# data[].attributes.body
I would like to bring a discussion on these big companies that should be help accountable for their damage to the environment and advancement of global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Justice for people and planet

We're campaigning for a system that puts justice for people and the planet ahead of profits for corporations.

take action

Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations.

We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

We stand in the way of imports of dirty cars and expose corporate misbehaviour wherever we encounter it.

The public image of Greenpeace is often one of "corporate bashers". We can indeed be pretty harsh and irreverent when calling attention to corporate misdeeds, like in this satire video.

Of course, we don't believe that everyone in a corporation thinks like the man in the video. There are many in business - and many businesses - that want to do the right thing for people and planet. We applaud them.

Greenpeace never says no without offering an alternative. We are so committed to getting the solutions our world needs adopted fast, that we are, at times, willing to praise corporations that are still part of the problem.

We'll say "well done" to Coca Cola for eliminating climate damaging refrigerants from their cooling equipment because it benefits our climate and future generations. But we do so in the context of us demanding more fundamental change. And we do so at the very same time as we campaign against them on plastic pollution.

We have "no permanent friends or enemies". That's part of our core values - and it works to achieve change. The work with Coca-Cola to eliminate climate damaging gases, for example, also started as a brand jam when they were providing the "green Sydney Olympics" with cooling equipment that destroyed our climate.

It's a fact, though, that corporations who misbehave are too rarely punished - and too often have captured our political leaders. The public good - our planet, our future - is the loser.

You can see that clearly in our new report Justice for People and Planet, which showcases 20 case studies of corporate capture, collusion and impunity. The report describes how some corporations have abused and violated human and environmental rights around the world. The examples are as shocking as they are diverse, ranging from deforestation, water and air pollution, plastic pollution, or waste dumping, to chemical spills, nuclear disaster, violations of Indigenous rights and more.

The report argues that it is the rules that govern our global economy (and lack thereof) that are the real reason behind such corporate misdeeds. Economic globalisation has created significant governance gaps. There are no enforceable social and environmental global rules governing global economic players.

That we lack these rules to deliver a sustainable and fair economy worldwide is the result of specific political choices by our leaders. The cases presented in our report show that corporate impunity for environmental destruction and human rights violations is a result of the current economic and legal systems.

The failure to protect human rights and the environment is often caused by state institutions and decision-makers being captured by specific corporate interests. This all too often leads to politicians failing to pass binding laws and failing to ensure corporations are held to account.

There is a different way. Effective state action could end corporate capture and close the governance gap. Global regulations with teeth are clearly possible - they exist! The World Trade Organisation, for example, can sanction countries that break its rules.

We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That's why we're putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability:

1. People and the environment, not corporations, must be at the heart of governance and public life.

2. Public participation should be inherent to all policy making.

3. States should abandon policies that undermine environmental and human rights.

4. Corporations should be subject to binding rules both where they are based and where they operate.

5. States should require due diligence reporting and cradle to grave responsibility for corporate products and services.

6. States should promote a race to the top by prohibiting corporations from carrying out activities abroad which are prohibited in their home state for reasons of risks to environmental or human rights.

7. States should create policies that provide transparency in all corporate and government activities that impact environmental and human rights, including in trade, tax, finance and investment regimes.

8. Corporations and those individuals who direct them should be liable for environmental and human rights violations committed domestically or abroad by companies under their control.

9. People affected by environmental and human rights violations should be guaranteed their right to effective access to remedy, including in company home states where necessary.

10. States must actually enforce the regulatory and policy frameworks they create.

You can find much more detail about these principles (and why they are needed) in the report itself.

And you can, like us, take heart in some steps in the right direction that are already underway: France, recently required corporations to identify potential risks to people and the environment as a result of their activities, and act to prevent harm to people and the environment.

Switzerland is gearing up for a people's referendum that would legally oblige corporations to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities.

New specialised laws such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act also require businesses to tackle slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.

All these show how governments can make rules with teeth to govern corporate activities around the world. If they want to.

A more just and sustainable world is possible. If all who want a livable planet push for it - together. Are you in?
Daniel Mittler is the Political Director of Greenpeace International
Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations.

We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

We stand in the way of imports of dirty cars and expose corporate misbehaviour wherever we encounter it.

