The Next Manifesto: Sharing Economy Solutions for the Climate Crisis

1. Introduction 

Crisis creates commons. As we push against the Earth’s carrying capacity for atmospheric carbon and exceed environmental limits of existing ecosystems, humanity faces a common crisis. Humanity’s capacity to adapt to new systems will vary according to each person’s respective wealth, and when push comes to shove, self-interested actors will first (perhaps only) protect their own. Regulators and policy makers continue to strategize new ways to signal and internalize the true cost of carbon through cap and trade, or carbon taxes. These are important feedback mechanisms because they allow the firm to collect more complete information from their economic habitats—prerequisite to evolving new capabilities, competencies, and assets that are most fitting to their actual environment. Yet while policy makers are working on boosting the signals the firms receive from their environment, both producers and consumers should rethink the way the firm functions within itself to ensure that its internal governance is best suited to thrive in and co-create the new economy. 

To date, the environmental movement has provided many important tools for combatting climate change. Yet it has not cut at globalization characterized by an extractive ethos or the neoliberal economic modalities that deemphasize place for the sake of commodification.1 Because it has not challenged the values underlying this dominant economic mode, the environmental movement has not stopped climate change, nor has it won over the hearts and minds of many Americans. Chains of commerce obscure the relationship between consumers and modes of production, and capitalist ownership models extract value from workers and the land rather than allowing them to truly share in the surplus they generate. 

Sharing economy law can break these chains to harmonize producer and consumer incentives, realign the human economy with the natural economy, and generate buy-in to climate solutions through democratic ownership of the means of production. By implementing cooperative ownership structures across several sectors, the United States can reduce carbon emissions directly and indirectly by localizing production and consumption, and maximize carbon sequestration in working lands. This paper will explore the potential for implementing sharing economy solutions in the transportation, renewable energy, and agricultural sectors, ending with an impact investment pathway modeled on the ESG history. 

2. Theory: Alienation Yields Socio-Ecological Exploitation 

Marx’s theory of alienation states that socio-economic relationships are obfuscated by chains of commerce. “When consumers are separated from producers, purchase decisions are based solely on price and use values, without considering conditions of labor, exploitation or other societal concerns.”2 As Courtney Barnett succinctly puts it, “if you can’t see me, I can’t see you.”3 For instance, consider the agricultural sector. When consumers go to the market, they are unaware of the true costs of the agricultural products they purchase. Even labels like “organic” lose their power to ensure particular production methodologies as large agribusiness slides into the category through lobbying efforts.4 As neoliberal economic models drive the shift toward monoculture, local food systems are destroyed5 by the demand for cheap, uniform commodities destined for some place other than “here.” 

“Agricultural commodification can also lead to socio-economic consequences.”6 As agribusiness consolidates and effectively monopolizes sectors of “organic” production, small or mid-sized organic farms must compete with multinational conglomerates in the market, or attempt to resist takeovers.7 As the neoliberal market continues to drive down prices, workers and former owners are made to bear the costs of production personally through stagnating wages, unsafe conditions, and undue financial or legal liability.8 This concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands. While capital-holders are enriched, other stakeholders (such as the workers, the local consumers, and the ecosystems) are exploited. Incentives to care for environmental consequences are obscured by chains of commerce because shareholders do not see or appreciate what exploitation means for the local. 

This is not an unavoidable outcome of the food system. “When food systems become localized, chains of commerce are eliminated and social conditions of production are more likely to be understood and considered by the consumer prior to purchase.”9If consumers know the farmers that manage the Hurricane Flats farm down the road,10 and swim in the river that runs alongside it, they are more likely to know whether these farmers are financially well, and whether they use sustainable or regenerative production methods. When organic agriculture is supported by localized market systems, it helps “to balance environmental consequences, economic inequity, and human rights violations of industrialized food systems in global trade,”11 by providing democratic and participatory structures of governance.12 The food system provides but one example of presently extractive industries whose incentives require realignment in building a climate-smart economy. 

