By Katie Kieffer

2011 Ford Explorer. Image credit: Ford Motor Company.

This week, I was one of a few people who were lucky enough to see Ford unveil the all-new 2011 Ford Explorer at the Minneapolis Club.

Here is my exclusive video interview with Ford’s Explorer Chief Engineer, Jim Holland. Video produced by Charles Eide of EideCom:

When Henry Ford introduced the Ford Model T in 1908, his innovation changed history forever. Ford continues to innovate and gain market share by releasing newer and better versions of its top products. For example, the 2011 Explorer is twice as strong, 30 percent more fuel efficient, boasts simplified technology like voice activated climate control and introduces sustainable soy materials into the SUV’s interior. It also includes a rear inflatable belt – a first in the industry.

It is exciting to see that, even during a recession, it is possible for corporations to achieve profitability without government aid. Ford was the single American automaker that did not take bailout funds. While Ford joined Chrysler and GM in lobbying Congress for funds in November of 2008, Ford was denied legislative aid. Later, when Chrysler and GM accepted taxpayer dollars, Ford did not ask for government aid in 2009, stating that it could get by on its own.

Clearly, Ford’s independence drove its profitability. Ford is reaping the rewards of its independence, as it is the sole thriving member of the “Big 3” automakers.

The New York Times reports,

“During a time of crisis throughout the auto industry in recent years, Ford emerged as the sole American automaker in a position to survive the steepest sales downturn in decades without a government bailout. That helped the company improve its reputation and win new customers.

In July 2010 Ford said it earned $2.6 billion in the second quarter and expects to have more cash than debt by the end of 2011. It was the fifth consecutive quarterly profit for Ford, whose turnaround has been gaining momentum as it has increased sales and market share in the United States.

Ford earned a net profit of $2.1 billion, or 50 cents a share, in the previous quarter, producing its largest pretax operating profit in six years. The company also outsold G.M. in February 2010, something that had not happened in more than 50 years, aside from several months in 1998 when G.M. workers were on strike.”

Part 4 in a series

By Katie Kieffer

As a young professional, I’m puzzled when I hear another young businessperson make a statement that conveys the following idea:

“Stringent green practices are going to become law. We need to do what we can to make sure we are in compliance with the law before it gets here.”

Certainly climate legislation is coming down the pipeline. Yet, just because legislation is proposed and has momentum behind it doesn’t mean that it’s the best solution for national economic or climate issues. As a LEED AP, I personally believe that we should do everything we can to protect and preserve our planet. I also think that the business community needs to speak up for the interests of the economy and work with elected officials to find a fiscally responsible way to take care of the earth.

No one gets business better than business. As I blogged here, my participation in the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce’s Civic College courses taught me what I already sensed: Most politicians are not businesspeople. Politicians may have big hearts and quixotic visions, but if they do not have a business background, they are probably not going to understand the full implications of their actions on the economy.

Additionally, most politicians are not scientists, so they are not going to fully understand the ramifications of their proposed legislation on the earth unless they are open-minded enough to hear new scientific discoveries that may conflict with their political agendas.

I propose that instead of taking the passive, defensive, reactive approach of assuming climate legislation like cap-and-trade will become a reality – and building our business models around it – young professionals should take a proactive approach. This would entail:

1. Educating ourselves on all proposed legislation labeled as “green” or “climate-friendly.” Just because a politician – motivated by winning votes – says legislation is green and the best solution for our planet and our economy, doesn’t mean it is.
2. Educating our politicians about the negative economic impacts of cap-and-trade.

If you’re a young professional, a few non-partisan resources for you to start learning more so you can take a proactive approach to understanding planned climate legislation like cap-and-trade are:

• The Institute for a Competitive Workforce, the non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)3 affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
• The non-profit and non-partisan, National Federation of Independent Business

Our generation is smart, creative and thoughtful. We possess the answers within ourselves to solve this current economic crisis while also caring for the environment. We can use our own ingenuity to solve these problems for less cost and with a better outcome than the government can.

Note: Click here to read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 in this series.

Part 3 in a series

By Katie Kieffer

Now we’re buying rights?

As I began discussing here and here, cap-and-trade would introduce the new concept of a “right” for corporations to emit limited amounts of CO2 – before man-made CO2 emissions have even been proven significantly harmful to the earth. It’s dangerous to give our politicians the ability to create new “rights” based on such preliminary science because the origination of rights should be reserved for:

• Rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution
• The inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence

Bottom line, the government does not have the power to grant U.S. citizens the “right” to emit CO2, especially when scientists just announced that CO2 may be beneficial to the environment.