The public image of Greenpeace is often one of "corporate bashers". We can indeed be pretty harsh and irreverent when calling attention to corporate misdeeds, like in this satire video.

Of course, we don't believe that everyone in a corporation thinks like the man in the video. There are many in business - and many businesses - that want to do the right thing for people and planet. We applaud them.

Greenpeace never says no without offering an alternative. We are so committed to getting the solutions our world needs adopted fast, that we are, at times, willing to praise corporations that are still part of the problem.

We'll say "well done" to Coca Cola for eliminating climate damaging refrigerants from their cooling equipment because it benefits our climate and future generations. But we do so in the context of us demanding more fundamental change. And we do so at the very same time as we campaign against them on plastic pollution.

We have "no permanent friends or enemies". That's part of our core values - and it works to achieve change. The work with Coca-Cola to eliminate climate damaging gases, for example, also started as a brand jam when they were providing the "green Sydney Olympics" with cooling equipment that destroyed our climate.

It's a fact, though, that corporations who misbehave are too rarely punished - and too often have captured our political leaders. The public good - our planet, our future - is the loser.

You can see that clearly in our new report Justice for People and Planet, which showcases 20 case studies of corporate capture, collusion and impunity. The report describes how some corporations have abused and violated human and environmental rights around the world. The examples are as shocking as they are diverse, ranging from deforestation, water and air pollution, plastic pollution, or waste dumping, to chemical spills, nuclear disaster, violations of Indigenous rights and more.

The report argues that it is the rules that govern our global economy (and lack thereof) that are the real reason behind such corporate misdeeds. Economic globalisation has created significant governance gaps. There are no enforceable social and environmental global rules governing global economic players.

That we lack these rules to deliver a sustainable and fair economy worldwide is the result of specific political choices by our leaders. The cases presented in our report show that corporate impunity for environmental destruction and human rights violations is a result of the current economic and legal systems.

The failure to protect human rights and the environment is often caused by state institutions and decision-makers being captured by specific corporate interests. This all too often leads to politicians failing to pass binding laws and failing to ensure corporations are held to account.

There is a different way. Effective state action could end corporate capture and close the governance gap. Global regulations with teeth are clearly possible - they exist! The World Trade Organisation, for example, can sanction countries that break its rules.

We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That's why we're putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability:

1. People and the environment, not corporations, must be at the heart of governance and public life.

2. Public participation should be inherent to all policy making.

3. States should abandon policies that undermine environmental and human rights.

4. Corporations should be subject to binding rules both where they are based and where they operate.

5. States should require due diligence reporting and cradle to grave responsibility for corporate products and services.

6. States should promote a race to the top by prohibiting corporations from carrying out activities abroad which are prohibited in their home state for reasons of risks to environmental or human rights.

7. States should create policies that provide transparency in all corporate and government activities that impact environmental and human rights, including in trade, tax, finance and investment regimes.

8. Corporations and those individuals who direct them should be liable for environmental and human rights violations committed domestically or abroad by companies under their control.

9. People affected by environmental and human rights violations should be guaranteed their right to effective access to remedy, including in company home states where necessary.

10. States must actually enforce the regulatory and policy frameworks they create.

You can find much more detail about these principles (and why they are needed) in the report itself.

And you can, like us, take heart in some steps in the right direction that are already underway: France, recently required corporations to identify potential risks to people and the environment as a result of their activities, and act to prevent harm to people and the environment.

Switzerland is gearing up for a people's referendum that would legally oblige corporations to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities.

New specialised laws such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act also require businesses to tackle slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.

All these show how governments can make rules with teeth to govern corporate activities around the world. If they want to.

A more just and sustainable world is possible. If all who want a livable planet push for it - together. Are you in?
Daniel Mittler is the Political Director of Greenpeace International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do we make corporations more accountable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're campaigning for a system that puts justice for people and the planet ahead of profits for corporations. take action Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations. We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to bring a discussion on these big companies that should be help accountable for their damage to the environment and advancement of global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Justice for people and planet

We're campaigning for a system that puts justice for people and the planet ahead of profits for corporations.

take action

Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations.

We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

We stand in the way of imports of dirty cars and expose corporate misbehaviour wherever we encounter it.

The public image of Greenpeace is often one of "corporate bashers". We can indeed be pretty harsh and irreverent when calling attention to corporate misdeeds, like in this satire video.

