Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: What Do Public-Private Partnerships Add to Priced Managed Lanes?
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
What do public-private partnerships add to priced managed lanes?
Comparing the attributes of government ownership and public-private partnership ownership of managed lanes.
Robert Poole
Director of Transportation Policy
September 14, 2026
Priced managed lanes, otherwise known as express toll lanes, are separate lanes on urban highways that charge their users variable-rate tolls. The tolls are designed to limit use just enough so the managed lanes remain free-flowing, even during peak travel ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * What do public-private partnerships add to priced managed lanes? Comparing the attributes of government ownership and public-private partnership ownership of managed lanes. Robert Poole Director of Transportation Policy September 14, 2026 Priced managed lanes, otherwise known as express toll lanes, are separate lanes on urban highways that charge their users variable-rate tolls. The tolls are designed to limit use just enough so the managed lanes remain free-flowing, even during peak traveltimes when the general-purpose lanes are congested.
Priced managed lanes based on new capacity (e.g., adding new lanes to highways) are generally financed by the developer, which may be either the state department of transportation (DOT) or a concessionaire via a public-private partnership (P3). The transportation department typically issues long-term tax-exempt bonds to finance the project, while the public-private partnership entity uses a combination of tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) and an equity investment (on which it hopes to make a return).
Bond rating agency Fitch Ratings did a careful comparison of both ways of developing and financing priced MLs. In a 2026 report titled "U.S. Managed Lanes Poised for Growth with Strong Credit Fundamentals," Fitch compared and contrasted 13 such projects: six government ML projects and seven P3 ML projects.
Fitch Ratings uses two separate teams for this type of analysis. Its Municipal Infrastructure team analyzes and rates government-owned and operated managed lanes, while Fitch's Infrastructure and Public Finance team analyzes and rates managed lanes developed and operated as long-term public-private partnerships.
Since Fitch has been doing these annual assessments for many years, its teams are well-positioned to identify and discuss changing trends. In its 2026 report, Fitch's teams found that priced managed lanes (MLs) have earned somewhat higher ratings as they have matured and become more widely used. Fitch noted that, of the 13 ML projects that it rates, the median rating has changed from BBB- in 2016 to BBB+ today.
This positive shift is reflected in the median debt service coverage ratio. In 2021, they generated 2.6 times cash flow for every $1 in debt. By 2025, that rate increased to 4.3 times cash flow for every $1.
Another finding was that a significant fraction of managed lane customers use priced lanes even when the general-purpose lanes are not congested. Evidently, those customers appreciate the value of reliability in addition to the value of saving time.
The report includes a brief summary table comparing attributes of government ownership and public-private partnership ownership, including:
* Who the issuer is;
* The typical kinds of financing; and
* Individual project data.
The report also notes that the current expansion of priced managed lanes (MLs) into new states, such as North Carolina and Tennessee, is taking the form of public-private partnership projects. The report suggests that "P3s enable faster delivery of ML infrastructure while transferring or sharing financial risk to private partners." This reduces the risk to state DOTs that have not previously implemented priced MLs.
Two important trends discussed in this 2026 report are the growth of the regional ML network and more government MLs shifting to dynamic pricing.
Some regional networks are government-owned, such as lanes in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Denver. But other projects, including in Northern Virginia, are largely privately owned. And a few projects, such as Atlanta, are a mix.
As noted above, another trend is that government-managed lanes are switching to dynamic pricing (which the P3 projects use) instead of time-of-day pricing.
The Fitch data also show that while the P3 projects seek to maximize revenue, the government projects aim to strike a balance between maximizing throughput and maximizing revenue. The report notes, "Private developers have become extremely sophisticated at building revenue-maximizing facilities, incorporating design, pricing, and configuration expertise to deliver a world-class driving experience."
This latest Fitch annual report is a gold mine of data on the six government ML and seven P3 ML projects that Fitch rates. That is enough data to enable some interesting comparisons.
A small spreadsheet compares the six government and seven P3 projects. Most of the P3s have BBB or BBB+ ratings, while the government ones range from A- to BBB+. The length of the corridors averages 22.3 miles for P3s versus 17.9 miles for government projects. Significantly, the number of priced lane-miles averages 77.7 for P3s versus 38.1 for the government ones. Hence, the average P3 project has 3.5 priced lanes (which means some portions have four and others have two). The government-run projects average 2.2 priced lanes, which suggests that most are one lane in each direction.
The P3 projects' larger size (more lanes and longer distance) suggests that building them costs significantly more than government projects, and the data support this. On annual revenue, the P3s average 3.8 times the government projects' average revenue. The P3 projects' considerably larger size requires significantly more revenue.
So what is the difference between the P3 and the government-managed lanes projects?
First, the public-private partnership projects are larger (in length and number of lanes), so their cost to construct is larger, but so are their benefits.
Second, the public-private partnerships design their projects to maximize revenue, while the government projects tend to maximize throughput or a combination of throughput and revenue.
Third, the P3 model finances larger projects, likely because P3 entities are willing to accept higher levels of risk.
* * *
Robert Poole is director of transportation policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/what-do-public-private-partnerships-add-to-priced-managed-lanes/
* * *
What do public-private partnerships add to priced managed lanes?
Comparing the attributes of government ownership and public-private partnership ownership of managed lanes.
Robert Poole
Director of Transportation Policy
September 14, 2026
Priced managed lanes, otherwise known as express toll lanes, are separate lanes on urban highways that charge their users variable-rate tolls. The tolls are designed to limit use just enough so the managed lanes remain free-flowing, even during peak travel ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * What do public-private partnerships add to priced managed lanes? Comparing the attributes of government ownership and public-private partnership ownership of managed lanes. Robert Poole Director of Transportation Policy September 14, 2026 Priced managed lanes, otherwise known as express toll lanes, are separate lanes on urban highways that charge their users variable-rate tolls. The tolls are designed to limit use just enough so the managed lanes remain free-flowing, even during peak traveltimes when the general-purpose lanes are congested.
Priced managed lanes based on new capacity (e.g., adding new lanes to highways) are generally financed by the developer, which may be either the state department of transportation (DOT) or a concessionaire via a public-private partnership (P3). The transportation department typically issues long-term tax-exempt bonds to finance the project, while the public-private partnership entity uses a combination of tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) and an equity investment (on which it hopes to make a return).
Bond rating agency Fitch Ratings did a careful comparison of both ways of developing and financing priced MLs. In a 2026 report titled "U.S. Managed Lanes Poised for Growth with Strong Credit Fundamentals," Fitch compared and contrasted 13 such projects: six government ML projects and seven P3 ML projects.
Fitch Ratings uses two separate teams for this type of analysis. Its Municipal Infrastructure team analyzes and rates government-owned and operated managed lanes, while Fitch's Infrastructure and Public Finance team analyzes and rates managed lanes developed and operated as long-term public-private partnerships.
Since Fitch has been doing these annual assessments for many years, its teams are well-positioned to identify and discuss changing trends. In its 2026 report, Fitch's teams found that priced managed lanes (MLs) have earned somewhat higher ratings as they have matured and become more widely used. Fitch noted that, of the 13 ML projects that it rates, the median rating has changed from BBB- in 2016 to BBB+ today.
This positive shift is reflected in the median debt service coverage ratio. In 2021, they generated 2.6 times cash flow for every $1 in debt. By 2025, that rate increased to 4.3 times cash flow for every $1.
Another finding was that a significant fraction of managed lane customers use priced lanes even when the general-purpose lanes are not congested. Evidently, those customers appreciate the value of reliability in addition to the value of saving time.
The report includes a brief summary table comparing attributes of government ownership and public-private partnership ownership, including:
* Who the issuer is;
* The typical kinds of financing; and
* Individual project data.
The report also notes that the current expansion of priced managed lanes (MLs) into new states, such as North Carolina and Tennessee, is taking the form of public-private partnership projects. The report suggests that "P3s enable faster delivery of ML infrastructure while transferring or sharing financial risk to private partners." This reduces the risk to state DOTs that have not previously implemented priced MLs.
Two important trends discussed in this 2026 report are the growth of the regional ML network and more government MLs shifting to dynamic pricing.
Some regional networks are government-owned, such as lanes in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Denver. But other projects, including in Northern Virginia, are largely privately owned. And a few projects, such as Atlanta, are a mix.
As noted above, another trend is that government-managed lanes are switching to dynamic pricing (which the P3 projects use) instead of time-of-day pricing.
The Fitch data also show that while the P3 projects seek to maximize revenue, the government projects aim to strike a balance between maximizing throughput and maximizing revenue. The report notes, "Private developers have become extremely sophisticated at building revenue-maximizing facilities, incorporating design, pricing, and configuration expertise to deliver a world-class driving experience."
This latest Fitch annual report is a gold mine of data on the six government ML and seven P3 ML projects that Fitch rates. That is enough data to enable some interesting comparisons.
A small spreadsheet compares the six government and seven P3 projects. Most of the P3s have BBB or BBB+ ratings, while the government ones range from A- to BBB+. The length of the corridors averages 22.3 miles for P3s versus 17.9 miles for government projects. Significantly, the number of priced lane-miles averages 77.7 for P3s versus 38.1 for the government ones. Hence, the average P3 project has 3.5 priced lanes (which means some portions have four and others have two). The government-run projects average 2.2 priced lanes, which suggests that most are one lane in each direction.
