 |
|
|
|||||
For nearly 60 years, California has been able to set its own standards around auto emissions that are stricter than the federal governments, thanks to a special exception for the state under the Clean Air Act. California has used that waiver to implement aggressive emissions standards that prioritize the sale of EVs, and that aim to whittle down the sale of gas-powered vehicles until their complete ban by 2035. Now Trump has signed a joint resolution from Congress that overturns that California waiverand essentially kills Californias efforts to accelerate EV adoption (California has sued to stop the move). If its implementation is allowed, the resolution wont affect only California residents, but would hurt the entire countrys EV efforts, and push the U.S. further behind the rest of the world. California has probably been the largest factor in accelerating EV adoption over the past decade, says Jeremy Michalek, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University and director of the schools Vehicle Electrification Group. California has used its Clean Air Act waiver to set requirements for automakers to sell a certain percentage of vehicles that release zero tailpipe emissions (a requirement which, a few hydrogen powered prototypes aside, can currently be met only with electric vehicles). California has become the biggest market for EVs in the country, accounting for nearly a third of all EV sales in the U.S. The California effect When California sets stricter regulations around auto emissions, it changes what sorts of cars are available for drivers everywhere. Thats been a huge driver in forcing the industry to provide additional options, like to roll out EVs in different market segments, Michalek says. If California sets stricter standards than the rest of the country, automakers have to decide, Are we going to try to customize different vehicles for different markets and deal with all of the logistics and cost, or are we just going to make all vehicles comply with what California is doing? (Californias stricter rules also catalyzed stronger federal standards because the state has long been a part of federal emissions negotiations.) This California effect has been noticed with other environmental regulations, too. A state law requiring product label warnings for toxic chemicals known to cause cancer led to chemical exposures decreasing for people across the country. When brands make a product to meet Californias strict environmental regulations, they usually sell the same one across the country, and everyone benefits. If Californias stricter auto standards go away, it stands to reason that the entire country would lose out on that benefit, too. That wouldnt happen immediately: It takes about five years for automakers to design and bring new vehicles to market. But the movewhich California is already suing the Trump administration overadds to the general uncertainty the auto industry is facing. Automakers lobbied the Senate to end California’s ban on new gas car sales by 2035, and have spoken out in support of Trump’s recent move, saying there should be one national standard. But there’s still uncertainty because of the rapid changes to regulations, Michalek says. The U.S. falling behind in EV transition This move combined with the potential repeal of EV tax credits, Trumps tariffs, and his administrations efforts to weaken federal auto emissions standards all hurt the auto industrys ability to plan long term. And if automakers cant make investments in local EV battery factories or onshoring parts of the EV supply chain, that means the U.S. will continue to fall behind in the overall EV transition. The move to EVs is already on a strong trajectory, Michalek says. Changing Californias emissions standards wont totally stop that transition, but it will slow it down. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is already ahead of us, he says. China in particular is an EV leaderwith technological advancements that have made ultra-affordable EVs a realityand even countries across Europe are now outpacing the U.S. in EV sales. Because of the Trump administrations attacks on the Inflation Reduction Act as well, billions of dollars of investments into the EV industry have been canceled since the start of his second term, including plans for EV and battery factories. Part of the goal of the IRA was to diversify and relocate the supply chain for climate tech like EVs, moving it either into the U.S. or to its allies. But these pullbacks are making that plan more difficult. So by getting further behind, Michalek adds, the risk is that if we’re going to have to make this [EV] transition anyway, and we’re lagging behind in building the industry to make the technology, then when we do have to transition, we’ll be kind of at the mercy of other countries that are dominating the technology. Eventually, he adds, were going to be at a disadvantage for not having made these investments sooner. Chaos for automakers and states Repealing Californias waiver could also hurt automakers that focus on EVs. Within the states (and federal) regulations, theres been the option for automakers that werent able to meet the standards to buy credits from companies that did, so that on average the industry is meeting these goals. If there are some automakers who wouldn’t really sell electric vehicles unless they were forced to, because that’s not where their profit center is, it enabled them to transition some funding to other automakers that were more focused on electric vehicles, like newcomers like Tesla, Michalek says. He credits Californias stricter standards for why, at least in part, Tesla was able to survive its early years. California is currently the only state able to set its own auto emissions standards that are stricter than federal ones, but the Clean Air Act does allow other states to adopt California’s regulations, and 17 states, including Oregon, New York, and Massachusetts, have done so. In that sense, removing Californias waiver also directly affects what those other states can do around auto emissions. (Ten other states have joined Californias lawsuit against the Trump administration over its effort to revoke its waiver.) In attempting to revoke the waiver, Trump went through Congress, but California Governor Gavin Newsom says that move was illegal. Its not clear what the timeline will be for a resolution to the lawsuit. In the meantime, Michalek says, there’s a sustained sense of uncertainty for automakers. The chao of it is a deterrent to investment in the industry, and in planning for future vehicles.