Of course, we don't believe that everyone in a corporation thinks like the man in the video. There are many in business - and many businesses - that want to do the right thing for people and planet. We applaud them.

Greenpeace never says no without offering an alternative. We are so committed to getting the solutions our world needs adopted fast, that we are, at times, willing to praise corporations that are still part of the problem.

We'll say "well done" to Coca Cola for eliminating climate damaging refrigerants from their cooling equipment because it benefits our climate and future generations. But we do so in the context of us demanding more fundamental change. And we do so at the very same time as we campaign against them on plastic pollution.

We have "no permanent friends or enemies". That's part of our core values - and it works to achieve change. The work with Coca-Cola to eliminate climate damaging gases, for example, also started as a brand jam when they were providing the "green Sydney Olympics" with cooling equipment that destroyed our climate.

It's a fact, though, that corporations who misbehave are too rarely punished - and too often have captured our political leaders. The public good - our planet, our future - is the loser.

You can see that clearly in our new report Justice for People and Planet, which showcases 20 case studies of corporate capture, collusion and impunity. The report describes how some corporations have abused and violated human and environmental rights around the world. The examples are as shocking as they are diverse, ranging from deforestation, water and air pollution, plastic pollution, or waste dumping, to chemical spills, nuclear disaster, violations of Indigenous rights and more.

The report argues that it is the rules that govern our global economy (and lack thereof) that are the real reason behind such corporate misdeeds. Economic globalisation has created significant governance gaps. There are no enforceable social and environmental global rules governing global economic players.

That we lack these rules to deliver a sustainable and fair economy worldwide is the result of specific political choices by our leaders. The cases presented in our report show that corporate impunity for environmental destruction and human rights violations is a result of the current economic and legal systems.

The failure to protect human rights and the environment is often caused by state institutions and decision-makers being captured by specific corporate interests. This all too often leads to politicians failing to pass binding laws and failing to ensure corporations are held to account.

There is a different way. Effective state action could end corporate capture and close the governance gap. Global regulations with teeth are clearly possible - they exist! The World Trade Organisation, for example, can sanction countries that break its rules.

We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That's why we're putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability:

1. People and the environment, not corporations, must be at the heart of governance and public life.

2. Public participation should be inherent to all policy making.

3. States should abandon policies that undermine environmental and human rights.

4. Corporations should be subject to binding rules both where they are based and where they operate.

5. States should require due diligence reporting and cradle to grave responsibility for corporate products and services.

6. States should promote a race to the top by prohibiting corporations from carrying out activities abroad which are prohibited in their home state for reasons of risks to environmental or human rights.

7. States should create policies that provide transparency in all corporate and government activities that impact environmental and human rights, including in trade, tax, finance and investment regimes.

8. Corporations and those individuals who direct them should be liable for environmental and human rights violations committed domestically or abroad by companies under their control.

9. People affected by environmental and human rights violations should be guaranteed their right to effective access to remedy, including in company home states where necessary.

10. States must actually enforce the regulatory and policy frameworks they create.

You can find much more detail about these principles (and why they are needed) in the report itself.

And you can, like us, take heart in some steps in the right direction that are already underway: France, recently required corporations to identify potential risks to people and the environment as a result of their activities, and act to prevent harm to people and the environment.

Switzerland is gearing up for a people's referendum that would legally oblige corporations to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities.

New specialised laws such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act also require businesses to tackle slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.

All these show how governments can make rules with teeth to govern corporate activities around the world. If they want to.

A more just and sustainable world is possible. If all who want a livable planet push for it - together. Are you in?
Daniel Mittler is the Political Director of Greenpeace International
Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations.

We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

We stand in the way of imports of dirty cars and expose corporate misbehaviour wherever we encounter it.

The public image of Greenpeace is often one of "corporate bashers". We can indeed be pretty harsh and irreverent when calling attention to corporate misdeeds, like in this satire video.

Of course, we don't believe that everyone in a corporation thinks like the man in the video. There are many in business - and many businesses - that want to do the right thing for people and planet. We applaud them.

Greenpeace never says no without offering an alternative. We are so committed to getting the solutions our world needs adopted fast, that we are, at times, willing to praise corporations that are still part of the problem.