Perhaps you’re willing to be taxed via cap-and-trade, pay higher prices for energy and consumer products and give the government the power to dictate your company’s CO2 emissions in exchange for its promise to protect the environment by policing CO2 emissions. This is a fairly common viewpoint, so let’s consider whether it’s a fiscally responsible or earth-friendly view. My assessment is that those who hold this viewpoint care deeply about protecting the earth, and are missing some of the facts. According to this viewpoint, the government – not the free market or private entrepreneurs – is best-suited to protect the earth.

I maintain that, left alone, the market would actually police itself. Corporations that are not viewed by the public as “green,” “sustainable” or “earth-friendly” are no longer popular. For marketing purposes alone, corporations realize that they need to go green – in a fiscally responsible manner – in order to survive. American companies already know that young, Generation Y professionals (born between 1980 and 1994) – will pay more for “green-conscious brands.” There’s no need for big bro Uncle Sam to jump in and try to oversee what will happen naturally. And, there is certainly no need for taxpayers to pay Uncle Sam to oversee and police what will happen naturally.

How good would the government be at protecting the environment via cap-and-trade?

Stanford University’s Hoover Digest reports in its latest environmental research that the government has shown itself to be “environmentally, fiscally and economically irresponsible” in its public land management and National Park Services. According to the Hoover Digest:

1.)    “Decades of fire suppression by the Forest Service have disrupted natural fire cycles … and 90 to 200 million acres of federal forests are at high risk of burning in catastrophic fires. …fires put enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere…”

2.)    Park barrel politics, such as: “the Government Accountability Office testified in Congress that in 2004 the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) earned about $12 million in grazing revenues but spent $58 million implementing its grazing program.”

3.) “Given that the federal estate is worth trillions of dollars, Obama should make land management agencies turn a profit.” National forests earn an average of 76 cents for every dollar spent – a net loss – under government management.

The point? Would you hire a landscape architect to design a green roof for your building that had a track record of blowing budgets out of the water and building environmentally unstable green roofs? Of course not. Likewise, the government’s inability to manage our national forests in an environmentally effective or profitable manner should be a cause for pause before we hand over another big environmental project to them: Managing the climate.

The government has a track record of spending money, increasing the national debt and pushing its own programs into obliteration through poor fiscal planning. How can we sit back and let our government get away with acting so irresponsibly?

Give young leaders a chance

Unemployment is rising and is expected to come out above 10 percent for Nov., 2009. The government is growing and monopolizing our economy, taking away opportunities that rightfully belong to smart, innovative and hard-working entrepreneurs. Young professionals – conservative, moderate and liberal – share common goals such as achieving the American dream, protecting the environment, and maintaining the freedom to build our careers and businesses. We need to decide whether we want to give up a great deal of liberty and cash to pay the government a backwards $6,000-plus tax to monitor carbon emissions and climate change.

Under a backward or regressive tax like cap-and-trade, politicians line their pockets and increase their power while, jobs take a downward spiral. Like entrepreneur, Matt Harrison, I believe our generation has the energetic, entrepreneurial spirit and innovative power to solve this current financial and budding environmental crisis – while turning a profit – without paying Uncle Sam to baby-sit the process.

Part 2 in a series

By Katie Kieffer

If you were a politician and you wanted to ensure your political future, you’d need to be careful when you proposed increases in taxes during a recession. But, in order to pay for new or growing government programs, you typically need to raise taxes. So, as a smart politician, you’d only support tax hikes that would secure you votes and a pat on the back, not a pink slip from your constituents on Election Day.

Cap-and-trade is the sexiest new tax proposal in the Senate. Our country is in a recession, but we are also in the middle of a massive green movement. Today, more than ever before, individual Americans and American corporations are trying to do everything they can to either be or appear to be green. For some, being “green” is about doing the right thing.  For many others, it’s about doing the right thing, marketing and being fiscally responsible by saving energy costs. For politicians, however, their interest in supporting green taxes cannot be separated from self-preservation and attracting votes.

