Great write up Emily. I believe that the National Parks Service should focus on mitigating climate change. One way they can look to help mitigate climate change is to form partnerships. They should look to form public-private partnership with companies that are focused on mitigating climate change. For example, partnering with a company like Starbucks will not only help NPS raise the necessary funds needed to tackle climate change, but it will also call attention to some of the negative changes that are occurring due to climate change at some of the National Parks.
On the other hand, I believe that choosing to adapt to climate change is the same as doing nothing. As you mentioned in your write-up, climate change is already affecting plants and animals, so doing nothing will further accelerate those negative trends we are seeing. So, by taking concrete steps such as to lower the global carbon footprint on the National Mall, NPS will not only generate financial savings ($1MM generated last year), but they will also ensure that parks will be around for generations to come (https://www.nps.gov/articles/sustainability-in-action-reducing-the-national-malls-carbon-footprint.htm).
Thanks John, I agree that SolarCity is faced with little options in the current situation they find themselves. But to me, given everything you stated in your article, the choice that needs to be made here is clear: They should select Option 1 — downsize and wait out the tariff until the Buffalo plant comes online.
As Jenny said, my fear of trying to wait out the tariff is that you create an opportunity for some new entrants to enter the industry and who in turn begin to fulfill the remaining demand. This will likely reduce the chance of SolarCity being able to successfully create a substantial backlog that that will could as the foundation of the company going forward. However, if they are able to survive until the new plant comes online, they will not only be able to meet the demand from their customers, but they will likely have extra capacity to supply others in the industry since production will eventually reach 1GW by 2019 and current demand for their panels is only .5 GW.
Thanks for writing this, it’s definitely an interesting read. As you stated above with the example you had on DACA, immigrants contribute a great deal to the financial success of the American economy. However, one counter-argument to that point might be that they are amassing capital and wealth that should have been captured by Americans. Due to the fact that immigrants in some instances might be more willing to accept lower wages, they are taking away opportunities that should have gone to Americans.
In order to address that counter-argument and move the discussion on immigration forward, I believe companies like Facebook must be more explicit in laying out to the public why they rely on immigrant labor. Also, not only must they lay out the problems, I believe they need to be part of the solution and develop strategies to help develop U.S. workers so tech companies are less reliant on foreign workers. For example, they could emphasize STEM education in America’s education system. Facebook must not only lobby to lawmakers to address this problem, but they must also be part of the solution.
Really interesting article, Ashley. You mentioned the $1.2B investment that Partner decided to make in EPIC. It looks like the move to EMR has reduced labor productivity in the short-term due to the need to train frontline healthcare employees. One way that trend could be reversed is through creating subject matter experts that could help optimize the adoption of EPIC and be a point of contact for questions that may arise. On this point, I believe that the logical subject matter expert here would be technicians that currently support physicians. That would help ensure that physicians are not left with the burden of trying to enter information into EMRs.
Unfortunately, due to current regulations, doctors must spend hours entering patient data into EPIC and other EMR systems. I believe that these regulations are causing inefficiencies in the medical supply chain, since doctors are not working at the top of their license. This has led to doctors spending 33% of their time looking at computer systems instead of working with patients (http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/its-time-get-doctors-out-ehr-data-entry). One way to solve this problem in the short-term is to reduce the strict regulations that doctors must comply with and allow them to pass some of the data-entry to technicians, which will allow doctors to improve their productivity and ensure that they are working at the top of their license.
Nice article, Sarah, and well-timed with the recent Tesla announcement. On your point around connected trucks, I agree that this is where the industry is headed, but my main question revolves around how long it will take the industry to get there. As Matt pointed out in his comment, the likelihood of reaching this goal within the next 10 years seems bleak, but I believe they can quickly find themselves behind the curve if they don’t start to make the necessary investments and consider the impact of what an automated fleet might have on the company financials in the future.
Although a material investment is likely not warranted at this time, one way in which they could potentially start to prepare for the future of connected vehicles is to launch a pilot program that will test the feasibility of connected vehicles. For example, they could form a partnership with Tesla, who will begin producing a Tesla Semi that will have an enhanced Autopilot System and will begin delivery in 2019 (http://bgr.com/2017/11/17/tesla-semi-trucks-price-specs-release-date/). By launching a pilot program with Tesla Semi’s, they will begin to understand how a fully-connected truck might affect their operations in the long-term, while still deriving short-term benefits like improved safety with a reduction in driver blind spots.