We'll say "well done" to Coca Cola for eliminating climate damaging refrigerants from their cooling equipment because it benefits our climate and future generations. But we do so in the context of us demanding more fundamental change. And we do so at the very same time as we campaign against them on plastic pollution.

We have "no permanent friends or enemies". That's part of our core values - and it works to achieve change. The work with Coca-Cola to eliminate climate damaging gases, for example, also started as a brand jam when they were providing the "green Sydney Olympics" with cooling equipment that destroyed our climate.

It's a fact, though, that corporations who misbehave are too rarely punished - and too often have captured our political leaders. The public good - our planet, our future - is the loser.

You can see that clearly in our new report Justice for People and Planet, which showcases 20 case studies of corporate capture, collusion and impunity. The report describes how some corporations have abused and violated human and environmental rights around the world. The examples are as shocking as they are diverse, ranging from deforestation, water and air pollution, plastic pollution, or waste dumping, to chemical spills, nuclear disaster, violations of Indigenous rights and more.

The report argues that it is the rules that govern our global economy (and lack thereof) that are the real reason behind such corporate misdeeds. Economic globalisation has created significant governance gaps. There are no enforceable social and environmental global rules governing global economic players.

That we lack these rules to deliver a sustainable and fair economy worldwide is the result of specific political choices by our leaders. The cases presented in our report show that corporate impunity for environmental destruction and human rights violations is a result of the current economic and legal systems.

The failure to protect human rights and the environment is often caused by state institutions and decision-makers being captured by specific corporate interests. This all too often leads to politicians failing to pass binding laws and failing to ensure corporations are held to account.

There is a different way. Effective state action could end corporate capture and close the governance gap. Global regulations with teeth are clearly possible - they exist! The World Trade Organisation, for example, can sanction countries that break its rules.

We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That's why we're putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability:

1. People and the environment, not corporations, must be at the heart of governance and public life.

2. Public participation should be inherent to all policy making.

3. States should abandon policies that undermine environmental and human rights.

4. Corporations should be subject to binding rules both where they are based and where they operate.

5. States should require due diligence reporting and cradle to grave responsibility for corporate products and services.

6. States should promote a race to the top by prohibiting corporations from carrying out activities abroad which are prohibited in their home state for reasons of risks to environmental or human rights.

7. States should create policies that provide transparency in all corporate and government activities that impact environmental and human rights, including in trade, tax, finance and investment regimes.

8. Corporations and those individuals who direct them should be liable for environmental and human rights violations committed domestically or abroad by companies under their control.

9. People affected by environmental and human rights violations should be guaranteed their right to effective access to remedy, including in company home states where necessary.

10. States must actually enforce the regulatory and policy frameworks they create.

You can find much more detail about these principles (and why they are needed) in the report itself.

And you can, like us, take heart in some steps in the right direction that are already underway: France, recently required corporations to identify potential risks to people and the environment as a result of their activities, and act to prevent harm to people and the environment.

Switzerland is gearing up for a people's referendum that would legally oblige corporations to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities.

New specialised laws such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act also require businesses to tackle slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.

All these show how governments can make rules with teeth to govern corporate activities around the world. If they want to.

A more just and sustainable world is possible. If all who want a livable planet push for it - together. Are you in?
Daniel Mittler is the Political Director of Greenpeace International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do we make corporations more accountable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're campaigning for a system that puts justice for people and the planet ahead of profits for corporations. take action Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations. We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Your favorite leaders in 2018 and moving forward

# data[].attributes.subject
Your favorite leaders in 2018 and moving forward

# data[].attributes.body
Post something about your favorite leaders in 2018, and discuss more about why they are your favorite and what are they doing that inspires you?

# data[].attributes.headline
Which of these do you think will be the most effective?

# data[].attributes.subject
Which of these do you think will be the most effective?

# data[].attributes.body
And out of these, which is your personal favorite that you would adopt yourself? Please share your thoughts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no "right" way to be a leader. Everyone who steps into a management or executive role has a different style of motivating and guiding people, and effective leadership means finding the way that works best for both you and your team.

