomed to solving problems through data that solving problems through relationships is a new experience for me.

Are you planning to incorporate more brand content?

Our brand partners and advertisers are important to us, however, so is customer experience. One thing we're trying to do is create integrated opportunities to expose brands—at the point where they are endemic to a better experience. If it's about helping the customer enjoy their night out, there should be a clean way to integrate advertising into the experience.

What’s your favorite part of this?

The nice thing about movies is that the whole country loves to watch them. Seventy-seven percent of the United States will go see at least one movie a year. It's one of the most egalitarian and recession-proof forms of entertainment out there. Think about it—there is something for a three-year-old all the way up to a 93-year-old. For men, for women, for every race, for every ethnicity, you know, movies basically are the broadest entertainment category that exists.

What’s next?

We keep innovating. In 2016, we created pre-ordering concessions for the exhibitors, and that was a big deal. We also made a deal with Rogue One that connected the Disney consumer products division with the Disney Studios team. We are now selling T-shirts and hoodies for Star Wars when you buy your ticket, which has been successful for us.

In 2017, we’ll continue on that path. That drum beat of innovation will get louder and faster over time. But it’s also about building relationships with all of our partners—so that they feel comfortable with the changes that we're making.

Battling Menthol Restrictions, R.J. Reynolds Reaches Out To Sharpton, Other Black Leaders

Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton, in October at an Oakland, Calif., church forum about the impact of banning menthol cigarettes. (Photo by Rachel Loyd/Oakland North)

By Myron Levin, FairWarning

Tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, the top seller of the menthol cigarettes favored by most black smokers, is seizing on the hot button issue of police harassment of blacks to counter efforts by public health advocates to restrict menthol sales.

In recent months, the company has quietly enlisted black groups and leaders, including civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton and ex-Florida Congressman Kendrick B. Meek, to hold meetings at prominent black churches on the theme of “Decriminalizing the Black Community.” Sharpton and Meek, along with speakers from groups involved in criminal justice reform, have warned of the unintended consequences of banning cigarettes with the minty, throat-numbing additive–namely, the risk of creating an underground market and giving police new reasons to lock up black males. The meetings have been held at churches in Minneapolis, Los Angeles and Oakland, and in other forums.

Reynolds makes Newport cigarettes, the most popular menthol and the No. 2 U.S. cigarette brand overall, with a market share of nearly 14 percent. The company has paid travel costs for the panelists and contributed to their organizations, according to the panelists and Reynolds spokesman David Howard. However, promotional flyers (here, here and here) suggest that Sharpton and his National Action Network are the main sponsors of the meetings, rather than the tobacco company.

Anti-smoking advocates have blasted the campaign as deceptive and a scare tactic. “How can the tobacco industry care about criminalization when they don’t even care about killing you?’’ said LaTrisha Vetaw, who attended a Jan. 25 meeting at the Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis, where a few dozen people turned out to hear Sharpton and be treated to a lunch of chicken, mashed potatoes, green beans and cake.

‘Unintended consequences’ of a ban

Sharpton led protests against police abuses following the death in New York City of Eric Garner, an incident frequently invoked at the meetings. Garner died in July, 2014, after police put him in a chokehold while arresting him for allegedly selling untaxed single cigarettes, or “loosies.” But in his remarks in Minneapolis, Sharpton said repeatedly that he had not made up his mind about a menthol ban, according to a tape of the meeting. “I am not on either side of the argument,” he said. ”I want to hear and listen.”

In an interview with FairWarning, Sharpton said Meek, a Reynolds consultant who serves as moderator at the meetings, ”asked us to consider the unintended consequences of a menthol ban,” and also asked him to appear at several of the churches. Sharpton said he expects the National Action Network to take a position on a menthol ban at its convention in April.

Meek, who could not be reached, is a former Florida highway patrolman later elected to Congress, serving four terms in the House of Representatives before losing to Marco Rubio in the 2010 race for U.S. Senate. Over the years, the tobacco industry contributed $202,510 to his congressional campaigns and leadership political action committee, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Meek received $104,342 of that in the 2009-10 campaign cycle, more than any other member of Congress except North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr.

Meek and the others have stressed that they aren’t in favor of smoking. “We have to deter smoking, okay,” Meek said at the Minneapolis meeting. “But we also have to make sure that…we’re not giving tools to law enforcement” to ensnare more young blacks in the criminal justice system.