The P3 projects' larger size (more lanes and longer distance) suggests that building them costs significantly more than government projects, and the data support this. On annual revenue, the P3s average 3.8 times the government projects' average revenue. The P3 projects' considerably larger size requires significantly more revenue.
So what is the difference between the P3 and the government-managed lanes projects?
First, the public-private partnership projects are larger (in length and number of lanes), so their cost to construct is larger, but so are their benefits.
Second, the public-private partnerships design their projects to maximize revenue, while the government projects tend to maximize throughput or a combination of throughput and revenue.
Third, the P3 model finances larger projects, likely because P3 entities are willing to accept higher levels of risk.
* * *
Robert Poole is director of transportation policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/what-do-public-private-partnerships-add-to-priced-managed-lanes/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: What Is Worth Learning in an AI World?
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Sept. 14, 2026:
* * *
Monday, September 14, 2026
What Is Worth Learning in an AI World?
Jennie Jones
And when is it "cheating" to use AI?
-
I spent my whole day today trying to save a $200 Chromebook. When I think about the hourly rate, it really wasn't the best use of my time. School starts in less than a week, and I had many other things on my to-do list. But alas, Gemini made me feel like I could solve it, so I kept troubleshooting, and before I knew it, it was 5:00.
This is an ironic ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Sept. 14, 2026: * * * Monday, September 14, 2026 What Is Worth Learning in an AI World? Jennie Jones And when is it "cheating" to use AI? - I spent my whole day today trying to save a $200 Chromebook. When I think about the hourly rate, it really wasn't the best use of my time. School starts in less than a week, and I had many other things on my to-do list. But alas, Gemini made me feel like I could solve it, so I kept troubleshooting, and before I knew it, it was 5:00. This is an ironicpattern I have noticed lately as I use chatbots more and more for work. It makes me feel like I can do anything. Things I wouldn't have ever considered even attempting (read: most tech-related projects), I suddenly feel like trying because there is no harm in asking. And when it works, it does feel so good. "I did it myself!" I cry out like a small child learning to tie her shoes.
But there have been a few times now where I realized that just because ChatGPT makes me feel like I could doesn't always mean that I should. Today, I needed my infinitely patient tutor to tell me when it was time to quit.
As an educator, I have felt mostly excited about AI for students. If kids, like me, can feel more willing to try new things because they know they have access to a chatbot to talk them through it, that is amazing.
One day, my own two sons were complaining that they couldn't get something to work on their computer. Normally, they would wait for their dad to come try to figure it out with them--they would feel dependent. But on this day, they asked ChatGPT. Before long, their drivers were updated, and they were off and running with their new program. I thought, kids today can truly learn anything they want! I loved how a chatbot empowered them with agency in this moment.
Now, let's view that experience through the lens of one of the common fears around AI: cheating.
Is it cheating for a learner to ask a teacher how to do something? No.
Is it cheating for a learner to follow steps given in a task list? No.
Is it cheating for a learner to go back to a mentor to say something didn't work and ask why or what next? No.
Those are all steps to learning. So did my kids "learn" to update their drivers? Perhaps. Will my kids be able to pass a test about updating drivers now? Probably not without a chatbot.
Which feels akin to the calculator argument from my school days. Teachers would argue, "You need to know how to do this because you won't always have a calculator in your pocket!" And what do I have in my pocket now basically at all times? A calculator. And now, also a chatbot.
Obviously, there are still things we need to "know" in the form of memorization or the ability to solve something on our own. But the question is: Which things, and why?
If virtually anything can be learned or solved using a chatbot, what things are worth solving? If kids in school are going to chatbots to get quick answers, quick essays, quick homework help, they are essentially saying, "This isn't worth the time it takes to solve." I actually think my adult brain could have used some of that judgment today when I decided to spend all day working on my Chromebook!
Perhaps if we shift our energy from policing AI use, we can ask some fundamental questions about education:
* What things are worth solving? When is struggle productive?
* What skills and information need to be learned in order to operate in the world students actually live in, the one where they do have a calculator and a chatbot in their pocket at all times?
* What things need to be known without assistance?
* What experiences are valuable precisely because they take time?
* What things are kids wanting to learn, and how can we leverage AI to help them learn it?
The runway to achieving skills (or at least the product of a skill) is getting shorter each day, so we need to decide which runways are worth pursuing. It can feel uncomfortable to those of us who spent years learning a skill or training in a specific field. We may look at someone who AI-generated something and think, "But you didn't learn how to do that." And that may be true. But just because their path is different doesn't mean that it is wrong.
So if the fear is that AI will make kids not learn or not try, I present my Chromebook experience as evidence that the opposite might be true. Sometimes AI will make you feel so capable that you think just one more question, one more set of instructions, one more try, and you will have it. The problem may feel solvable long after it is worth solving, but the tutor will never tell you to quit. And sometimes, we want to cultivate that perseverance. But other times, we should just buy a new Chromebook.
* * *
Jennie Jones is an Entrepreneur-In-Residence in FEE. She is former professional ballerina, turned homeschooling mom of four, turned education entrepreneur. She runs the Treehouse Agile Learning Community in St. George, Utah. A home-based microschool that uses agile learning tools to foster intentional community, natural learning, and independence, The Treehouse currently serves homeschooled students ages 5-12.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/what-is-worth-learning-in-an-ai-world/
* * *
Monday, September 14, 2026
What Is Worth Learning in an AI World?
Jennie Jones
And when is it "cheating" to use AI?
-
I spent my whole day today trying to save a $200 Chromebook. When I think about the hourly rate, it really wasn't the best use of my time. School starts in less than a week, and I had many other things on my to-do list. But alas, Gemini made me feel like I could solve it, so I kept troubleshooting, and before I knew it, it was 5:00.
This is an ironic ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Sept. 14, 2026: * * * Monday, September 14, 2026 What Is Worth Learning in an AI World? Jennie Jones And when is it "cheating" to use AI? - I spent my whole day today trying to save a $200 Chromebook. When I think about the hourly rate, it really wasn't the best use of my time. School starts in less than a week, and I had many other things on my to-do list. But alas, Gemini made me feel like I could solve it, so I kept troubleshooting, and before I knew it, it was 5:00. This is an ironicpattern I have noticed lately as I use chatbots more and more for work. It makes me feel like I can do anything. Things I wouldn't have ever considered even attempting (read: most tech-related projects), I suddenly feel like trying because there is no harm in asking. And when it works, it does feel so good. "I did it myself!" I cry out like a small child learning to tie her shoes.
But there have been a few times now where I realized that just because ChatGPT makes me feel like I could doesn't always mean that I should. Today, I needed my infinitely patient tutor to tell me when it was time to quit.
As an educator, I have felt mostly excited about AI for students. If kids, like me, can feel more willing to try new things because they know they have access to a chatbot to talk them through it, that is amazing.
One day, my own two sons were complaining that they couldn't get something to work on their computer. Normally, they would wait for their dad to come try to figure it out with them--they would feel dependent. But on this day, they asked ChatGPT. Before long, their drivers were updated, and they were off and running with their new program. I thought, kids today can truly learn anything they want! I loved how a chatbot empowered them with agency in this moment.
Now, let's view that experience through the lens of one of the common fears around AI: cheating.
Is it cheating for a learner to ask a teacher how to do something? No.
Is it cheating for a learner to follow steps given in a task list? No.
Is it cheating for a learner to go back to a mentor to say something didn't work and ask why or what next? No.
Those are all steps to learning. So did my kids "learn" to update their drivers? Perhaps. Will my kids be able to pass a test about updating drivers now? Probably not without a chatbot.
Which feels akin to the calculator argument from my school days. Teachers would argue, "You need to know how to do this because you won't always have a calculator in your pocket!" And what do I have in my pocket now basically at all times? A calculator. And now, also a chatbot.
Obviously, there are still things we need to "know" in the form of memorization or the ability to solve something on our own. But the question is: Which things, and why?
If virtually anything can be learned or solved using a chatbot, what things are worth solving? If kids in school are going to chatbots to get quick answers, quick essays, quick homework help, they are essentially saying, "This isn't worth the time it takes to solve." I actually think my adult brain could have used some of that judgment today when I decided to spend all day working on my Chromebook!
Perhaps if we shift our energy from policing AI use, we can ask some fundamental questions about education:
* What things are worth solving? When is struggle productive?
* What skills and information need to be learned in order to operate in the world students actually live in, the one where they do have a calculator and a chatbot in their pocket at all times?
* What things need to be known without assistance?
* What experiences are valuable precisely because they take time?
* What things are kids wanting to learn, and how can we leverage AI to help them learn it?
The runway to achieving skills (or at least the product of a skill) is getting shorter each day, so we need to decide which runways are worth pursuing. It can feel uncomfortable to those of us who spent years learning a skill or training in a specific field. We may look at someone who AI-generated something and think, "But you didn't learn how to do that." And that may be true. But just because their path is different doesn't mean that it is wrong.
So if the fear is that AI will make kids not learn or not try, I present my Chromebook experience as evidence that the opposite might be true. Sometimes AI will make you feel so capable that you think just one more question, one more set of instructions, one more try, and you will have it. The problem may feel solvable long after it is worth solving, but the tutor will never tell you to quit. And sometimes, we want to cultivate that perseverance. But other times, we should just buy a new Chromebook.