Good leaders also know when it's time to adjust their approach, and are able to adapt to the ever-changing demands of the workforce. We asked 14 members of to share their insights on the biggest and most influential leadership and management trends of 2018.
1.Encouraging All Team Members To Be Brand Ambassadors
Leaders are starting to recognize that every employee is an opportunity to provide the market insights into the culture, quality and standards of the organization. By leveraging social media, particularly LinkedIn, every employee can become an ambassador. Those messages can be hugely amplified by the employees. It's effectively free PR but more powerful, because it's authentic and believable. - Tyron Giuliani, Selling Made Social
2.Investing In Human Capital Development
Leaders and companies will recognize the long-term benefit of focusing on human capital development. Taking a vested interest in helping employees thrive in all areas of their lives (not just work), will create more engagement, productivity and overall happier employees. - MJ Impastato, H2H Systems
3.Increasing Emphasis On Empathetic Leadership
Value-driven Gen Y and Gen Z talent will continue to leave command-and-control cultures for collaborative workplaces. The value of leadership empathy will be sky-high in 2018. The ability to understand, relate to and be sensitive to employees, colleagues and communities will be paramount. We will see an even greater emphasis on listening, relating and coaching to drive effective leadership. - Loren Margolis, Training & Leadership Success LLC
4.Focusing On Individual Growth
With so much focus on diversity and inclusion, we may have overlooked the value and power of separation. I say 2018 will be the year of individual growth. The steady stream of dramatic events in 2017 have forced us all to ask some tough questions about life, and I think many will turn to their employers for help and support in clarifying one's purpose and how to actualize one's full potential. - Derrick Bass, Jr., Clarity Provoked
5.Leading By Actions And Examples
Leaders have long gotten away with vocally supporting policies and procedures, but their actions say otherwise. That tide will turn. With so much light being shed on unacceptable behavior in all workplaces, leaders will begin to understand they need to not only hold their teams accountable for proper behavior, but hold themselves accountable as well. - Lesha Reese, Lesha Reese, LLC
6.Turning Organizations Into A Truly Customer-Centric Business
While leaders have been discussing being "customer-centered" or "customer-focused" for a while, in 2018 it's time to walk the talk. With robust customer feedback mechanisms and reporting, there is simply no excuse for not adapting to what customers really want today. Customers are no longer loyal to a brand, they're loyal to experiences that work for them. Talking is not enough. It's time to act. - Jeannie Walters, 360Connext
7.Embracing 'Work-Life Blend'
Industry leaders, such as Apple and Amazon, are recognizing how working from home helps acquire and retain top talent. But this is just one part of the equation. In 2018, companies will recognize that work-life blend is key. They won't just opt for bean bag chairs and ping pong tables, but create jobs and schedules that allow staff to better blend their work and lives to reduce burnout and increase output. - Kyle Elliott, Kyle Elliott Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Leadership Trends That Will Shape Organizations In 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no "right" way to be a leader. Everyone who steps into a management or executive role has a different style of motivating and guiding people, and effective leadership means finding the way that works best for both you and your team.

# data[].attributes.headline
Discussion: Does humanitarian work excuses for polluting the environment or any other bad practices?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Discussion: Does humanitarian work excuses for polluting the environment or any other bad practices?  

# data[].attributes.body
In light of Varun's recent feedback, I wanted to bring a more active topic that allows us to have a deeper discussion.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Government's KiwiBuild scheme is designed to increase the supply of affordable homes for first home buyers

# data[].attributes.subject
The Government's KiwiBuild scheme is designed to increase the supply of affordable homes for first home buyers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Government's KiwiBuild scheme is designed to increase the supply of affordable homes for first home buyers but it may also prove a boon for residential property developers, particularly in the Auckland market.

Developers can tender to have their projects included in the Government's Buying Off The Plans initiative, under which they would undertake to produce a certain number of homes in a development for a maximum specified price, which would then be sold to qualifying first home buyers through the KiwiBuild scheme.

If for any reason the homes could not be sold at the specified price, the Government would guarantee to buy the homes itself at the specified price, or refund the developers the difference between the specified price and the price the homes actually sell for.

Where that happened, it would be the Government rather than the developer that would take the loss.

With that guarantee in hand, developers should also find it easier to raise the money to get their projects off the ground, because their financiers will take comfort from the fact that the ultimate sale of a certain number of units in a project at a certain price is government guaranteed.

The payback for the government is that this should increase the supply of new homes being built at the affordable end of the market where the need is greatest.

But there may be another reason developers would want to get involved in KiwiBuild - a potential lack of interest from property investors.