3. Strategy: Sharing Economy for Climate Solutions 

Cooperative business structures can harmonizes producers and consumers with natural systems by eliminating chains of commerce that separate consumption from modes of production, and by lifting the veil to expose value-extracting capital-holders across supply chains. The worker-owned cooperative corporation provides one example of a harmonizing structure that enables democratic governance of work. Unlike “business as usual,” where capital-holders seek to extract value from laborers, “a worker cooperative provides for both democratic ownership of the workplace, with each worker holding an equal interest in the business, and democratic governance, with each worker able to cast an equal vote in key decisions.“13 Because workers are empowered to govern their work place, they are able to control distribution of the benefits of their labor—namely, capital and equity. This empowers them to play a part in democratic management of the economy at large,14 while potentially providing collective bargaining mechanisms that secure more equitable prices in the market. 

Consumer-owned cooperatives provide another example of a structure than reduces extractive activity in favor of equitable pricing. Consumer cooperatives are already smattered across the US economy. For instance, R.E.I. provides outdoor recreational gear to its member-owners as well as the public at large.15In Seattle, member-owners of PCC Community Markets “determine bylaws, elect the Board of Trustees,” and redirect profits from the grocer back into the community they serve.16 Over 800 electric cooperatives provide service to over 42 million Americans,17 while every credit union represents a consumer cooperative in the banking sector. These models provide useful tools to empower consumers and workers to realign their day-to-day activities with the needs of their environment.  

4. Tactics: Electrifying and Socializing Transportation 

While automakers, States, and federal governments argue about efficiency standards, the market for electric vehicles continues to grow. Automated transportation improves with every mile driven, and in many cases ride-sharing apps such as Uber or Lyft are transforming the taxi industry and reducing the need for car rental and ownership in cities. The debate over whether electric vehicles actually reduce emissions over their lifecycle rages on, primarily hinging upon where the grid sources its power.18 Where electric vehicles are charged by zero-carbon energy sources, they are responsible for up to 165 grams/km fewer emissions than conventional automobiles.19 Ride-hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft are also expected “to alter the state of car ownership towards subscription-based services and shared ownership.”20 But ride-sharing companies are not without their own set of problems though, as many utilize their technology to become more efficient at extracting (rather than creating) value from their respective markets and employees contractors. This is due to the ownership structure, where the firm has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, not its workers or customers. Platform cooperatives, on the other hand, “aim to reinvest in their users, employees, and communities, and value positive workplace practices in tandem with profitability.”21 

Platform cooperatives enable shared ownership by providing a common ownership and logistical infrastructure. Platform cooperatives share the value they create with users, and “combine a cooperative business structure with an online platform to deliver a real-world service."22 This allows consumers to provide for their transportation needs while owning fewer cars per person. This not only reduces the number of cars on the road, but would also reduce the need for parking lots in larger cities where such a model became normative. One company already providing such a service is Modo. “Modo provides an affordable and convenient alternative to private vehicle ownership, while improving the livability of our region.”23 

Modo is a member-owned carsharing cooperative “with a social purpose to transform communities by connecting people with places in a way that’s affordable, convenient, inclusive and sustainable.”24 When this model is paired with automation, it will creates opportunities to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of many, and potentially reduce the need for further public transit development by providing affordable market alternatives. People provide a better alternative for themselves, creating positive environmental outcomes and generating equity through ownership interest. 

5. Tactics: Realigning the Energy Sector 

In their 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy, BP reviews 2018 energy trends, showing “global energy demand and carbon emissions from energy use grew at the fastest rate since 2010/11, moving even further away from the accelerated transition envisaged by the Paris climate goals.”25 The Review consistently calls the current energy sector an “unsustainable path,”26raising concerns that continued development of carbon emitting energy production will only make the move to net-zero carbon emissions more difficult and costly. The growth in carbon emissions is “simply a direct consequence of the increase in energy growth,”27 attributable largely to China’s economic expansion28 and increased heating and cooling days to combat climate trends.29 Despite the troubling data and public perception pouring in regarding the effects of atmospheric carbon on the climate system, oil and gas markets continue to grow, with oil demand increasing by 1.4 Mb/d30 and natural gas production and consumption both growing by over 5% in 2018.31 

In a recent publication, The Next System Project (NSP) called for an “induced implosion of the carbon economy,”32laying out several specific recommendations for clearing a path to a sustainable energy sector. Some of those recommendations are analyzed below. At the broadest level, NSP called for rejection of GDP as a measure of growth, because it includes things like fossil fuel industry growth, or mitigation efforts associated with climate change coping.33 A proper measure of growth will expand from a purely quantitative metric to include qualitative considerations. 