Category:
E-Commerce
Fast Company recently posed the question: Why isnt your workplace wellness program reducing stress? The answer, as the article rightly pointed out, isnt about bad intentionsits about bad execution. Most wellness initiatives are still treating symptoms, not causes. But we need to go even deeper. Workplace wellness isnt failing because its frivolous. Its failing because employees arent engaging with it. Stressed and burned out Corporate America spends an estimated $65 billion a year on wellness perks, from mindfulness apps to meditation pods yet 77% of employees still report feeling stressed, and 82% say theyre at risk of burnout. In the largest academic study of U.S. programs, fewer than half of eligible employees ever engaged with the resources on offer (RAND Corporation). Digital-only benefits fare even worse: app sprawl and discovery fatigue mean that most perks are forgotten before theyre used. A meditation app buried in a browser tab cant move the needle on mental health, absenteeism, or retention. Its easy to blame employees for being disengaged, or to point fingers at toxic culture. But the truth is more subtleand more solvable. Complexity kills engagement When HR teams assemble a buffet of stand-alone appsfinancial coaching here, sleep tools there, therapy platforms somewhere elseevery login is another cognitive task. Overwhelmed workers dont skip your yoga discount because they dislike yoga. They skip it because they dont remember where the link lives. At YuLife, we partnered with the University of Essex to study this problem. We found that bundling insurance, rewards, virtual care, and micro-challenges into one gamified experience radically changed engagement patterns: Users take healthy actions on 20 of 30 days, double the norm 54% return monthly, 50% engage daily Daily steps rose 13%, equivalent to adding 4.5 years of life expectancy Self-reported stress dropped 53%, productivity rose 57% Crucially, activity inside the app predicted use of other benefits. Those included 4× more Employee Assistance Program utilization, 2.4× more virtual GP visits, an 11.5% drop in absenteeism, and a 2.75% drop in turnover Engagement is the missing variable Wellness programs arent underperforming because employees dont care. Theyre underperforming because the programs werent designed with real behavioral engagement in mind. Three blockers we can eliminate today: Perk fragmentationConsolidate your well-being tools. If it takes more than two clicks or logins, it’s too much. Build a single front door, ideally integrated where work already happens (Slack, Teams, a unified app). Slow-burn rewardsPoints that take months to redeem lose meaning. When users can swap earned coins for gift cards the same week, engagement jumps 30% and rises again with leaderboards or friendly duels. One-size-fits-all contentA new parent, a cyclist, and a burnt-out manager dont need the same nudges. Personalised AI-driven prompts that respond to user behaviour drive a 3x increase in healthy habits. Well-being is infrastructure, not a perk We often hear that wellness is hard to measure. But thats usually a reflection of low engagement, not flawed strategy. At 20% adoption, noise drowns out signals. At 50%+, the ROI becomes clear, including a 5% drop in claims costs for employers integrating preventive data into group-risk underwriting. If fewer than half your people open the app, the program doesnt work. No matter how many perks you fund. The takeaway? Treat well-being engagement as a performance indicator like churn, CSAT, or NPS. Then: Start with one frictionless entry point Deliver generous, rapid-fire rewards Use behavioral science (and yes, a little fun) to sustain momentum Track outcomes investors care about: utilisation, risk, absenteeism, retention We dont need more perks. We need platforms people actually use. And that starts by treating engagement as the product and not the afterthought.
Category:
E-Commerce
YouTuber MrBeast made a brief cameo in the new music video for Mariah Carey’s song Type Dangerous, but it was a font that got more screen time. The video is divided into seven acts named after different would-be paramours, like “Mr. Player,” “Mr. Danger,” and “Mr. Beast,” and each act is introduced with red, all-caps text set in Aviano Serif Black, a squat, geometric typeface with short, sharp serifs that was vertically lengthened by 130% for the video. If it seems familiar, that’s because it looks a lot like the typography Carey has used throughout her career, starting with her 1990 self-titled debut album cover. But look closely at the serifs, and you’ll notice it’s not the exact same font. [Images: Columbia Records, Macmillan Publishing] Many artists switch up the typefaces they use to reflect an albums theme. Carey, though, has stuck to similar typefaces throughout her discography, which dates back 35 years. Friz Quadrata Carey’s primary typeface of choice is Friz Quadrata, an award-winning serif by type designer Ernst Friz released in 1966 that’s also used in the logos for Law & Order and Dr Pepper. Used consistently throughout her career and on best-selling albums like Daydream, Music Box, and The Emancipation of Mimi, Carey’s name written in all-caps has over time become as much a part of her brand as her high heels, dresses, and wind machines. Carey also has a monogrammed version of just an M and C. The logo mark is to divas what the Rolling Stones’s tongue and lips logo is to rock bands. [Screenshot: Gamma/YouTube] Though eagle-eyed viewers will notice differences in the letterform for letters like M and R, the customized, heightened Aviano Serif Black looks like a spitting image of Friz Quadrata in the “Type Dangerous” video, which was directed by Joseph Kahn (the director behind hit videos like Britney Spears’s “Toxic” and Taylor Swift’s “Bad Blood”). Like a brand refresh you don’t even notice happened, the font choice gives Carey’s video a new bespoke typeface that still looks familiar and classic.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||