There is almost no chance of a menthol ban at the federal level. But as reported by FairWarning, some local officials and anti-smoking groups have taken up the cause of regulating menthol sales. In Chicago, sales of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, are banned within 500 feet of high schools. In Berkeley, Calif., a law that took effect January 1 prohibits such sales within 600 feet of schools. Advocates in Minneapolis and St. Paul, where menthol cigarettes are exempted from an ordinance restricting sales of flavored tobacco products to adult-only tobacco shops, are trying to repeal the menthol exemption.

Menthols account for about 30 percent of U.S. cigarette sales, but are the choice of more than 80 percent of black smokers and more than half of smokers under age 18, according to research cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 47,000 African Americans die annually from smoking related causes, according to agency estimates.

There is no evidence that menthols are more toxic than other cigarettes. But health authorities describe menthol cigarettes as a starter product, saying menthol anesthetizes the throat, helping beginners to tolerate the harshness of tobacco smoke so they are more likely to become addicted. For these reasons, said a 2013 report by the Food and Drug Administration, it is “likely that menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes”–a conclusion cigarette makers hotly reject.

The landmark 2009 law that authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products included a ban on candy, fruit and spice cigarette flavorings because of their appeal to young smokers. But Congress punted on menthol, directing FDA to do research on whether it, too, should be restricted or banned. In 2013, the FDA put out a call for comments on a possible menthol ban, but has done nothing since, and there appears to be almost no chance the Trump administration will act.

‘Being ahead of the issue’

Along with Sharpton and Meek, speakers at the Reynolds-sponsored meetings have included John I. Dixon III, former president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, which lists Reynolds American Inc. , parent of R.J. Reynolds, as one of its corporate partners. Other panelists have been Neill Franklin, a former Maryland State Police narcotics officer and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership; and Art Way, Colorado state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Franklin said his group, whose focus is ending the war on drugs, received $75,000 from Reynolds in 2016 but is not controlled by any of its donors. “My place in this is to give education to people about what potentially could happen if there is a ban,” he told FairWarning. “To me, it’s being ahead of the issue.”

Way said opposing a menthol ban is a ”natural fit” with his group’s “general concerns over [the] black market and the kind of unintended consequences of banning popular substances… We say what we want to say,” and reach larger audiences, ”basically on Reynolds’ dime.”

The forums haven’t been limited to black churches. Last June, at the annual convention of the National Newspaper Publishers Association — the trade group for more than 200 African-American community newspapers–Meek, Dixon, Franklin and Way were listed on the program for a “Panel Discussion, Criminal Justice Reform–Hosted by RAI Services Company,” a reference to Reynolds. In 2015, Reynolds contributed $250,000 to the publishers association, according to a document posted on the company’s website.

“Yes, RAI has provided some funding to those organizations,” the Reynolds spokesman, Howard, said in an email to FairWarning. “We work with these organizations in an effort to engage in conversations to work to resolve controversial issues related to tobacco use in a responsible manner, while ensuring that any new rules or laws do not result in troubling unintended consequences.”

But Vetaw said the company is blowing smoke. The tobacco industry “is great at marketing … so they send celebrity Al Sharpton,” said Vetaw, who is policy and advocacy manager for the North Point Health and Wellness Center in Minneapolis. “A couple of people in the room said, ‘Well, Al Sharpton’s here so this must be important.‘”

Valerie Yerger, who attended an October meeting at the Beebe Memorial Cathedral in Oakland, had her microphone cut off when she tried to raise the issue of Reynolds’ involvement in the event, according to interviews and a report by Oakland North, a newspaper published by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Yerger, an associate professor of nursing at UC San Francisco who has researched the history of tobacco industry support for African-American groups, said the campaign shows that cigarette makers are continuing to use ‘influential black leaders and their organizations as a front group to promote industry interests.“

This story was reported by FairWarning (www.fairwarning.org), a nonprofit news organization based in Pasadena, Calif., that focuses on public health, consumer and environmental issues.

American Apparel Post-Mortem: A Lesson In Visionary Leadership

The beginning of 2017 came with disappointing news from American Apparel. As a crusader for domestic-made products, the retailer's weakness came not from its altruistic model, but from errant leadership and a reluctance to grow with market changes. A brand that had a strong identity and morals lost its way from the top down, ultimately leading to its demise through an acquisition and shuttering of its retail stores.