* * *
Jennie Jones is an Entrepreneur-In-Residence in FEE. She is former professional ballerina, turned homeschooling mom of four, turned education entrepreneur. She runs the Treehouse Agile Learning Community in St. George, Utah. A home-based microschool that uses agile learning tools to foster intentional community, natural learning, and independence, The Treehouse currently serves homeschooled students ages 5-12.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/what-is-worth-learning-in-an-ai-world/
Nuru Announces $8.5 Million Grant from the Helmsley Charitable Trust in Ethiopia
NEW YORK, Sept. 14 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust posted the following news release:
* * *
Nuru Announces $8.5 Million Grant from the Helmsley Charitable Trust in Ethiopia
*
WASHINGTON, DC, September 14, 2026 -Nuru has received an $8.5 million, three-year grant from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to scale regenerative agriculture in marginalized communities, advance cooperative union and federation integration in South Ethiopia Regional State, and build nature-positive pathways to sustainable funding. With funding from the Helmsley Charitable Trust, ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 14 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust posted the following news release: * * * Nuru Announces $8.5 Million Grant from the Helmsley Charitable Trust in Ethiopia * WASHINGTON, DC, September 14, 2026 -Nuru has received an $8.5 million, three-year grant from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to scale regenerative agriculture in marginalized communities, advance cooperative union and federation integration in South Ethiopia Regional State, and build nature-positive pathways to sustainable funding. With funding from the Helmsley Charitable Trust,Nuru will positively impact 450,000 people across the region.
"We are deeply grateful for the Helmsley Charitable Trust's support as we scale Nuru's proven approach to strengthening cooperatives and the rural economies they serve. By working locally to connect mature agribusinesses, cooperative unions, and regional federations, we are building the institutional foundation for change across vast landscapes. We are connecting the farmers who manage the land with the markets, resources, and systems needed to create lasting economic and ecological resilience. Together, we are ensuring hundreds of thousands of people can build a more prosperous future while having the tools, agency, and economic opportunity to steward the landscapes that sustain their families, their communities, and future generations," said Casey Harrison, Nuru Chief Sustainability Officer.
By providing comprehensive technical assistance, business coaching, and strategic partnerships grounded in digital innovation, Nuru will strengthen cooperative capacities, enabling smallholder farmers and pastoralists to build resilient, durable incomes. Helmsley Charitable Trust's timely investment will be highly impactful in Ethiopia, where poverty is once again on the rise due to the compounding effects of climate shocks, instability, severe inflation, and economic changes.
"Nuru's approach starts at the smallholder, subsistence farmer and supports their transformation into rural entrepreneurs, farmer cooperative members, and finally, agribusiness professionals that are connected to mature markets," said Walter Panzirer, a Trustee with the Helmsley Charitable Trust. "We've seen Nuru's impact on the Gamo and Gofa Zones in Ethiopia and share with Nuru the belief that building resilient livelihoods not only charts a path out of extreme poverty, but also protects against natural resource challenges, climate shocks, and regional conflicts."
Nuru's approach strengthens community-owned agribusinesses, supporting rural households to increase their incomes while adopting climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and agroforestry practices that boost yields and diversify incomes. The initiative will reach 450,000 people through 400 primary cooperatives, 19 cooperative unions, and one cooperative federation in South Ethiopia Regional State.
"It has been my privilege and honor to make a transformative impact with cooperatives to lift families out of extreme poverty. Promoting greater agency through cooperative systems has been our mission at Nuru Ethiopia for years. Now, we have a new opportunity to level up our engagement through the investment 'Building Sustainable Funding Pathways for Professional Cooperatives in Ethiopia'. These pathways enable communities to restore their land, diversify their livelihoods, and secure strong foundations for future generations. For the communities we serve, this is our moment to turn local resilience into lasting economic growth in ways that benefit people and the planet," said Abiy Meshesha, Nuru Ethiopia Managing Director.
Key components of the initiative include:
* Agribusiness Professionalism and Nature-based Solutions (NbS): Nuru will deliver comprehensive ISO 18716-aligned training and coaching to transform nascent union cooperatives and their member primary cooperatives into professional agribusinesses. In partnership with Viridian Ecosystems, mature unions will receive specialized technical assistance in NbS to access sustainable finance. As unions achieve self-sustainability, Nuru will intentionally draw down direct support, expanding capacity-building efforts to new cohorts of early-stage unions that benefit from peer mentorship.
* Regenerative Agriculture and Livelihood Diversification: Nuru will support farmers to adopt agroforestry and CSA practices through a combination of training, demonstration model farms, and digital advisory tools. Additionally, Nuru will support small livestock production and apiculture (beekeeping and honey production) to provide households with improved nutrition and additional opportunities to generate income alongside crop production.
* Financial Inclusion and Increased Incomes: Across much of South Ethiopia Regional State, rural communities remain excluded from formal financial systems due to geographic isolation, limited financial literacy, and weak cooperative financial management. Nuru will address these barriers by strengthening cooperative accounting systems and providing training that promotes savings, transparent financial transactions, and responsible stewardship of resources.
* Food Security and Crop Commercialization: Nuru will strengthen household food security by improving productivity in key high-protein crop value chains and continuing to support complementary livelihood activities, including horticulture, small ruminant production, apiculture, and fruit tree planting.
* Digital Backbone and Rigorous Verification: The project will train farmers to use SMS weather forecast data provided by ignitia to mitigate climate volatility and improve crop productivity. Nuru will also employ digital tools to track agroforestry adoption across cooperatives.
"Economic empowerment can change everything-for an individual, their family, and their community. In past projects with Nuru, we resonated with the holistic nature of its accompaniment strategy, not stopping at farming advisory and training alone but incorporating financial literacy and technology improvements which help sustain more resilient livelihoods and food security," said Melissa Crutchfield, Program Director of the Vulnerable Children in Sub-Saharan Africa Program at the Helmsley Charitable Trust. "We've seen that approach have remarkable impacts over the last few years, and we know the potential is huge for it to resonate in Ethiopia as well."
Helmsley Charitable Trust has invested in Nuru for more than a decade, including recently in West Africa, to cultivate rural community resilience. With support from Helmsley, Nuru has now reached more than 505,000 people since its founding. Nuru is honored to continue working with Helmsley in Ethiopia, scaling a model of cooperative professionalism that bridges the gap between remote smallholder farms and global markets, and creating a lasting legacy of economic and ecological prosperity.
About Nuru
Nuru is a global collective that enables inclusive and sustainable prosperity by identifying communities at the stability tipping point, strengthening rural livelihoods and market systems, and fostering stabilizing connections that repair social fabric and pave a pathway to peace. Nuru envisions a world without cycles of unjust poverty, where resilience and hope are cultivated in the most marginalized communities. The Nuru Collective operates through a network of locally-led NGOs in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Benin, and Togo, supported by Nuru US as a strategic partner. Learn more by visiting nuruinternational.org.
***
Original text here: https://helmsleytrust.org/news-and-insights/nuru-announces-8-5-million-grant-from-the-helmsley-charitable-trust-in-ethiopia/
* * *
Nuru Announces $8.5 Million Grant from the Helmsley Charitable Trust in Ethiopia
*
WASHINGTON, DC, September 14, 2026 -Nuru has received an $8.5 million, three-year grant from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to scale regenerative agriculture in marginalized communities, advance cooperative union and federation integration in South Ethiopia Regional State, and build nature-positive pathways to sustainable funding. With funding from the Helmsley Charitable Trust, ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 14 -- The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust posted the following news release: * * * Nuru Announces $8.5 Million Grant from the Helmsley Charitable Trust in Ethiopia * WASHINGTON, DC, September 14, 2026 -Nuru has received an $8.5 million, three-year grant from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to scale regenerative agriculture in marginalized communities, advance cooperative union and federation integration in South Ethiopia Regional State, and build nature-positive pathways to sustainable funding. With funding from the Helmsley Charitable Trust,Nuru will positively impact 450,000 people across the region.
"We are deeply grateful for the Helmsley Charitable Trust's support as we scale Nuru's proven approach to strengthening cooperatives and the rural economies they serve. By working locally to connect mature agribusinesses, cooperative unions, and regional federations, we are building the institutional foundation for change across vast landscapes. We are connecting the farmers who manage the land with the markets, resources, and systems needed to create lasting economic and ecological resilience. Together, we are ensuring hundreds of thousands of people can build a more prosperous future while having the tools, agency, and economic opportunity to steward the landscapes that sustain their families, their communities, and future generations," said Casey Harrison, Nuru Chief Sustainability Officer.
By providing comprehensive technical assistance, business coaching, and strategic partnerships grounded in digital innovation, Nuru will strengthen cooperative capacities, enabling smallholder farmers and pastoralists to build resilient, durable incomes. Helmsley Charitable Trust's timely investment will be highly impactful in Ethiopia, where poverty is once again on the rise due to the compounding effects of climate shocks, instability, severe inflation, and economic changes.