NSP also suggests that “the most effective, and timely, way to untangle the paralyzing relationship between government and [energy] industry is through a federal buyout of the fossil fuel companies that control these noxious assets.”34 NSP also proposes public ownership of public utilities for energy democracy, because it has the potential “to reinforce and usher in renewable energy use, deep democracy, and wealth redistribution.”35 NSP recommends nationalization as a means of ensuring a just transition for fossil fuel workers and communities.36 

While nationalization may bring many benefits, it would likely generate greater political opposition and cries complaining of socialism and government interference with the free market. Additionally, nationalization of fossil fuel industry would leave the United States with stranded assets that only depreciate at best (or reactivate at worst). Rather than bailing out fossil fuel investors, the same $16.3 trillion37 could be used to democratize the market for energy by purchasing public utilities for the people with a mandate to restructure as a consumer cooperative. This would give every rate-payer a vested property interest in the public utility, democratizing the energy sector without eliminating the diverse benefits of competition. This would also provide frontline and other local communities with the capacity to weigh the costs and benefits of transitioning, creating laboratories of the next grid in every utility district. 

NSP states that “public ownership could usher in a foundational part of the next energy system and support energy democracy at a large scale in the United States through decentralized renewable energy adoption, deep democracy, and re-distributed wealth.”38 By identifying key anchor institutions “rooted in place, such as hospitals, universities, cultural organizations, and local governments,“39 a public ownership push could help create more resilient communities by pairing microgrids with critical infrastructure. 

Maryland provides an example of communities growing more resilient by pairing microgrids with critical infrastructure. Increasingly severe hurricanes and other storms have left hundreds of thousands without power in Maryland in the last decade. In response to these threats, and in an effort to mitigate risk of terrorist attacks and achieve sustainability goals, Maryland is encouraging distributed energy generation and storage. In 2014, Maryland launched a combined heat and power (CHP) grant program to install CHP systems in the critical infrastructure of the State.40In the same year, the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) issued a Resiliency Through Microgrids Task Force Report. In 2018, Maryland launched the nation’s first energy storage tax credit program.41 

In response to these opportunities and in collaboration with the MEA, Montgomery County has been designing and implementing microgrids in critical facilities. The County has installed microgrids at their Public Safety Headquarters, and the Montgomery County Correctional Facility. These projects incorporate “microgrid-as-a-service” payments to reflect the value of having “islands” of reliable, renewable infrastructure in the event of broader energy system failure. The projects feature rooftop and parking lot canopy solar, CHP systems powered by solar energy to produce hot water for space heating and potable hot water, and electric vehicle charging for the County’s increasingly electric fleet. The projects currently produce 65-95% of facility needs, and may incorporate storage in the future. 

A public ownership transition would also create an ownership structure that enabled local communities to weigh the costs and benefits of considering other environmental values in energy planning, such as water management and waste streams, as well as facilitate contract formation that maximizes local benefits. For instance, biodigesters can help mitigate the environmental costs of municipal solid waste streams by supplementing waste water treatment plants, to handle solid wastes and disassemble or remove toxic compounds. This will facilitate a shift from risk- to asset-management, but biodigesters must be implemented in conjunction with other complementary methods, such as no-till agriculture. “Cover crops, diversification of land use types in time (rotations) and space, no-tillage practices at the plot scale, and the use of hedgerows, riparian forests, and wetlands have all been shown to improve the tight cycling of nutrients.”42Improving nutrient cycling in agriculture by reintegrating organic material has many additional related benefits, such as reduction of atmospheric greenhouse gases. “While reducing the rate of enrichment of atmospheric concentration of CO2 , soil C sequestration improves and sustains biomass/agronomic productivity. It has the potential to offset fossil-fuel emissions by 0.4 to 1.2 Gt C/year, or 5 to 15 % of the global emissions.”43 

Using human waste supplies for agricultural purposes is not a novel concept, but takes on new importance in the era of climate change. “As the supply of mined phosphorus (P) dwindles, and environmental and economic costs of synthetic nitrogen (N) increase, urban latrine waste constitutes an untapped opportunity for nutrient recycling. Containing approximately 50% carbon (C), 4–5% N, 2–3% potassium (K), and 2–3% P, ‘night soil’, or untreated human waste, has been land-applied for centuries to preserve soil fertility and bolster crop yields.”44 By integrating municipal solid waste back into agricultural ecosystems, we will reduce the need for chemical fertilizers, increase organic matter and nutrient and water retention, increase carbon sequestration, and reduce water pollution from both landfills and chemical fertilizer runoff. 