Cap-and-trade is just the kind of tax to get behind if you’re a politician since it’s trendy to be green in America now. As The Wall Street Journal puts it, ‘Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing “polluters,” not workers.’ I think caring for the earth is always the right thing to do. I think it’s wrong for politicians to use the term “green” to push bigger, unnecessary government on their constituents.

What is cap-and-trade? Simply stated, the government sets a “cap” on the total amount of CO2 emissions that can be released by companies in the U.S. and then distributes “rights” or “allowances” based on this cap or limit. The government would allow companies to “trade” their carbon rights with each other. For instance, a high emitter like a coal plant would need to purchase allowances that would give them the “right” to emit CO2.  The coal plant could “trade” with a company that doesn’t emit as much CO2 by purchasing their credits or allowances from them. Over time, the “cap” would become stricter – since the EPA would have the authority to increase caps every five years – and companies would need to find ways to reduce overall CO2 emissions – it’s sink or swim.

Cap-and-trade, would increase your cost of living if you are in the bottom 80 percent of the population and put money in your pocket if you’re in the top 20 percent. This is because, it is not an innovative solution to environmental concerns. Rather, it is a sexier way for politicians to describe a regressive tax during a recession that increases energy prices and doesn’t do much for the planet, as Robert Murphy, economist with the Institute of Energy and Research told Fox News in this video:

A Heritage Foundation study of the climate bill before the Senate, Waxman-Markey, that includes the cap-and-trade proposal, found that: “Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.”

You might be thinking: Even though cap-and-trade is effectively a huge tax and will increase my cost of living significantly, it’s a worthy investment because it will protect and preserve the earth. This is a valid concern, so I will consider it. In order for cap-and-trade to be determined effective, several things must be true:

First, man-made CO2 emissions must be proven to have a significant, measured and harmful contribution to global warming. This is still an unproven theory, and science is now coming forward with evidence that man-made CO2 emissions may even be beneficial to the environment, as I blogged here.

There is still plenty of research and investigation that needs to be done on carbon emissions before politicians can justify spending billions of dollars trying to lesson the small percentage of emissions attributable to humans when there are other proven and pressing environmental issues that need immediate attention.

Second, since CO2 emissions still need to be proven to be a significant, measured and harmful contribution to global warming and we are in the middle of a massive economic recession, it is imperative that any new tax be a long-term boon to our economy. Cap-and-trade will be a long-term financial burden on our economy, significantly killing job growth.

Any time you push money around through taxation, versus create money through innovation, it is a short-term solution, not a long-term solution. The only way to bring money into this country so that we can afford the new technology that is necessary to create clean energy, and hire entrepreneurs who have discovered less environmentally destructive ways of doing business is by creating an income stream. The government is not creating an income stream by taxing the entrepreneurs who it relies on to innovate and come up with thoughtful solutions.

Entrepreneurs create jobs and new ideas, not politicians. Young entrepreneur, Matt Harrison, author of The American Evolution and founder of the Prometheus Institute, contends that cap and trade will be especially harmful to young people who are trying to build up their careers or start their own business. Ironically, it could also put a damper on green or sustainable entrepreneurs – the industry that the government is supposedly trying to grow and innovate with the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

Harrison tells PR-inside.com: “As TIME Magazine points out, climate change may be the defining issue of my millennial generation, but that doesn’t mean we need our elders to solve it. We are the most entrepreneurial generation in history. We’ll solve it ourselves, and it will be much easier without a needless $6,000 tax dragging us down.”

Harrison pinpoints three primary reasons why cap-and-trade fails young people and its own objectives:

1.)    The costs will cripple the economic growth needed to create a clean energy future.

2.)    The bureaucratic nightmare created by the bill will drain the resources of existing businesses and be a barrier of entry for new entrepreneurs.

3.)    The calculations on climate change are bound to be incorrect but if the earth only warms by one percent in the next 100 years what’s the point in spending $200 billion right now?

Next, I will continue this conversation, specifically addressing more of the economic and environmental impact of cap-and-trade.

Note: Click here to read Part 1 in this series.

Part 1 in a series

By Katie Kieffer

If you’re a young professional, you want to know, how will the current cap-and-trade bill impact you if it passes in the Senate? I’ll try to break this proposed legislation down and explain how it will impact you as a young taxpayer and a young professional so that you can decide what you think about it.