"Nuru's approach starts at the smallholder, subsistence farmer and supports their transformation into rural entrepreneurs, farmer cooperative members, and finally, agribusiness professionals that are connected to mature markets," said Walter Panzirer, a Trustee with the Helmsley Charitable Trust. "We've seen Nuru's impact on the Gamo and Gofa Zones in Ethiopia and share with Nuru the belief that building resilient livelihoods not only charts a path out of extreme poverty, but also protects against natural resource challenges, climate shocks, and regional conflicts."
Nuru's approach strengthens community-owned agribusinesses, supporting rural households to increase their incomes while adopting climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and agroforestry practices that boost yields and diversify incomes. The initiative will reach 450,000 people through 400 primary cooperatives, 19 cooperative unions, and one cooperative federation in South Ethiopia Regional State.
"It has been my privilege and honor to make a transformative impact with cooperatives to lift families out of extreme poverty. Promoting greater agency through cooperative systems has been our mission at Nuru Ethiopia for years. Now, we have a new opportunity to level up our engagement through the investment 'Building Sustainable Funding Pathways for Professional Cooperatives in Ethiopia'. These pathways enable communities to restore their land, diversify their livelihoods, and secure strong foundations for future generations. For the communities we serve, this is our moment to turn local resilience into lasting economic growth in ways that benefit people and the planet," said Abiy Meshesha, Nuru Ethiopia Managing Director.
Key components of the initiative include:
* Agribusiness Professionalism and Nature-based Solutions (NbS): Nuru will deliver comprehensive ISO 18716-aligned training and coaching to transform nascent union cooperatives and their member primary cooperatives into professional agribusinesses. In partnership with Viridian Ecosystems, mature unions will receive specialized technical assistance in NbS to access sustainable finance. As unions achieve self-sustainability, Nuru will intentionally draw down direct support, expanding capacity-building efforts to new cohorts of early-stage unions that benefit from peer mentorship.
* Regenerative Agriculture and Livelihood Diversification: Nuru will support farmers to adopt agroforestry and CSA practices through a combination of training, demonstration model farms, and digital advisory tools. Additionally, Nuru will support small livestock production and apiculture (beekeeping and honey production) to provide households with improved nutrition and additional opportunities to generate income alongside crop production.
* Financial Inclusion and Increased Incomes: Across much of South Ethiopia Regional State, rural communities remain excluded from formal financial systems due to geographic isolation, limited financial literacy, and weak cooperative financial management. Nuru will address these barriers by strengthening cooperative accounting systems and providing training that promotes savings, transparent financial transactions, and responsible stewardship of resources.
* Food Security and Crop Commercialization: Nuru will strengthen household food security by improving productivity in key high-protein crop value chains and continuing to support complementary livelihood activities, including horticulture, small ruminant production, apiculture, and fruit tree planting.
* Digital Backbone and Rigorous Verification: The project will train farmers to use SMS weather forecast data provided by ignitia to mitigate climate volatility and improve crop productivity. Nuru will also employ digital tools to track agroforestry adoption across cooperatives.
"Economic empowerment can change everything-for an individual, their family, and their community. In past projects with Nuru, we resonated with the holistic nature of its accompaniment strategy, not stopping at farming advisory and training alone but incorporating financial literacy and technology improvements which help sustain more resilient livelihoods and food security," said Melissa Crutchfield, Program Director of the Vulnerable Children in Sub-Saharan Africa Program at the Helmsley Charitable Trust. "We've seen that approach have remarkable impacts over the last few years, and we know the potential is huge for it to resonate in Ethiopia as well."
Helmsley Charitable Trust has invested in Nuru for more than a decade, including recently in West Africa, to cultivate rural community resilience. With support from Helmsley, Nuru has now reached more than 505,000 people since its founding. Nuru is honored to continue working with Helmsley in Ethiopia, scaling a model of cooperative professionalism that bridges the gap between remote smallholder farms and global markets, and creating a lasting legacy of economic and ecological prosperity.
About Nuru
Nuru is a global collective that enables inclusive and sustainable prosperity by identifying communities at the stability tipping point, strengthening rural livelihoods and market systems, and fostering stabilizing connections that repair social fabric and pave a pathway to peace. Nuru envisions a world without cycles of unjust poverty, where resilience and hope are cultivated in the most marginalized communities. The Nuru Collective operates through a network of locally-led NGOs in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Benin, and Togo, supported by Nuru US as a strategic partner. Learn more by visiting nuruinternational.org.
***
Original text here: https://helmsleytrust.org/news-and-insights/nuru-announces-8-5-million-grant-from-the-helmsley-charitable-trust-in-ethiopia/
Getty Launches Second Season of Family Podcast "If Objects Could Talk"
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 14 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release:
* * *
Getty Launches Second Season of Family Podcast "If Objects Could Talk"
*
Getty announced today the launch of season two of "If Objects Could Talk," an award-winning family-friendly podcast that brings to life objects from its art collection for curious young minds. Released weekly, season two presents 10 episodes that investigate the stories behind artworks from the museum's sculpture and decorative arts collection.
While season one focused on artifacts from the Getty Villa's antiquities collection ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 14 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release: * * * Getty Launches Second Season of Family Podcast "If Objects Could Talk" * Getty announced today the launch of season two of "If Objects Could Talk," an award-winning family-friendly podcast that brings to life objects from its art collection for curious young minds. Released weekly, season two presents 10 episodes that investigate the stories behind artworks from the museum's sculpture and decorative arts collection. While season one focused on artifacts from the Getty Villa's antiquities collectionsuch as an Egyptian cat statuette and an owl coin, this season will dive into the quirky histories behind objects housed at the Getty Center ranging from the Middle Ages to the late 19th century.
The first episode is available to stream now, and is 'hosted' by a teeny-tiny flea on the glass slide of a Rococo French microscope. Upcoming episodes include the spirited voices of a traveling snail perched on a nearly nine-foot-tall bronze vase; a griffin on a chandelier that spills centuries-old gossip; a gravity-defying bronze horse; an adventurous blue cat lovingly named "Purrqoise" by public vote; and more.
"We hope audiences will revel in these imaginative stories brought to life by our dynamic voice actors and immersive sound design," said Zoe Goldman, podcast producer at the J. Paul Getty Trust. "Whether listening on the way to school, before bedtime or on a road trip, the show offers screen-free entertainment that simultaneously helps with listening comprehension, builds vocabulary and sparks curiosity. Plus, it's super funny!"
Episodes
Episode 1: "The Magnificent Microscope and the Fabulous Flea"
It's a knight! It's a cat! No, it's a...flea? In this first episode of the season, a specimen on a slide-a flea-discusses his ornate compound microscope, the Enlightenment, and what "rococo" means.
Episode 2: "Purrquoise the Traveling Cat"
From China to France to LA, this charismatic porcelain kitty has traveled the world-and gained a new perspective in the process. Hear about 18th-century trade and travel, Madame de Pompadour's palace, and the importance of keeping an open mind in this adventuresome cat's tail, er, tale.
Episode 3: "Resting Bust Face"
This intensely tense alabaster sculpture of a head, "The Vexed Man," is used to people staring and trying to do their own versions of his extreme expression. Take it from him, though, it feels much nicer to relax than to be so stiff all the time! Hear about carving techniques and an Austrian amusement park, then end with a calming breathing exercise.
Episode 4: "A Griffin Sees It All"
Perched above the party on an elaborate chandelier, this griffin has some great stories to share. Hear how her bronze body turned to gold followed by her centuries-old gossip from dinner parties past-including the story of one quiet, observant little girl.
Episode 5: "A (Dragon's) Brief History of Time"
This great green dragon takes his position at the top of the clock very seriously. Accompanied by a monkey and a goose, these time guardians ensure there will be no "killing time" on their watch! Learn about the history of time keepers and some of the special tricks this clock has in store.
Episode 6: "A Bed Story, Not a Bedtime Story"
An ornate bed is here to tell her story-but she'll stay to tell you a classic French fairy tale after, too. Get cozy, then learn how tiring making a fancy bed like this was and where "fairy tales" come from.
Episode 7: "Small Snail in the Big Cities"
This vase might be nine feet tall and weigh half a ton, but the snail who hangs around its base isn't intimidated. Hear about how it traveled to three World's Fairs looking for a buyer and the creative ways artists have tried to make a living in this snail's story.
Episode 8: "Art Detectives: Cabinet Edition"
Is this Renaissance cabinet a fine forgery or an authentic antique? Only the skilled detectives at the museum can solve this case! And only the cabinet itself can tell the tale-in rhyme.
Episode 9: "Twenty Pounds of Horse Power"
Up on two legs, this bronze statue of a rearing horse seems to defy the laws of gravity. Even in this dramatic pose, the horse keeps his cool as he shares about the lost wax casting process that lets him stand upright and what one school group noticed when they visited him in the galleries.
Episode 10: "A Shield of Stained Glass"
Closing out the season, a courtly lady on a Medieval stained glass window panel shares a lesson on coats of arms-and why every family, even yours, should really have one! Hear how these iconic crests developed and what it took to make colorful puzzle-like windows like hers.
Learn more about Getty Podcasts and explore Getty's family programming.
***
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/getty-launches-second-season-of-family-podcast-if-objects-could-talk
* * *
Getty Launches Second Season of Family Podcast "If Objects Could Talk"
*
Getty announced today the launch of season two of "If Objects Could Talk," an award-winning family-friendly podcast that brings to life objects from its art collection for curious young minds. Released weekly, season two presents 10 episodes that investigate the stories behind artworks from the museum's sculpture and decorative arts collection.