6. Tactics: Treating Working Lands as Public Utilities 

The United States has several programs that semi-socialize the food system as it stands.45 These include things like food stamps, tax exemptions for agricultural lands and farmers’ income, conservation easements, crop insurance, subsidies, and more. With conservation easements, various agencies of agriculture maintain oversight “to guarantee that agricultural lands are kept in tact and operational” through permitting or mitigation.46 However, most of these subsidies “do not distinguish between organic and industrial farms, nor do they preserve a certain type of farming practice, like organic farming, in perpetuity.”47 

Even assuming wholistic soil management, agriculture disrupts nutrient cycling in natural ecosystems when solid wastes resulting from agricultural activity are quarantined at the end of their life-cycle, rather than managed as an integral part of a socio-ecological system. This leads to degradation of human habitat through disruption of carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur, water cycling “Life on Earth is closely regulated by the efficient cycling and availability of nutrients. Human manipulation of this service has greatly affected all ecosystems. Climate regulation is affected by decomposition and nutrient cycling at regional or continental scales through the release of greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration in ecosystems.”48 

As stated above, farmers attempt to compensate for organic material and nutrient loss by applying fertilizer and tilling it into the soil, but this is an unstable process and the nutrient “deposits” do not stay localized. “Erosion affects nutrient cycling and reduces the fertility of the soil through a reduction in the pool of available nutrients… The resulting dust and sediments have off-site impacts that may be as large, or larger, than the loss of production sustained on the eroded site.”49 Landscapes cannot retain or recycle large-scale addition of unstable chemical fertilizer. “Undesired transfers from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems have become a serious and growing problem worldwide.”50 Finally, tilling as a coping mechanism for lost soil fertility indirectly impacts the broader global warming struggle. “Erosion reduces the potential to sequester atmospheric CO2 in soils by reducing the primary productivity.”51 

In Vermont, the Legislature is promoting a climate smart economy through the Vermont Climate Change Economy Council (VCCEC). VCCEC sees Vermont ““as an incubator of innovation and a laboratory to test new business ideas.”52 VCCEC aims to encourage “a dynamic and diverse economy that advances efficiency, clean energy generation… the wise use and reuse of resources, and a strong working lands foundation,” in order to respond to climate change and build long-term economic competitiveness.53 VCCEC’s strategic practices have included identifying growth opportunities by advancing key business clusters and economic sectors; building a sense of unity to respond to climate change; celebrating Vermont innovation and green business leadership; and expanding “Vermont’s economic brand around climate change solutions to retain and attract youth and creative entrepreneurs to locate throughout the state.”54 

VCCEC is also cultivating green businesses through the Climate Economy Network Development Initiative (CENDI). CENDI is providing microgrants for new and early stage business enterprise development; providing research and development grants to private sector businesses that are developing new business models in the sector; leveraging additional business opportunities through targeted grant investments in supply chain clusters and private sector infrastructure; and identifying barriers and impediments to business development and advocate for change to support the establishment and growth of climate economy businesses and entrepreneurs.55 

As it stands, Vermont’s food system thrives off worker and consumer cooperatives, and farmers markets.56 However, Vermont has a long history of private ownership of working lands. A worker-owned cooperative corporation that held working lands in perpetuity would enable a shift toward a more ecological agriculture, while preserving the historic private ownership of such lands in perpetuity. Producer cooperatives will allow farmers to continue providing key agricultural and ecosystem services, while creating structural incentives to coordinate activities in a way that maximizes both environmental and economic value. 

In order to harmonize Vermont’s producer and consumer interests with environmental values, Vermont should create a cooperative working lands regulated public utility. This cooperative should be structured as a parent cooperative, which acquires workings lands throughout the state. The parent cooperative is wholly owned by the farmers, ranchers, and foresters who operate subsidiary corporations that lease the working lands. By consolidating working lands under a public utility, the state can mandate implementation of standards, eliminate barriers to entry for eco-entrepreneurs, and achieve integration efficiencies unavailable to stand-alone operations. By creating such a public utility, Vermont can ensure land is managed consistent with criteria negotiated democratically between the state, which represents Vermont consumers, and the parent, which represents the workers. 