In the brand's infancy, founder and CEO Dov Charney displayed unique leadership and forward-thinking visions. The brand's identity began to evolve as early as 1997, becoming known as a no-frills American-made manufacturer of quality products that rejected what has become a standard practice of human exploitation in the apparel industry. It swiftly gained recognition, opening 150 stores after its first year and nearly doubling that in the next three years. It continued to gain traction and in 2008 company shares reached $14. Yet Charney's infamous reputation for inappropriate behavior and the company's inability to change with the industry caused it to sell recently to Gildan Activewear Inc, a Canadian clothes manufacturer.

Contract Help from Employees
The signs were there. Once a desired workplace destination, in recent years American Apparel's ratings on sites like Glassdoor.com have plunged, with comments from current and former employees deriding the culture and leadership. A proactive leadership team will internalize this kind of feedback to 1.) determine if the gripes are legitimate, and if so 2.) concoct an action plan that addresses the issues.

In a similar vein, strong leadership will take time to walk through their company and hear what employees from every level have to say about their jobs. Usually problems arise for employees that work with the product or customers every day and can identify what is not working.

For example, talking with a store-level employee might yield information about displays that work and don't. Factory-level employees, while not high on the org chart, can likewise be valuable sources of information about supply chain issues and specifically what is not working.

These criticisms can be the biggest assets to your company. Documenting these ideas then trying to find solutions can move your brand to leading the industry rather than just playing catch-up. It has been publicly reported that previous American Apparel leadership had significant mismanagement the brand, creating a ripple effect that led to disorganization and the dissatisfaction plainly evident on Glassdoor.

Create a Culture of Engagement
So what is the solution? A Hay Group poll found that engaged employees showed 43 percent more productivity. Engagement can come in the form of encouragement, transparency and integration in company happenings. Having employees understand how their work contributes to the overall company's goals can help engage employees.

Transparency between employees and leadership can also give employees the confidence to approach leadership to raise concerns and bring ideas. Target recently used this model in their internal communication to create a culture of togetherness and inclusion. That culture will allow your employees to feel empowered rather than hindered to contribute.

Conversely, when your brand and its leadership are at loggerheads over litigation, remaining silent only breeds unease and anxiety.

Embrace Change
Since its founding, American Apparel remained positioned as a young-ish, niche brand that marketed with controversial sexualized advertising. The campaigns had stayed relatively similar all through its life. Many consumers knew what to expect and did not see much change in their product.

But some things did change. For instance, the age-old axiom that "sex sells" has, during the dawn of a new era in social justice and gender equality voices, weathered criticism. A look at the brand's arc of advertising sees a relentless adherence to this strategy, even as the world around it changed.

Responding to changing market forces and consumer trends is as important as good ideas themselves. American Apparel had a strong business model - producing quality products without human exploitation - but failed to hammer home that message in marketing their products. Operationally, the brick-and-mortar outlet failed to innovate online and create a strong online shopping presence.

Perhaps these changes could have saved the company, or at least staved off bankruptcy a bit longer, but they are far from the only brand to meet this kind of demise. The scandal with their then-CEO - and the failure to replace him in a timely fashion - stunted their growth and ultimately their demise. One important role of leadership is to continue to look forward for the brand, even when that means cleaning house.

Remember Brand Identity
While change can mean growth, forgetting your brand and confusing your consumers can be detrimental. Your brand identity is set to tell the story of your company in a clear, consistent voice. It is what consumers will connect with and learn to trust. Brand loyalty has become as strong as advertising in the past years; consumers will forgive a company numerous failures if they feel the brand is connected to them. Keeping your brand in mind when you are thinking of taking the company in a new direction can help your consumers feel comfortable and enthusiastic with the change.

American Apparel made the mistake of not reiterating why they were spending $30 for a T-shirt. Its original mission was to produce quality American products without exploiting its labor force. This message was not reinforced in its marketing and consumers began to seek cheaper, faster fashion. Its failure to advertise its message led to its failure when the change to fast fashion dominated the market.

While Dov Charney brought a strong vision and a commendable mission to the apparel industry, he also became a distraction that drew attention from the core product and inhibited the leadership's ability to keep up with market trends. True visionary leadership doesn't only come from visionary individuals. Constant auditing and contribution from all employees will help your brand stay on top of its needs and the needs of consumers. Innovation is a very delicate to get right and see through to success. It's a moving target. If you miss it often enough, you will find yourself out of chances.