While season one focused on artifacts from the Getty Villa's antiquities collection ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 14 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release: * * * Getty Launches Second Season of Family Podcast "If Objects Could Talk" * Getty announced today the launch of season two of "If Objects Could Talk," an award-winning family-friendly podcast that brings to life objects from its art collection for curious young minds. Released weekly, season two presents 10 episodes that investigate the stories behind artworks from the museum's sculpture and decorative arts collection. While season one focused on artifacts from the Getty Villa's antiquities collectionsuch as an Egyptian cat statuette and an owl coin, this season will dive into the quirky histories behind objects housed at the Getty Center ranging from the Middle Ages to the late 19th century.
The first episode is available to stream now, and is 'hosted' by a teeny-tiny flea on the glass slide of a Rococo French microscope. Upcoming episodes include the spirited voices of a traveling snail perched on a nearly nine-foot-tall bronze vase; a griffin on a chandelier that spills centuries-old gossip; a gravity-defying bronze horse; an adventurous blue cat lovingly named "Purrqoise" by public vote; and more.
"We hope audiences will revel in these imaginative stories brought to life by our dynamic voice actors and immersive sound design," said Zoe Goldman, podcast producer at the J. Paul Getty Trust. "Whether listening on the way to school, before bedtime or on a road trip, the show offers screen-free entertainment that simultaneously helps with listening comprehension, builds vocabulary and sparks curiosity. Plus, it's super funny!"
Episodes
Episode 1: "The Magnificent Microscope and the Fabulous Flea"
It's a knight! It's a cat! No, it's a...flea? In this first episode of the season, a specimen on a slide-a flea-discusses his ornate compound microscope, the Enlightenment, and what "rococo" means.
Episode 2: "Purrquoise the Traveling Cat"
From China to France to LA, this charismatic porcelain kitty has traveled the world-and gained a new perspective in the process. Hear about 18th-century trade and travel, Madame de Pompadour's palace, and the importance of keeping an open mind in this adventuresome cat's tail, er, tale.
Episode 3: "Resting Bust Face"
This intensely tense alabaster sculpture of a head, "The Vexed Man," is used to people staring and trying to do their own versions of his extreme expression. Take it from him, though, it feels much nicer to relax than to be so stiff all the time! Hear about carving techniques and an Austrian amusement park, then end with a calming breathing exercise.
Episode 4: "A Griffin Sees It All"
Perched above the party on an elaborate chandelier, this griffin has some great stories to share. Hear how her bronze body turned to gold followed by her centuries-old gossip from dinner parties past-including the story of one quiet, observant little girl.
Episode 5: "A (Dragon's) Brief History of Time"
This great green dragon takes his position at the top of the clock very seriously. Accompanied by a monkey and a goose, these time guardians ensure there will be no "killing time" on their watch! Learn about the history of time keepers and some of the special tricks this clock has in store.
Episode 6: "A Bed Story, Not a Bedtime Story"
An ornate bed is here to tell her story-but she'll stay to tell you a classic French fairy tale after, too. Get cozy, then learn how tiring making a fancy bed like this was and where "fairy tales" come from.
Episode 7: "Small Snail in the Big Cities"
This vase might be nine feet tall and weigh half a ton, but the snail who hangs around its base isn't intimidated. Hear about how it traveled to three World's Fairs looking for a buyer and the creative ways artists have tried to make a living in this snail's story.
Episode 8: "Art Detectives: Cabinet Edition"
Is this Renaissance cabinet a fine forgery or an authentic antique? Only the skilled detectives at the museum can solve this case! And only the cabinet itself can tell the tale-in rhyme.
Episode 9: "Twenty Pounds of Horse Power"
Up on two legs, this bronze statue of a rearing horse seems to defy the laws of gravity. Even in this dramatic pose, the horse keeps his cool as he shares about the lost wax casting process that lets him stand upright and what one school group noticed when they visited him in the galleries.
Episode 10: "A Shield of Stained Glass"
Closing out the season, a courtly lady on a Medieval stained glass window panel shares a lesson on coats of arms-and why every family, even yours, should really have one! Hear how these iconic crests developed and what it took to make colorful puzzle-like windows like hers.
Learn more about Getty Podcasts and explore Getty's family programming.
***
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/getty-launches-second-season-of-family-podcast-if-objects-could-talk
Rockefeller Foundation and TPC Announce Strategic Collaboration to Advance New Models of Impact Across Asia
NEW YORK, Sept. 12 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on Sept. 11, 2026:
* * *
The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC Announce Strategic Collaboration to Advance New Models of Impact Across Asia
SINGAPORE | September 11, 2026 -- The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC (Tsao Pao Chee), together with NO.17 Foundation, today announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to explore a strategic collaboration to address interconnected challenges across land, food, health and energy in Asia.
Announced during AT ONE IMPACT Week 2026 in Singapore, the collaboration brings together ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 12 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on Sept. 11, 2026: * * * The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC Announce Strategic Collaboration to Advance New Models of Impact Across Asia SINGAPORE | September 11, 2026 -- The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC (Tsao Pao Chee), together with NO.17 Foundation, today announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to explore a strategic collaboration to address interconnected challenges across land, food, health and energy in Asia. Announced during AT ONE IMPACT Week 2026 in Singapore, the collaboration brings togetherthese organizations with a shared commitment to exploring new ways of working across philanthropy, enterprise and capital to address complex challenges and create lasting impact across the region, grounded in the belief that love can be built into the infrastructure through which we create value and enable communities to thrive.
Across Asia, economic growth, climate change, food systems, health and energy are increasingly interconnected. Addressing these challenges requires approaches that can bring together different forms of expertise, capital and action, and connect solutions on the ground with the systems and markets needed to take them to scale.
"The greatest challenge in addressing interconnected issues like climate, food, and health is not a shortage of promising solutions. It is creating the conditions for those solutions to scale. Philanthropy can play a unique role in making that happen by supporting the alignment of capital, expertise, and institutions around a shared vision for impact. Our collaboration with TPC and NO.17 is an effort to bring this to life - where philanthropy takes early risks, business helps drive scale, and government creates the enabling environment for lasting change. Together, we are building a platform that can accelerate progress across sectors and expand opportunity in Asia when we work collectively." said Elizabeth Yee, Executive Vice President of Programs, The Rockefeller Foundation.
The collaboration reflects a shared intention to work across traditional boundaries, bringing together philanthropy and business, global and local institutions, and early-stage innovation and long-term scale, while recognizing that different challenges and opportunities require different approaches.
"Philanthropic capital has been generous and well-intended, and it is not a lack of conviction or capability. It is just that the capital that arrives does not stick or scale. We need to redirect capital to systems. Land, food, health and energy are interconnected. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether philanthropy, enterprise and investment can show up in the same place, at the same time, and stay long enough for impact to ground and sustain. We do not have all the answers, but we can co-create the possibilities together. This is what we are partnering with The Rockefeller Foundation," said Sook Yee Tai, Chair, NO.17 Foundation.
The partnership will focus on exploring opportunities across land, food, health and energy, drawing on the organizations' respective experience, networks and capabilities. It will also seek to engage a broader ecosystem of partners, including governments, businesses, investors, philanthropies, technical organizations and communities, where collaboration can help advance shared goals.
The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC / NO.17 Foundation will continue working together to identify opportunities for collaboration and develop the relationships, evidence and approaches needed to translate shared ambition into practical action.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance. For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
About TPC
TPC (Tsao Pao Chee) is a fourth-generation family business holding company headquartered in Singapore that is committed to empowering the Well-being and Happiness economy. TPC does this by supporting global connectivity and resilience through its supply chain and logistics activities, and well-being-focused activities aimed at fostering individual and collective growth. TPC's purpose-led well-being business ecosystem comprises IMC Industrial, OCTAVE, and multiple non-profit organisations, including NO.17 Foundation, OCTAVE Institute, and Restore Nature Foundation, operating in unity to add value to life, with corporate offices in the People's Republic of China, Thailand, Indonesia, and Japan. https://tsaopaochee.com/
* * *
About NO.17 Foundation
NO.17 Foundation is the nexus of capital, consciousness, and collaboration in the Well-being Era -- the philanthropic heart of TPC (Tsao Pao Chee). Rooted in SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, NO.17 unites values-aligned funders, partners, and changemakers to catalyse systemic transformation. Through trust-based giving, regenerative coalitions, and strategic ecosystem building, we activate new forms of capital -- financial, social, cultural, spiritual, institutional, ecological, and human -- as a force for collective flourishing. https://17foundation.org/
* * *
About AT ONE IMPACT WEEK
AT ONE IMPACT WEEK is a global platform hosted by TPC and NO.17 Foundation, convening leaders to build the architecture of a Well-being Economy. Taking place in Singapore, it marks a shift from ideas to systems -- where ecosystems are activated, infrastructures are shaped, and partners come together as builders. In 2026, anchored by the question, "What if love becomes infrastructure?", AT ONE IMPACT WEEK is where the Well-being Economy moves from belief into built reality.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-tpc-announce-collaboration-new-models-impact-asia/
* * *
The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC Announce Strategic Collaboration to Advance New Models of Impact Across Asia
SINGAPORE | September 11, 2026 -- The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC (Tsao Pao Chee), together with NO.17 Foundation, today announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to explore a strategic collaboration to address interconnected challenges across land, food, health and energy in Asia.