Turning to implementation of standards, Vermont or the cooperative (“either”) can mandate certain methodologies and practices for working lands that yield positive environmental outcomes. For instance, as was the case with Cuban hog farms, either could require that farms source energy from biogas emissions resulting from existing operations. This would reduce methane emissions while also reducing operational costs and peak load on the grid. Additionally, either could require no-till systems that increase carbon sequestration, or exemplary forestry systems that increase harvest yield and carbon sequestration, as well as improving wildlife habitat.57 Either could ban industrial fertilizers, promoting fertility sovereignty while reducing financial outflows and improving water quality. 

Additionally, Vermont could mandate certain outcomes through a regulated working lands public utility.58 “One of the most important components of sustainable agriculture is the structure of food systems—local production and consumption versus export-based systems.”59 These local markets require strong institutional support, which a parent cooperative could provide. These mandates could take the form of quotas for certain staples, ensuring Vermont is relatively food self-sufficient. By regulating to ensure a certain percentage of agricultural products produced in Vermont are consumed in Vermont, the Legislature could dramatically reduce the consumption emissions associated with the food system. Additionally, it would streamline land-use decision-making, allowing Vermont and the cooperative to identify critical areas for the provision of ecosystem services. 

The cooperative would work to eliminate barriers to entry for new working lands entrepreneurs in many ways. First, the cooperative could permanently remove working lands from the speculative real estate market. This would not only work as a de facto conservation easement (potentially allowing the cooperative to reap related tax benefits), it would also eliminate the need of new entrepreneurs to finance land acquisition through private mortgages. While the working lands would be held by the parent cooperative, the workers own the parent. This would allow them to build equity over time through ownership, in addition to enabling other lease-agreement structures that simulate traditional mortgages. 

“Knowledge sharing and information exchange are critical to bolstering small-farm resiliency, localized food systems, and conservation. Fostering relationships that revere environmental stewardship and community growth is fundamental to the success of agrarian policies.”60 The cooperative could serve as that hub for networking among co-owners, and provide institutional memory that bridges gaps between working land subsidiaries across time. In addition, a cooperative would enable labor sharing and apprenticeships, which bolster local agricultural markets61 while driving down costs of subsidiary operations and training new entrepreneurs in their specific field or across the agricultural supply chain. 

Finally, a working lands cooperative would enable the cooperative to achieve integration efficiencies which stand-alone operations may not be able to replicate. First, the cooperative could horizontally integrate by acquiring working lands across the state. By uniting these operations under a single legal entity with private sector incentives to innovate, the cooperative would necessarily organize to achieve economies of scale. This could include equipment sharing, insurance, labor sharing, and collective bargaining with Vermont. The cooperative could attain certain economies of scope as well by providing logistical infrastructure that coordinates activities between diverse operations among subsidiaries. The cooperative and Vermont could further negotiate regarding the extent to which the cooperative could vertically integrate. Vermont consumers may benefit from an agricultural supply chain that consolidates production, processing, delivery, and market making activities under a single monopoly, constrained by public utility regulation. 

Vermont can take lessons from usufructuary traditions and the regulated public utility history to make a dramatic difference in the fight against climate change. By creating a cooperative working lands public utility, Vermont can accelerate climate action, eliminate barriers to entry for new farmers, promote economic democracy, and create a model for other states. A cooperative public utility would allow the state to use its “strong thumbs” through regulation, while allowing “nimble fingers” to chase private incentives to innovate. By localizing working lands production and consumption, Vermont can break chains of commerce that obscure socio-ecological conditions, while building a stronger climate-smart local economy. 