Until very recently investors have made up a big proportion of the buyers in many new developments, particularly in Auckland.

However much, if not most of that investment activity, whether the investors were based locally or overseas, has been speculative, as buyers chased capital gains rather than rental yields.

And there are increasing signs that capital gains in Auckland have now largely dried up.

The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand's lower quartile selling price between August 2016 and May 2018 has mostly remained within a very tight range between $650,000 and $668,000.

In the last 22 months the lower quartile price has only moved outside that range three times, and even then not by much.

In May this year it was $665,000 which was below where it was in October 2016.

That suggests that In Auckland, the market is going nowhere at the affordable end there's unlikely to have been much in the way of capital gains for nearly two years.

A similar trend is evident in the middle of the market.

The accompanying graph (below) shows the monthly movements in the REINZ's Auckland median price between March 2016 and May 2018.

This shows more volatility than the lower quartile price, but it doesn't show a particular direction either up or down.

If you were to run a line through it to plot a trend you would have to say it was flat at around $850,000, so there's probably not much in the way of capital gains to be had in the middle of the market either.

Which could leave investors that are willing to sign up for new projects being a bit thin on the ground, and that could see more developers turning to KiwiBuild to get their projects up and running.

But should the Government be exposing itself to financial risks by offering guarantees to private developers?

On balance it probably should, because the risks it is taking on with KiwiBuild's Buying Off The Plans scheme are probably less than it would face if it developed the same properties itself.

The Government could acquire land and hire architects and builders to develop a certain number of homes to sell at an affordable price, or it could offer guarantees to private developers to do the same job.

In both cases, the main financial risk is that there could be a downturn in the market between the time construction on the project started and when the homes were completed, which could mean the homes might have to be sold for less than expected, potentially causing a loss.

The risk of that happening is the same regardless of whether the Government developed the homes itself, or engaged with a private developer to do it.

So there is no difference in the potential financial risk to the Government whichever way it goes.

But using a private developer also has an advantage for the Government.

One of the biggest challenges facing property developers is controlling their costs.

If the Government was to develop the homes itself, it would carry all of the risks of a cost blow out.

But if it contracts with a private developer, the developer carries all of that risk, because it is contractually obliged to supply the homes at a certain price, regardless of how well it controls its costs.

So provided the Government is careful to partner with developers who have a good knowledge of the market and a successful track record, there can be substantial advantages for both parties in utilising KiwiBuild's Buying Off The Plans scheme to increase the supply of affordable homes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Offering guarantees to private developers probably carries less risk for the Government than developing affordable homes itself, Greg Ninness says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Government's KiwiBuild scheme is designed to increase the supply of affordable homes for first home buyers but it may also prove a boon for residential property developers, particularly in the Auckland market.

# data[].attributes.headline
Another crazy yet genius concept from Elon Musk's attempt to change the world for the better.

# data[].attributes.subject
Another crazy yet genius concept from Elon Musk's attempt to change the world for the better.

# data[].attributes.body
What do you guys think? very inspirational in my opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
100 Tesla Gigafactories could power the entire world with sustainable energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leonardo DiCaprio and Elon Musk convened in his Gigafactory to talk lithium ion batteries, climate change, and the future of alternative energy sources.

# data[].attributes.headline
We still have a long way to go, but this is a small and important step towards a better future for our children and grandchildren, and the air in which they breathe.

# data[].attributes.subject
We still have a long way to go, but this is a small and important step towards a better future for our children and grandchildren, and the air in which they breathe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of cities reporting they are predominantly powered by clean energy has more than doubled since 2015, as momentum builds for cities around the world to switch from fossil fuels to renewable sources.

Data published on Tuesday by the not-for-profit environmental impact researcher CDP found that 101 of the more than 570 cities on its books sourced at least 70% of their electricity from renewable sources in 2017, compared to 42 in 2015.

Nicolette Bartlett, CDP's director of climate change, attributed the increase to both more cities reporting to CDP as well as a global shift towards renewable energy.

The data was a "comprehensive picture of what cities are doing with regards to renewable energy," she told Guardian Cities.

That large urban centres as disparate as Auckland, Nairobi, Oslo and Brasília were successfully moving away from fossil fuels was held up as evidence of a changing tide by Kyra Appleby, CDP's director of cities.