As a young person, you already know that Social Security and Medicare will likely run out in 2037 and 2017 respectively, and therefore will not be available to you. You know you need to start planning and saving now in order to have enough monetary reserves to retire in comfort and afford the additional health care you may require as you age. If you’re like me, you want to do everything you can now – while you’re young – to make sure that you will:

1.)    Live in a clean and healthy environment, and pass down the same to future generations.

2.)    Have ample opportunity to achieve the “American Dream” including home ownership, prosperity and career success – whether you choose to build your career within an existing corporation or decide to start your own company.

3.)    Retire with your desired lifestyle and comfort level.

At first glance, cap-and-trade appears to be complex legislation. Cap-and-trade is actually just one part of a larger climate bill: H.R. 2454, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by the House of Representatives in June 2009. Now, cap-and-trade, and other environmental legislation are up before the Senate. Before cap-and-trade legislation passes, it is important for you to decide what you think about it so that you can have a say in the decisions your elected officials ultimately make.

Over the next few days, I’ll dig into cap-and-trade and help you understand it from your perspective as a young professional. Cap-and-trade is an important, hot-button issue that you’ll want and need to be on top of as your career progresses.

By Katie Kieffer

Bees are an essential part of our national economy.  Did you know that we rely on bees for one-third of our food supply? Pollinators are essential to helping “over 70 percent of the world’s wild and cultivated flowering plants reproduce,” Brian Devore states in his column, “A Sticky Situation for Pollinators,” in Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. There is an “estimated $20 billion in services pollinators provide U.S. crops annually,” says Devore.

Clearly, if the bees continue to fade away, much of our agricultural economy and independence will be at stake. There are various explanations for why the bees are dying off. Ultimately, we want to know what to do to help save them – and protect our food supply.

One of the best solutions I’ve seen proposed so far is to start creating year-round habitats that are needed by bees. Bees need a “seasonal succession of blooming plants to get through spring, summer and fall – and prepare for the winter,” states Devore. This means that you can’t preserve the bees by putting a pot of annuals on your porch. Bees need a more permanent, three-season home, or habitat. Conservation Volunteer reports that we’d likely see a 50 percent increase in the wild bee population, if we planted our highway roadsides, ditches and buffer strips with native prairie grasses - if a study performed by the University of Kansas in 2008 holds true.

I come from a real estate background, and I understand growth and development. And, as a LEED AP, I think there’s more that we can do to help ensure that we don’t undermine our economy by bypassing opportunities to protect or create habitats for pollinators as we grow and develop the land.

As we put up new structures and developments, we need to assess whether there is a natural habitat that we’re impacting. I don’t think we need more government legislation or restrictions on positive development. Most commercial real estate developers are well-aware of the environmental impact of their projects. Many of them are incredibly conscious about incorporating green roofs, green space and rain water gardens into their developments. I think we need to think long-term and prioritize this crisis over less-urgent environmental concerns.

There is more opportunity to do good and reverse the trend of endangered bees along a long stretch of road that extends for hundreds of miles than within a single real estate development. Our country has many long stretches of road that could easily be planted with native grasses. In Minnesota alone, the DNR estimates that there are “525,000 roadside acres that could be planted with native” plants, reports Conservation Volunteer.

The bee crisis is urgent because of how it impacts our economy, jobs and future agricultural growth. As a state and a country we need to act now before it’s too late. Building and preserving sufficient habitats for pollinators should be at top of mind for young Americans concerned about the environment.

On the scale of urgency for things to do to protect the economy and the environment, this may be more pressing than worrying about human contributions to climate change. In fact, just last week, CNS News reported that a group of scientists presented, “evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.”

A new Pew Research Center Poll shows public opinion has taken the biggest drop in three years regarding global warming. Said differently, fewer people today believe that humans are causing global temperatures to rise.

Likewise, business people like Warren Buffett and H. Leighton Steward, and scientific evidence question green regulations that do not have a proven, reasoned and financially sound approach to controlling human/commercial sources of greenhouse gas emissions. As a young professional, I think it’s interesting to note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for increased transparency from the EPA regarding regulations of greenhouse emissions under the Clean Air Act.  The Chamber is concerned that, “any regulation of greenhouse gases using existing environmental laws not harm the economy and American jobs, be based on sound science and allow for public review of all underlying data and scientific analysis.”

Bottom line, bee extinction is a here-and-now crisis, whereas some other environmental concerns and their solutions are still debatable. As good stewards of the earth, we should allocate our time and money wisely and move this crisis to the top of our list.