7. Tactics: Democratizing Capital through Conventional Finance Channels 

ESG investing began in 2004, “when former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote to over 50 CEOs of major financial institutions, inviting them to participate in a joint initiative under the auspices of the UN Global Compact” with the goal of integrating ESG into capital markets.62 ESG factors might include things like corporate response to climate change; water management; health and safety policies; supply chain management; corporate culture; and worker treatment.63 As independent analysts began examining companies under ESG criteria, asset managers began creating portfolios that allowed strategic investment in companies with environmentally sound policies. This allowed individuals to “vote with their money” through strategic investment.64

Turning back to Vermont, the Vermont Climate Change Economy Coalition has created the Clean Energy Finance Collaborative to develop new financial tools, leverage private sector investment, and provide a vehicle for public investment in clean energy.65 The CEFC can facilitate movement on these points by creating a platform and portfolios for investing in Vermont climate smart initiatives. The CEFC should begin by creating a clearinghouse for such initiatives, providing criteria for listing consistent with the climate economy goals enumerated by the VCCEC. This will give investors a single place to look for climate smart investment opportunities. The CEFC should provide technical assistance for renewable energy developers and other climate smart companies to assist them in financing new projects through direct public offerings. This technical assistance should be done in tandem with a marketing campaign encouraging Vermonters to invest locally, through direct public offerings and self-directed IRAs and 401(k)s. The CEFC should explore creating tax breaks for income derived from in-state investment. These initiatives taken together would remove money from Wall Street, and cultivate circular finance flows so that Vermont money creates and sustains a new climate economy. 

8. Conclusion 

Sharing economy solutions are as varied as the problems that summon them. By recapturing the means of production for democratic management through market systems that distribute ownership to stakeholders rather than mere capital-holders, the United States can dramatically decrease carbon emissions in several sectors and encourage natural carbon sequestration. This will build on the momentum of the environmental movement, and cut at the extractive ethos undergirding neoliberal economic modalities, by eliminating chains of commerce that obscure the relationships between workers, owners, consumers, and land. 

if you trust the people, 

you make them trustworthy66 

____________________________________________________

1 Gus Speth’s New Frontiers in Environmental Policy Lecture, Vermont Law School

2 Gregory A. Berry, “Growing with Integrity: Methods and Knowledge-Sharing to Bolster Sustainable Organic Agricultural Markets in Cuba and Vermont.” p. 13.

3 Courtney Barnett, “Dead Fox.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njb3JTZ1ibY (last accessed 12/19/19). 4 “When a group that constitutes only a narrow segment of the income-earning capacity of a society is able to act collectively, its main incentive is to redistribute to itself through lobbying and price fixing and to continue such activities even when the losses to the society are large in relation to the amount the group obtains through its distributional struggle.” Mancur Olson, “Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships,” 2000. p. 197. 

5 Gregory A. Berry, “Growing with Integrity: Methods and Knowledge-Sharing to Bolster Sustainable Organic Agricultural Markets in Cuba and Vermont.” p. 12. 

6Ibid. 

7Id. at 14. 

8 For an example, consider Tyson’s treatment of poultry farmers. See Alison Moodie, “Fowl Play: The Chicken Farmers Being Bullied by Big Poultry.” 22 April 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/22/chicken-farmers-big-poultry-rules (last accessed 12/19/19). 

9 Gregory A. Berry, “Growing with Integrity: Methods and Knowledge-Sharing to Bolster Sustainable Organic Agricultural Markets in Cuba and Vermont.” p. 13.

10 Hurricane Flats is a farm around a mile from Vermont Law School. 

11Id. at 3. 

12 Id. at 16. 

13 John Duda, “Worker Cooperatives are Businesses That are Owned and Governed Democratically by Thier Workers, on a One-Member, One-Vote Basis.” https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/worker-cooperatives (last accessed 12/18/19). 

14 Ibid.

15 “REI Co-op Membership Benefits.” https://www.rei.com/membership/benefits (last accessed 12/18/19). 16 PCC Community Markets https://www.pccmarkets.com/ (last accessed 12/18/19). 

17 MJ Kaplan, “The Platform Co-op is Coming for Uber,” Jan. 4, 2018. 

https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2018/01/04/the-platform-co-op-is-coming-for-uber/ (last accessed 12/18/19). 18 Zeke Hausfather, “Factcheck: How Electric Vehicles Help to Tackle Climate Change.” 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change (last accessed 12/18/19). 19 Ibid. 