"Reassuringly, our data shows much commitment and ambition," she said in a statement. "Cities not only want to shift to renewably energy, but, most importantly - they can."

Much of the drive for climate action at city level in the past year has been spurred on by the global covenant of more than 7,400 mayors that formed in the wake of Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord.

Burlington, Vermont, was the only US city reporting to CDP that sourced all of its power from renewable sources after having fully transitioned in 2015. Research from the Sierra Club states there are five such cities in the US in total.

Burlington is now exploring how to become zero-carbon.

Mayor Miro Weinberger said to CDP that its shift to a diverse mix of biomass, hydro, wind and solar power had boosted the local economy, and encouraged other cities to follow suit. Across the US 58 towns and cities, including Atlanta and San Diego, have set a target of 100% renewable energy.

In Britain, 14 more cities and towns had signed up to the UK100 local government network's target of 100% clean energy by 2050, bringing the total to 84. Among the recent local authority recruits were Liverpool City Region, Barking and Dagenham, Bristol, Bury, Peterborough, Redcar and Cleveland.

But the CDP data showed 43 cities worldwide were already entirely powered by clean energy, with the vast majority (30) in Latin America, where more cities reported to CDP and hydropower is more widespread.

In the six months to July, Latin American cities reported having instigated $183m of renewable energy projects - less than Europe ($1.7bn) or Africa ($236m). Europe topped the list for projects open for investment, but laid claim to just 20% of the 101 cities to be predominantly powered by clean energy.

The Icelandic capital Reyjkavik, sourcing all electricity from hydropower and geothermal, was among them. It is now working to make all cars and public transit fossil-free by 2040.
Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, and explore our archive here
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than 100 cities now mostly powered by renewable energy, data shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of cities reporting they are predominantly powered by clean energy has more than doubled since 2015, as momentum builds for cities around the world to switch from fossil fuels to renewable sources.

# data[].attributes.headline
For those interested in how environmentally friendly New Zealand really is

# data[].attributes.subject
For those interested in how environmentally friendly New Zealand really is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
River and lake pollution has been ranked as one of the country's top concerns in a public opinion poll.

The Colmar Brunton poll surveyed a thousand New Zealanders, 75 percent of which said they were extremely or very concerned about the pollution of waterways.

The cost of living was the only issue which trumped river and lake pollution, worrying 77 percent of those surveyed.

Fish and Game chief executive Martin Taylor said over the past year alone concerns had grown and would continue to stay relevant to the New Zealand public.

"When you can't swim in Lake Taupō because of the toxic alert it remains in front of the public eye.

"When you have to cancel an international sporting event in Taupō because of water quality, when Lake Ellesmere is so toxic that it's going to kill your pet - it will remain in the public eye," he said.

Mr Taylor said 2018 needed to be the year of change from both the government and the corporate dairy industry.

"Fonterra and Dairy NZ should take note of these results. They show the tens of millions of dollars they've spent on slick PR to try and change people's minds isn't working," Mr taylor said.

But a Fonterra spokesperson refuted Fish and Game's comments.

"Our farmers are working extremely hard to improve the country's rivers. That includes investing around a billion dollars to fence 98 percent of significant waterways, plant riverbanks, build wetlands and install effluent management systems that help prevent nitrogen leaching," they said.

Fonterra said while some of the countries rivers were in a good state, some had been negatively impacted by agricultural intensification, urban expansion and industrial pollution.

"We want to be part of the effort that puts that right," they said.

Fonterra has also announced plans to improve 50 of New Zealand's freshwater catchments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water pollution rising concern for NZers - poll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
River and lake pollution has been ranked as one of the country's top concerns in a public opinion poll. The Colmar Brunton poll surveyed a thousand New Zealanders, 75 percent of which said they were extremely or very concerned about the pollution of waterways.

# data[].attributes.body
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-earnings-increase-16-percent-47-billion-first-quarter-2018http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-earnings-increase-16-percent-47-billion-first-quarter-2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Interesting video about being a good Leader in high pressure situations

# data[].attributes.subject
Interesting video about being a good Leader in high pressure situations

# data[].attributes.body
Let me know what you guys think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HOW TO BE A GREAT LEADER - Extreme Ownership

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys. Welcome to my Padlet page, please feel free to post anything within regarding Leadership & Management, videos, discussions, ideas, arguments, theories, opinions, etc ...