Announced during AT ONE IMPACT Week 2026 in Singapore, the collaboration brings together ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 12 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on Sept. 11, 2026: * * * The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC Announce Strategic Collaboration to Advance New Models of Impact Across Asia SINGAPORE | September 11, 2026 -- The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC (Tsao Pao Chee), together with NO.17 Foundation, today announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to explore a strategic collaboration to address interconnected challenges across land, food, health and energy in Asia. Announced during AT ONE IMPACT Week 2026 in Singapore, the collaboration brings togetherthese organizations with a shared commitment to exploring new ways of working across philanthropy, enterprise and capital to address complex challenges and create lasting impact across the region, grounded in the belief that love can be built into the infrastructure through which we create value and enable communities to thrive.
Across Asia, economic growth, climate change, food systems, health and energy are increasingly interconnected. Addressing these challenges requires approaches that can bring together different forms of expertise, capital and action, and connect solutions on the ground with the systems and markets needed to take them to scale.
"The greatest challenge in addressing interconnected issues like climate, food, and health is not a shortage of promising solutions. It is creating the conditions for those solutions to scale. Philanthropy can play a unique role in making that happen by supporting the alignment of capital, expertise, and institutions around a shared vision for impact. Our collaboration with TPC and NO.17 is an effort to bring this to life - where philanthropy takes early risks, business helps drive scale, and government creates the enabling environment for lasting change. Together, we are building a platform that can accelerate progress across sectors and expand opportunity in Asia when we work collectively." said Elizabeth Yee, Executive Vice President of Programs, The Rockefeller Foundation.
The collaboration reflects a shared intention to work across traditional boundaries, bringing together philanthropy and business, global and local institutions, and early-stage innovation and long-term scale, while recognizing that different challenges and opportunities require different approaches.
"Philanthropic capital has been generous and well-intended, and it is not a lack of conviction or capability. It is just that the capital that arrives does not stick or scale. We need to redirect capital to systems. Land, food, health and energy are interconnected. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether philanthropy, enterprise and investment can show up in the same place, at the same time, and stay long enough for impact to ground and sustain. We do not have all the answers, but we can co-create the possibilities together. This is what we are partnering with The Rockefeller Foundation," said Sook Yee Tai, Chair, NO.17 Foundation.
The partnership will focus on exploring opportunities across land, food, health and energy, drawing on the organizations' respective experience, networks and capabilities. It will also seek to engage a broader ecosystem of partners, including governments, businesses, investors, philanthropies, technical organizations and communities, where collaboration can help advance shared goals.
The Rockefeller Foundation and TPC / NO.17 Foundation will continue working together to identify opportunities for collaboration and develop the relationships, evidence and approaches needed to translate shared ambition into practical action.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance. For more information, sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe and follow us on X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation.
* * *
About TPC
TPC (Tsao Pao Chee) is a fourth-generation family business holding company headquartered in Singapore that is committed to empowering the Well-being and Happiness economy. TPC does this by supporting global connectivity and resilience through its supply chain and logistics activities, and well-being-focused activities aimed at fostering individual and collective growth. TPC's purpose-led well-being business ecosystem comprises IMC Industrial, OCTAVE, and multiple non-profit organisations, including NO.17 Foundation, OCTAVE Institute, and Restore Nature Foundation, operating in unity to add value to life, with corporate offices in the People's Republic of China, Thailand, Indonesia, and Japan. https://tsaopaochee.com/
* * *
About NO.17 Foundation
NO.17 Foundation is the nexus of capital, consciousness, and collaboration in the Well-being Era -- the philanthropic heart of TPC (Tsao Pao Chee). Rooted in SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, NO.17 unites values-aligned funders, partners, and changemakers to catalyse systemic transformation. Through trust-based giving, regenerative coalitions, and strategic ecosystem building, we activate new forms of capital -- financial, social, cultural, spiritual, institutional, ecological, and human -- as a force for collective flourishing. https://17foundation.org/
* * *
About AT ONE IMPACT WEEK
AT ONE IMPACT WEEK is a global platform hosted by TPC and NO.17 Foundation, convening leaders to build the architecture of a Well-being Economy. Taking place in Singapore, it marks a shift from ideas to systems -- where ecosystems are activated, infrastructures are shaped, and partners come together as builders. In 2026, anchored by the question, "What if love becomes infrastructure?", AT ONE IMPACT WEEK is where the Well-being Economy moves from belief into built reality.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-tpc-announce-collaboration-new-models-impact-asia/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Key Considerations for States Developing Mileage-Based User Fee Pilot Programs
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 12 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Key considerations for states developing mileage-based user fee pilot programs
States considering replacing gas taxes with mileage-based user fees can learn from pilot programs in Hawaii, Michigan, California, and Texas.
Jay Derr, Transportation Policy Analyst
Rising costs and inflation, along with increased fuel efficiency and electric vehicle adoption, have created a major problem for state transportation revenues. Many states are examining funding alternatives to fuel taxes, such as mileage-based ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 12 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Key considerations for states developing mileage-based user fee pilot programs States considering replacing gas taxes with mileage-based user fees can learn from pilot programs in Hawaii, Michigan, California, and Texas. Jay Derr, Transportation Policy Analyst Rising costs and inflation, along with increased fuel efficiency and electric vehicle adoption, have created a major problem for state transportation revenues. Many states are examining funding alternatives to fuel taxes, such as mileage-baseduser fees, to help bridge the gap between transportation system needs and revenue projections.
Seventeen states have received federal Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) grants to examine mileage-based user fees (MBUFs), which are also called road usage charges (RUCs).
Two coalitions, RUC America and the Eastern Transportation Coalition, are multi-state partnerships of transportation agencies that share research and pool funding to help member states study mileage-based user fees. More states plan to evaluate MBUFs in the near future.
However, implementing a state MBUF program is complex, and pilot programs are the first step in analyzing how a permanent program could be implemented. With some state departments of transportation already struggling to repave roads, let alone run mileage fee pilot programs, gleaning the highest value of data from these pilot programs is essential.
To maximize the effects of pilot programs, states need to learn from best practices and what has been done across the country. Roadmaps outline stages for a mileage-based user fee pilot program and what the program should be designed to address: ideally, questions that can't be modeled in other ways.
While revenue and rates, for example, can be modeled and estimated on paper, questions like how drivers will react to a road usage charge and which mileage-reporting option they will prefer are at the heart of a pilot program's goals.
Scale is also important. In this context, scale means both the program's size (participant numbers, participating agencies, departments, etc.) and its funding.
Another important question previous pilot programs have raised is how funds would flow through various state agencies and departments, for instance.
Hawaii, which has transitioned to a permanent program, may be the clearest example of a roadmap executed successfully. The Hawaii Road Usage Charge (HiRUC) had five program stages: designing the program, mailing driving reports, recruiting volunteers, testing reporting technology, and evaluating results. Each stage of Hawaii's road usage charge pilot program had a clear goal.
For example, the recruiting stage sought 2,000 volunteers to "test various technologies and reporting methods," but ensuring pilot participants reflect the broader public is challenging. People who volunteer for a pilot may be more favorable toward an MBUF than the population at large, and an MBUF pilot needs to measure skeptics as well.
The second stage of Hawaii's HiRUC pilot involved sending driving reports to more than 350,000 drivers statewide. It showed drivers what they would pay under a mileage-based user fee, an estimate of what they currently paid in fuel taxes, and why the state was pursuing an MBUF. This gave Hawaii broader reach and helped inform future decision-making.
The five-stage test culminated in a final report with recommendations for the Hawaii legislature, forging the permanent road usage charge program Hawaii operates today.
States that maintain some form of informal driving record to show an estimate of fuel tax those drivers pay now can emulate Hawaii's approach as a first step in trying to recruit volunteers for an MBUF program, sending them a simulated invoice of their gas taxes paid versus what they could pay under an MBUF program.
Michigan also addressed participant buy-in by sending surveys to a sample of 20,000 residents and measuring changes in opinion before and after the residents watched an explanation of the state's highway funding problem. Of note, the survey showed that 37% of respondents had a positive opinion of MBUFs before the video, moving to 43% afterward. Negative opinions went from 43% to 34% after the video. The survey offered a $10 gift card to any eligible resident.
Another real-life example is California's Road Charge Pilot Program, which ran from July 2016 to May 2017 and looked to test the feasibility of MBUFs, data privacy safeguards, collection methods, and public acceptance. The final report provided detailed information on those elements. However, it also stated that, while charges were simulated, actual revenue flowing through the state's system could have an impact on numerous state agencies and departments. Ideally, this is something that would have been considered for research in the initial pilot program in some form barring cost constraints on the program.
With cost savings in mind, Texas designed its pilot program to minimize per-participant costs. Texas' Miles Matter pilot, run by Carma Technology with the Texas Department of Transportation, enrolled 41,000 participants using a smartphone app. Funded through a $5 million grant, the program was the largest pilot in the country at the time. No third-party physical devices to install, no device pairing, and no proprietary equipment were required for the program. A pilot program that buys new devices and ships them to participants will run out of money far faster than one that is more cost-conscious.
