Search the archive.

And still, the Biden administration is only just getting started. The administration is preparing to finalize pollution standards on power plants and vehicles, energy standards on furnaces, management plans for old-growth forests, and more. The work of reaching the nation’s new and ambitious climate, justice, and conservation goals has begun.

Many countries have recently announced the ambition to reach net-zero emissions targets. Here we explore the climate and energy transition impacts of the following strategies using the IMAGE integrated assessment model: 1) implementing the pledged 2030 targets and net-zero targets, 2) aligning the 2030 emission targets with the net-zero targets, 3) broadening the coalition of net-zero countries, and 4) strengthening the net-zero pledges by bringing them forward in time. The results illustrate that each step could accelerate the low-carbon transition by building on existing elements in international climate policy. Our study shows that the gap between a continuation of current emission trends and a Paris-aligned 1.5 °C target can be reduced by about 90% by 2100. This provides a pathway to bring the Paris Agreement climate goals within reach.

The United States has accomplished more on climate change under the Biden administration than during any other presidential administration—and there’s still more to come.

From comprehensive legislation to ambitious executive action, the Biden administration has set the United States on a new course of climate action. Not only does this mark a profound break from the policies of the Trump administration, but it also amounts to more action on climate than any other administration in history.

For the set of likely future scenarios we face today, the climate science literature has not identified any approaching global tipping point after which runaway climate change intensifies beyond humanity’s ability to arrest it. While tipping elements of the climate system—like Arctic permafrost thaw and loss of Amazon forest area—do influence total warming, the magnitude of this influence is substantially smaller than the societal factors that will ultimately determine the planet’s climate trajectory.

To you, the reader, the lines above may feel stiff and overly qualified. They, like countless similar sentences in IPCC reports and academic papers, rely on very careful choice of terminology to maintain their accuracy. Yet such care seems increasingly incompatible with a climate discourse that, at times, nurses a weakness for spectacle while trying to satisfy a hunger for clarity about the future that researchers cannot yet provide.

Claims such as these are exaggerated or simply untrue. Some of this is due to subjective and occasionally questionable interpretation of data, as well as normative objectives. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses RCP’s (Representative Concentration Pathways) to model alternative climate scenarios. But the most regularly used scenario, RCP8.5, models the future as though humans were to take no action on climate. While this generates dramatic headlines, it simply doesn’t match reality. Not only does it deny the huge strides being made in the climate world, it denies the ability of humans to take charge and create a better future.

The world is getting better

Becoming circular is an increasingly popular business idea—and while this is a positive development, companies wrongfully advertising themselves as contributors to a circular economy—‘circular-washing’—must be avoided. Nonetheless, companies that truly incorporate more circular practices can both economically and socially profit from such a sustainable business model, including a spark in GDP growth and an increase in job availability, as well as contributing to climate breakdown prevention. Keeping materials in use and closing loops can also mitigate pressing issues such as the use of conflict minerals—minerals mined in circumstances that violate human rights—and critical materials—high-demand materials used in many different products with hidden risks in supply and few substitutes. The benefits are clear—and while companies looking to 'go circular' is certainly progress, adopting only one circular strategy—such as recycling—will provide limited environmental benefits. When companies put their efforts solely on increasing their circularity—without the equally-important priority of cutting environmental impacts—they enter the territory of so-called 'circularity for circularity's sake'.

‍

What's more, by emphasizing reuse and recycling—rather than reducing production—the circular economy runs the risk of becoming a red herring, enabling companies to increase their environmental impact while appearing greener to the public. The circular economy is essentially riding on decades of public conditioning that has us convinced that reuse and recycling are always good for the planet, but that's not the case. "We've tried [reuse and recycling] over and over again, and it just hasn't worked," says Roland Geyer, a professor in industrial ecology and pollution prevention at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a critic of the circular economy.

The economics and difficulty of recycling complex consumer goods like electronics, cars, and furniture mean that wide-scale refurbishment and recycling of most products remain elusive. But even if industry were to overcome these barriers and finally scale up recycling, virgin-resource consumption still might not decrease. This is partly because recycling itself requires water, energy, and chemicals. It is far from a zero-impact process. In the case of recycling textiles, energy is needed to spin old fibers into new material, then chemicals are required to dye and finish that material into garments, and more energy is needed to ship them to retail stores. A 2018 Quantis report on the fashion industry found that scaling up to clothing made from 34 percent recycled materials would only cut carbon emissions across the industry by a mere 5 percent.