20 Tyler Choi, “Uber and Lyft to turn the wheels on car ownership: Industry experts,” May 22, 2019. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-ownership/uber-and-lyft-to-turn-the-wheels-on-car-ownership-industry-experts-idUSKCN1S S33A 

21 MJ Kaplan, “The Platform Co-op is Coming for Uber,” Jan. 4, 2018. 

https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2018/01/04/the-platform-co-op-is-coming-for-uber/

22 “11 Platform Cooperatives Creating a Real Sharing Economy.” 

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/11-platform-cooperatives-creating-real-sharing-economy/1194348/ 23 “Our Story.” https://modo.coop/why-modo/our-story (last accessed 12/18/19). 

24 Ibid. 

25 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019. 68th Edition. P. 1. 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019 -full-report.pdf 

26 Ibid.

27 Id. at 4. 

28 Ibid. 

29 Id. at 3. 

30 Id. at 4. 

31 Id. at 3. 

32 James Gustave Speth, Carla Santos Skandier, and Johanna Bozuwa, “Taking Climate Action to the Next Level.” https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2018-09/NSPClimate_Final-for-web.pdf p. 2. 

33 Id. at 2. 

34 Id. at 10. 

35 Id. at 3. 

36 Id. at 13. 

37 Bernie Sanders’ budget for fossil fuel industry nationalization. “The Green New Deal.” 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ (last accessed 12/18/19).

38 Id. at 21. 

39 Id. at 23. 

40 Coffman, Eric R., and Rory Spangler. “Microgrids in Maryland: Bolstering Public Safety, Community Resiliency.” District Energy, 2018, pp. 12–16. 

41 Ibid. 

42 P. Lavelle et al. 12. Nutrient cycling. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Objectives, Focus, and Approach (2005), p. 347. https://web.archive.org/web/20070928022531/http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.281.aspx.pdf

43 R. Lal, Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security, p. 1626. (2004). 

44 Leilah Krounbi et al, Biological and Thermochemical Conversion of Human Solid Waste to Soil Amendments, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X19302235?via%3Dihub 

45 Gregory A. Berry, “Growing with Integrity: Methods and Knowledge-Sharing to Bolster Sustainable Organic Agricultural Markets in Cuba and Vermont.” p. 9.

46 Id. at 10. 

47 Ibid. 

48 P. Lavelle et al. 12. Nutrient cycling. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Objectives, Focus, and Approach (2005), p. 334. https://web.archive.org/web/20070928022531/http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.281.aspx.pdf 49 Id. at 338. 

50 Id. at 335.

51 Id. at 339. 

52 Vermont Climate Change Economy Council, “Progress for Vermont: Report and Action Plan,” 2016. P. 8. 53 Ibid. 

54 Id. at 8-9. 

55 Id. at 25. 

56 Gregory A. Berry, “Growing with Integrity: Methods and Knowledge-Sharing to Bolster Sustainable Organic Agricultural Markets in Cuba and Vermont.” p. 3. 

57 “Exemplary Forestry is a forest management approach created by New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) that prioritizes forests’ long-term health and outlines the highest standards of sustainability currently available to the region’s forest owners. In addition to protecting forests and their ecosystem services, Exemplary Forestry is designed to accomplish three goals: enhance the role forests can play to mitigate climate change, improve wildlife habitat, and grow more and better-quality wood.” 

https://newenglandforestry.org/learn/initiatives/exemplary-forestry/ (last accessed 12/18/19).

58 Gregory A. Berry, “Growing with Integrity: Methods and Knowledge-Sharing to Bolster Sustainable Organic Agricultural Markets in Cuba and Vermont.” p. 16. 

59 Ibid.

60 “Vermont legislators can model after Cuba to acquire and lease usufructuary organic parcels at affordable rates. Identifying and zoning parcels of organic farmland can help meet the basic food needs of current and future generations.” Id. at 14. 61 Id. at 15. 

62 Georg Kell, “The Remarkable Rise of ESG,” July 11, 2018. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgkell/2018/07/11/the-remarkable-rise-of-esg/#4b79a1221695 (last accessed 12/18/19).63 Ibid. 

64 Ibid. 

65 Vermont Climate Change Economy Council, “Progress for Vermont Report and Action Plan.” p. 29.

66 An inversion of, “If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.” Lao Tzu, & Mitchell, S. (2006). Tao Te Ching: A New English Version. New York: HarperCollins. Chapter 17.