Communicating the results of an MBUF pilot is as important as carrying one out. Final reports should be delivered to the relevant agencies and lawmakers, preferably in a committee setting so lawmakers can ask questions. These reports can contain whatever data are relevant, but three elements are crucial:
* Key findings;
* Remaining questions and barriers to implementation; and
* Recommendations to move forward for implementation.
Pilot programs should have a purpose, not just be research done for the sake of research. Well-constructed pilots will produce enough relevant information for lawmakers to make an informed decision about implementation or how to address identified barriers to implementation.
Pilot programs are essential for state leaders to determine if a mileage-based user fee is a realistic alternative to fuel taxes. It's unwise to begin a permanent MBUF program without first conducting in-state testing through pilot programs. State practitioners need to design pilot programs carefully, based on available funding, state-specific concerns, and lessons learned from earlier pilots across the country. Eroding fuel taxes and highway funds are problems today that will be worse tomorrow, so the sooner states start exploring alternatives, the better.
* * *
Jay Derr is a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/key-considerations-for-states-developing-mileage-based-user-fee-pilot-programs/
* * *
Key considerations for states developing mileage-based user fee pilot programs
States considering replacing gas taxes with mileage-based user fees can learn from pilot programs in Hawaii, Michigan, California, and Texas.
Jay Derr, Transportation Policy Analyst
Rising costs and inflation, along with increased fuel efficiency and electric vehicle adoption, have created a major problem for state transportation revenues. Many states are examining funding alternatives to fuel taxes, such as mileage-based ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 12 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Key considerations for states developing mileage-based user fee pilot programs States considering replacing gas taxes with mileage-based user fees can learn from pilot programs in Hawaii, Michigan, California, and Texas. Jay Derr, Transportation Policy Analyst Rising costs and inflation, along with increased fuel efficiency and electric vehicle adoption, have created a major problem for state transportation revenues. Many states are examining funding alternatives to fuel taxes, such as mileage-baseduser fees, to help bridge the gap between transportation system needs and revenue projections.
Seventeen states have received federal Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) grants to examine mileage-based user fees (MBUFs), which are also called road usage charges (RUCs).
Two coalitions, RUC America and the Eastern Transportation Coalition, are multi-state partnerships of transportation agencies that share research and pool funding to help member states study mileage-based user fees. More states plan to evaluate MBUFs in the near future.
However, implementing a state MBUF program is complex, and pilot programs are the first step in analyzing how a permanent program could be implemented. With some state departments of transportation already struggling to repave roads, let alone run mileage fee pilot programs, gleaning the highest value of data from these pilot programs is essential.
To maximize the effects of pilot programs, states need to learn from best practices and what has been done across the country. Roadmaps outline stages for a mileage-based user fee pilot program and what the program should be designed to address: ideally, questions that can't be modeled in other ways.
While revenue and rates, for example, can be modeled and estimated on paper, questions like how drivers will react to a road usage charge and which mileage-reporting option they will prefer are at the heart of a pilot program's goals.
Scale is also important. In this context, scale means both the program's size (participant numbers, participating agencies, departments, etc.) and its funding.
Another important question previous pilot programs have raised is how funds would flow through various state agencies and departments, for instance.
Hawaii, which has transitioned to a permanent program, may be the clearest example of a roadmap executed successfully. The Hawaii Road Usage Charge (HiRUC) had five program stages: designing the program, mailing driving reports, recruiting volunteers, testing reporting technology, and evaluating results. Each stage of Hawaii's road usage charge pilot program had a clear goal.
For example, the recruiting stage sought 2,000 volunteers to "test various technologies and reporting methods," but ensuring pilot participants reflect the broader public is challenging. People who volunteer for a pilot may be more favorable toward an MBUF than the population at large, and an MBUF pilot needs to measure skeptics as well.
The second stage of Hawaii's HiRUC pilot involved sending driving reports to more than 350,000 drivers statewide. It showed drivers what they would pay under a mileage-based user fee, an estimate of what they currently paid in fuel taxes, and why the state was pursuing an MBUF. This gave Hawaii broader reach and helped inform future decision-making.
The five-stage test culminated in a final report with recommendations for the Hawaii legislature, forging the permanent road usage charge program Hawaii operates today.
States that maintain some form of informal driving record to show an estimate of fuel tax those drivers pay now can emulate Hawaii's approach as a first step in trying to recruit volunteers for an MBUF program, sending them a simulated invoice of their gas taxes paid versus what they could pay under an MBUF program.
Michigan also addressed participant buy-in by sending surveys to a sample of 20,000 residents and measuring changes in opinion before and after the residents watched an explanation of the state's highway funding problem. Of note, the survey showed that 37% of respondents had a positive opinion of MBUFs before the video, moving to 43% afterward. Negative opinions went from 43% to 34% after the video. The survey offered a $10 gift card to any eligible resident.
Another real-life example is California's Road Charge Pilot Program, which ran from July 2016 to May 2017 and looked to test the feasibility of MBUFs, data privacy safeguards, collection methods, and public acceptance. The final report provided detailed information on those elements. However, it also stated that, while charges were simulated, actual revenue flowing through the state's system could have an impact on numerous state agencies and departments. Ideally, this is something that would have been considered for research in the initial pilot program in some form barring cost constraints on the program.
With cost savings in mind, Texas designed its pilot program to minimize per-participant costs. Texas' Miles Matter pilot, run by Carma Technology with the Texas Department of Transportation, enrolled 41,000 participants using a smartphone app. Funded through a $5 million grant, the program was the largest pilot in the country at the time. No third-party physical devices to install, no device pairing, and no proprietary equipment were required for the program. A pilot program that buys new devices and ships them to participants will run out of money far faster than one that is more cost-conscious.
Communicating the results of an MBUF pilot is as important as carrying one out. Final reports should be delivered to the relevant agencies and lawmakers, preferably in a committee setting so lawmakers can ask questions. These reports can contain whatever data are relevant, but three elements are crucial:
* Key findings;
* Remaining questions and barriers to implementation; and
* Recommendations to move forward for implementation.
Pilot programs should have a purpose, not just be research done for the sake of research. Well-constructed pilots will produce enough relevant information for lawmakers to make an informed decision about implementation or how to address identified barriers to implementation.
Pilot programs are essential for state leaders to determine if a mileage-based user fee is a realistic alternative to fuel taxes. It's unwise to begin a permanent MBUF program without first conducting in-state testing through pilot programs. State practitioners need to design pilot programs carefully, based on available funding, state-specific concerns, and lessons learned from earlier pilots across the country. Eroding fuel taxes and highway funds are problems today that will be worse tomorrow, so the sooner states start exploring alternatives, the better.
* * *
Jay Derr is a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/key-considerations-for-states-developing-mileage-based-user-fee-pilot-programs/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary Entitled 'Unfair Gains?'
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 12 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
Unfair Gains?
Mark Nayler
A windfall tax on Europe's fossil fuel companies won't help the green transition.
-
After another summer of heatwaves and wildfires, Spain is petitioning the EU to create a climate adaptation fund. In a letter sent to the EU's climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, the Spanish minister for the ecological transition Sara Aagesen Munoz said that Europe needs a blanket strategy to help its member states cope with climate change, and to mobilize the "resources needed ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 12 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * Unfair Gains? Mark Nayler A windfall tax on Europe's fossil fuel companies won't help the green transition. - After another summer of heatwaves and wildfires, Spain is petitioning the EU to create a climate adaptation fund. In a letter sent to the EU's climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, the Spanish minister for the ecological transition Sara Aagesen Munoz said that Europe needs a blanket strategy to help its member states cope with climate change, and to mobilize the "resources neededto deliver the necessary investments." The mobilizing strategy favored by Munoz is a permanent windfall tax on energy companies, many of which have cashed in on higher gas and oil prices resulting from the wars in Ukraine and Iran. She also recommends more mutual debt financing, similar to the (supposedly one-off) Next Generation EU scheme introduced to help member states recover from the pandemic--an unpopular idea that is unlikely to be a feature of the EU's next seven-year budget.
It wouldn't be the first time that the EU has taxed exceptional profits. In 2022, in reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Brussels imposed a minimum levy of 33% on fossil fuel companies' surplus profits, defined as being 20% above their annual averages from 2018 (this in itself highlighted one problem with windfall taxes--namely, defining "surplus" profit). So far, however, the EU has resisted reintroducing what Meg O'Neill, the CEO of BP, calls a "highly flawed response to the situation", instead pointing out that individual countries can introduce their own windfall taxes. Last month, Portugal imposed a tax of 33% on oil companies benefiting from the Iran war, saying that it was "both fair and necessary to create a solidarity mechanism."
The fairness of windfall taxes, of course, is one of the most questionable things about them. As the Portuguese finance ministry said when introducing its windfall levy, the elevated profits of oil and gas providers this year have resulted "solely from external market conditions." So why punish them? Advocates of an EU-wide windfall tax base their argument on this fact; but precisely the same circumstance provides a compelling reason to oppose them.