A circular economy is an economic system aimed at minimising waste and making the most of resources. In a circular system, resources, waste, emissions, and energy leakage are lowered by reducing consumption and production. It’s about long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and eventually, recycling. This approach is in contrast to what we have now, which is a ‘take, make, dispose’ model of production. So far so good!

Yet, like anything, corporations only pick out the parts which suit them. That is, by focusing on closing the circle, with an emphasis on recycling.

To begin with, it's important to note that the business community is promoting circular economy projects involving resale, rental, and even more-durable design to entrepreneurs as an additional revenue stream. A 2016 McKinsey & Company report on circularity frames it as an opportunity to expand markets to a new customer group without cannibalizing existing sales. It estimates that the European economy could unlock about $2 trillion from new circular economy businesses like electronics refurbishment and textile-to-textile recycling and simply from the "increased spending fueled by lower prices" associated with shared and secondhand products. Likewise, the business consulting firm Accenture promises a staggering $4.5 trillion windfall from investing in new circular economy businesses, including those that focus on advanced recycling technology, innovative new recyclable materials, sharing platforms (like ride or home sharing), or subscription models (like fashion-rental website Rent the Runway). Russell concedes that most big businesses that are exploring circularity aren't doing so at the expense of their main revenue streams. "These companies are not abandoning their make-new-products strategy," she says.

What that means is that in fashion and elsewhere, the circular economy is not replacing the linear economy; it's merely running parallel to it. In other words, circularity is being positioned as a way to drive new growth, not necessarily as a way to cut down on the use of raw materials. There's no evidence that any of the large brands embracing circularity are actually using fewer virgin resources overall. The fashion industry is a case in point: It still manufactures an estimated 100 billion garments annually, enough for every human on the planet to buy something new to wear every month. Total production of virgin textiles—whether polyester, cotton, or rayon—hit historic highs in 2019.

Recently there has been a rise in circularity indicators (at both product and macro-level) with Saidani (2018) reviewing 55 indicators and Parchomenko (2019) reviewing 63 indicators. Many of these measure material or value re-circulation, apparently as a proxy for environmental impact (Elia et al., 2017; European Commission, 2019; Saidani et al., 2019). Such measurements arguably risk driving action based on increased circularity and not necessarily on improved environmental performance – leading to what we refer to as “circularity” for circularity's sake. Moreover, there is currently limited evidence that company-level actions (e.g. developing product-service systems) and products designed for increased circularity (e.g. increasing longevity or recyclability) have increased environmental performance, particularly from a macro- perspective (Tukker, 2015).

In accordance, Esty and Porter (1998) (pg. 40) referring to industrial ecology, note that “The belief in the perfection of the circle can be taken too far. Even when company gains and social benefits are summed, the costs of closing some loops may exceed the benefits.” There is also a risk of “circular [green]washing”, reminiscent of the so-called “green-washing” that emerged in the 1990’s (Welford, 1997), where a company uses inaccurate information for marketing purposes.

Of consumers who shop online through both e-commerce and social media platforms, three out of four report experienced financial fraud, and more than half (55 percent) have had payments lost due to glitches, the survey found.

More than two in five (42 percent) say they have frequently received damaged goods.

Counterfeits on eCommerce platforms can have a negative impact on consumer spending and engagement. When buyers unknowingly purchase counterfeit products, they may feel deceived and lose confidence in the platform’s ability to provide authentic goods, leading to decreased loyalty and repeat purchases. Additionally, counterfeit products often fail to meet quality standards, resulting in dissatisfied customers who may share their negative experiences, damaging the platform’s reputation and deterring potential buyers.

This rise comes with increased risks for all online marketplaces, even the big ones, as more fraudsters will be attracted to your site.

Fraud can jeopardize user trust and ultimately scare off customers. Over the years, the sale of counterfeit goods has significantly increased in the luxury resale market. Therefore, it’s essential for online marketplaces to establish strong user trust, particularly in the trade of second-hand items.

In the platform enterprise, trademarks function just like other trademarks in the sense that they serve informational and economic functions.44 By enabling consumers to trust that their experience of a certain product can be consistently associated with a particular trademark, trademarks lower consumer search costs. 45 Yet trademarks play an even more central role in platform entrepreneurship because they enable consumers to identify clusters of marks with a particular platform, thereby facilitating the reduction of transaction costs that are essential to a platform's success. For example, with the Parking Panda platform, both sets of marks, the Parking Panda's and the parking companies', inform consumers that their parking experience will be similar to their previous experiences, thereby enabling purchasers to rely on their previous decisions.

It’s undeniable that the rapid growth of e-commerce has brought convenience and accessibility to consumers worldwide. But there’s a flip side to all this progress, primarily related to the proliferation of counterfeit goods. In fact, a report released by the OECD in 2021 titled Misuse of E‑Commerce for Trade in Counterfeits2 shows that the trend towards online shopping is expected to continue, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, with an ever-increasing number of people buying products using mobile devices.

With this in mind, without the implementation of new, innovative and effective measures to create a secure and trustworthy online environment, the unchecked growth of e-commerce can lead to serious consequences.

Third, the degree of stringency of the liability regime that platforms are subject to may also affect the “direction” of innovation, i.e., platforms’ choice between different types of innovations. More specifically, a (more) stringent liability rule is likely to make platforms favor (more) innovations leading to services and functionalities that do not entail high liability costs for them and innovations that reduce liability costs associated with the services offered by the platform. Whether such a distortion in the direction of innovation is socially desirable is an open question.

Central to these questions remains the ubiquity of the brand enterprise, which affects nearly every layer of platform architecture. Trademarks are central to the success of the platform economy, but few commentators have really delved into the question of how trademark law both governs and is governed by - the emergence of these new economies. Thus, this Article lays out a spectrum of trademark interactivity, identifying the emergence of two central forms of platform entrepreneurship, and then analyzes how the design and architecture of these new forms ushers in new challenges and opportunities for the modernization of trademark law altogether.

Trademark law plays a central, determinative role in the success or failure of the platform enterprise. At the broadest level, in Part II, this Article argues that the platform economy facilitates the emergence of what is called "macrobrands" - the rise of platform economies whose sole source of capital inheres in the value of the brand itself - the Airbnbs, Ubers, and eBays of the world.23 At the narrowest level, Part III argues that the platform economy, with its empowerment of the individual, has also facilitated a parallel emergence of the "microbrand" - the rise of discrete, small enterprises made up of individual businesses, each of whom have a strong interest in utilizing the basic principles of branding and trademark protection.

In conclusion, the authors agree with the position stated by INTA, AIPLA, and IPO and adopted by the USPTO that concerns regarding trademark bullying do not justify new legislation, and instead there are sufficient safeguards in the form of sanctions, declaratory judgment actions, reverse domain name hijacking provisions, self-help, social media, and Internet publicity to address egregious conduct by trademark counsel. The authors further support the USPTO’s recommendations for public education and outreach to smaller mark owners, both by the public and private sectors, because an informed public is less likely to be vulnerable to bullying. But, when extreme trademark bullying does occur, as discussed above, ethics rules may provide a further avenue for recourse.

Shaming is an effective method to fight trademark bullies because it is a cost-effective alternative to litigation. 172 Small businesses may lack the benefits of legal counsel and financial resources to defend themselves, 173 but shaming is available to anyone with a credible business and an Internet connection. 174 Because of today's social media prevalence, trademark shaming is often a viable option. 175 A business can mobilize the community "simply through 'tweeting' about receiving the cease-and-desist letter." 176 Social media ensures that if the particular bullying is egregious enough, media outlets will report the story. 177

A 2014 trademark dispute between bicycle behemoth Specialized Bicycle Components Inc. and small Canadian bicycle shop Roubaix illustrates this phenomenon. 178 The Internet immediately rushed to Roubaix's aid when it received a cease and desist letter from Specialized. 179 The merits of the infringement claim were irrelevant, as "support for [Roubaix] was so overwhelming, and condemnation of Specialized so swift." 180 Specialized was quick to withdraw its cease and desist letter and issue an apology. 181 This story demonstrates the importance of a shamer's credibility in a community, since the Internet would not have mobilized unless Roubaix was a hard-working and respectable business.

Relying on cease-and-desist letters may result in unintended negative consequences, however. If a parts manufacturer sends a cease-and-desist letter to an accused counterfeiter, it may lose any right to obtain an ex parte seizure order from the court, thereby forfeiting one of the valuable tools provided by Lanham Act.368 Sending a cease-and-desist letter could also result in the commencement of a declaratory judgment action by the prospective defendant, potentially in a district where the manufacturer would prefer not to litigate, or it could result in the goods or the counterfeiter disappearing from the jurisdiction.369 The recipient of an aggressive demand letter may also use social media to post the letter and subject the trademark owner to public scorn.370 “Being perceived as a trademark bully does not help the brand’s reputation.”371