On this view, such taxes penalize oil and gas companies for benefiting from the operation of neutral market forces. These companies are also, of course, susceptible to market downturns--so one might expect to see them compensated by the state in hard times as well as heavily taxed during booms. That they are never compensated in this way suggests that windfall levies aren't really about fairness. One suspects that many of their advocates want to punish energy companies, even when their extraordinary profits have been achieved without subterfuge, corruption, or creative bookkeeping. Proponents of windfall taxes also tend to assume that the resulting money would be better invested by governments than private entities. But as several controversies around the Next Gen EU scheme have reminded us, that is not a given.
Munoz's letter to the EU's climate ministry comes less than a month after several EU member states put the idea of a EU-wide windfall tax to Ireland, which currently holds the six-month, rotating presidency of the Council of the EU. Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, and Austria are requesting that the presidency puts this idea on the agenda at the next meeting of EU finance ministers, due in Dublin on September 18-19. Echoing Munoz's call, they said that the EU needs a "common approach, one that ensures that those who are profiting from the crisis do their part to ease the burden on the general public."
This is another questionable assumption--that an EU-wide tax on energy providers would transubstantiate into lower prices for consumers. But in some countries, it might have the opposite effect: as with Trumpian tariffs, higher operating costs could simply be passed on to customers. Patrick Pouyanne, CEO of TotalEnergies, has already warned that the company's price caps of Euros1.99 ($2.30) and Euros2.25 ($2.60) for petrol and diesel, respectively--introduced in March and so far estimated to have cost the company around Euros200 million ($233 million)--would be scrapped if the French government imposed a windfall tax on profits connected with the Iran war.
Windfall taxes also create an unstable regulatory environment, which in turn can dramatically reduce share values. In July 2022, when Spain's Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez announced a one-off "solidarity" tax on Spain's biggest banks, Spanish-listed banking groups slumped by Euros5 billion ($5.8 billion; along with fossil fuel companies, banks are the most common target of morally-motivated windfall taxes). This "temporary" tax, which now operates on a sliding scale, has been rolled over until at least next year, highlighting another problem--that windfall levies often stick around well past their stipulated deadlines. The longer they exist, the less attractive the affected companies become to investors.
This was the main reason why ExxonMobil sued the EU over its "solidarity" tax in 2022, a year in which the American energy giant's third quarter profits hit almost $20 billion, the largest it had ever posted and triple those of the previous year ("more money than God," as then-US President Joe Biden put it). Filed through its Dutch and German subsidiaries at Luxembourg's general court, ExxonMobil's complaint stated that Brussels's windfall tax would "undermine investor confidence, discourage investment, and increase reliance on imported energy and fuel products." The case has yet to be resolved--but European courts would surely see many more like it if Spain's recommendations are acted on.
The most devastating criticism of Spain's proposal of a permanent windfall tax to combat climate change, however, is that it would be utterly self-defeating. It will cost an estimated Euros27 trillion ($31 trillion) for the EU to reach its 2050 climate neutrality goals, with the majority of that capital expected to come from the private sector. According to the European Central Bank: "Public policies should aim to remove structural rigidities, improve regulatory and administrative efficiency and foster green innovation." The EU's recent deregulation drive has those aims in mind; but a windfall tax on energy companies--especially if it remained in place for years, as Munoz recommends--would have the opposite effect, by restricting the private sector's ability to invest. Oil and gas companies are going to need more money than God to help facilitate the green transition.
In its focus on long-term prevention, rather than short-term reaction, the EU's new wildfire strategy shows the direction in which the bloc should be heading with its climate policies. Punishing companies that have profited from geopolitical turmoil might cater to public anger at their windfalls; but in the long run it won't benefit consumers, nor will it help Europe reach its climate goals. To realize those, the EU needs to work with its biggest energy companies, not against them.
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain. He writes regularly for The Spectator and Times Literary Supplement and is working on a biography of the philosopher Bryan Magee, due to be published by Bloomsbury (London) in 2028.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/unfair-gains/
* * *
Unfair Gains?
Mark Nayler
A windfall tax on Europe's fossil fuel companies won't help the green transition.
-
After another summer of heatwaves and wildfires, Spain is petitioning the EU to create a climate adaptation fund. In a letter sent to the EU's climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, the Spanish minister for the ecological transition Sara Aagesen Munoz said that Europe needs a blanket strategy to help its member states cope with climate change, and to mobilize the "resources needed ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 12 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * Unfair Gains? Mark Nayler A windfall tax on Europe's fossil fuel companies won't help the green transition. - After another summer of heatwaves and wildfires, Spain is petitioning the EU to create a climate adaptation fund. In a letter sent to the EU's climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, the Spanish minister for the ecological transition Sara Aagesen Munoz said that Europe needs a blanket strategy to help its member states cope with climate change, and to mobilize the "resources neededto deliver the necessary investments." The mobilizing strategy favored by Munoz is a permanent windfall tax on energy companies, many of which have cashed in on higher gas and oil prices resulting from the wars in Ukraine and Iran. She also recommends more mutual debt financing, similar to the (supposedly one-off) Next Generation EU scheme introduced to help member states recover from the pandemic--an unpopular idea that is unlikely to be a feature of the EU's next seven-year budget.
It wouldn't be the first time that the EU has taxed exceptional profits. In 2022, in reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Brussels imposed a minimum levy of 33% on fossil fuel companies' surplus profits, defined as being 20% above their annual averages from 2018 (this in itself highlighted one problem with windfall taxes--namely, defining "surplus" profit). So far, however, the EU has resisted reintroducing what Meg O'Neill, the CEO of BP, calls a "highly flawed response to the situation", instead pointing out that individual countries can introduce their own windfall taxes. Last month, Portugal imposed a tax of 33% on oil companies benefiting from the Iran war, saying that it was "both fair and necessary to create a solidarity mechanism."
The fairness of windfall taxes, of course, is one of the most questionable things about them. As the Portuguese finance ministry said when introducing its windfall levy, the elevated profits of oil and gas providers this year have resulted "solely from external market conditions." So why punish them? Advocates of an EU-wide windfall tax base their argument on this fact; but precisely the same circumstance provides a compelling reason to oppose them.
On this view, such taxes penalize oil and gas companies for benefiting from the operation of neutral market forces. These companies are also, of course, susceptible to market downturns--so one might expect to see them compensated by the state in hard times as well as heavily taxed during booms. That they are never compensated in this way suggests that windfall levies aren't really about fairness. One suspects that many of their advocates want to punish energy companies, even when their extraordinary profits have been achieved without subterfuge, corruption, or creative bookkeeping. Proponents of windfall taxes also tend to assume that the resulting money would be better invested by governments than private entities. But as several controversies around the Next Gen EU scheme have reminded us, that is not a given.
Munoz's letter to the EU's climate ministry comes less than a month after several EU member states put the idea of a EU-wide windfall tax to Ireland, which currently holds the six-month, rotating presidency of the Council of the EU. Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, and Austria are requesting that the presidency puts this idea on the agenda at the next meeting of EU finance ministers, due in Dublin on September 18-19. Echoing Munoz's call, they said that the EU needs a "common approach, one that ensures that those who are profiting from the crisis do their part to ease the burden on the general public."
This is another questionable assumption--that an EU-wide tax on energy providers would transubstantiate into lower prices for consumers. But in some countries, it might have the opposite effect: as with Trumpian tariffs, higher operating costs could simply be passed on to customers. Patrick Pouyanne, CEO of TotalEnergies, has already warned that the company's price caps of Euros1.99 ($2.30) and Euros2.25 ($2.60) for petrol and diesel, respectively--introduced in March and so far estimated to have cost the company around Euros200 million ($233 million)--would be scrapped if the French government imposed a windfall tax on profits connected with the Iran war.
Windfall taxes also create an unstable regulatory environment, which in turn can dramatically reduce share values. In July 2022, when Spain's Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez announced a one-off "solidarity" tax on Spain's biggest banks, Spanish-listed banking groups slumped by Euros5 billion ($5.8 billion; along with fossil fuel companies, banks are the most common target of morally-motivated windfall taxes). This "temporary" tax, which now operates on a sliding scale, has been rolled over until at least next year, highlighting another problem--that windfall levies often stick around well past their stipulated deadlines. The longer they exist, the less attractive the affected companies become to investors.
This was the main reason why ExxonMobil sued the EU over its "solidarity" tax in 2022, a year in which the American energy giant's third quarter profits hit almost $20 billion, the largest it had ever posted and triple those of the previous year ("more money than God," as then-US President Joe Biden put it). Filed through its Dutch and German subsidiaries at Luxembourg's general court, ExxonMobil's complaint stated that Brussels's windfall tax would "undermine investor confidence, discourage investment, and increase reliance on imported energy and fuel products." The case has yet to be resolved--but European courts would surely see many more like it if Spain's recommendations are acted on.
The most devastating criticism of Spain's proposal of a permanent windfall tax to combat climate change, however, is that it would be utterly self-defeating. It will cost an estimated Euros27 trillion ($31 trillion) for the EU to reach its 2050 climate neutrality goals, with the majority of that capital expected to come from the private sector. According to the European Central Bank: "Public policies should aim to remove structural rigidities, improve regulatory and administrative efficiency and foster green innovation." The EU's recent deregulation drive has those aims in mind; but a windfall tax on energy companies--especially if it remained in place for years, as Munoz recommends--would have the opposite effect, by restricting the private sector's ability to invest. Oil and gas companies are going to need more money than God to help facilitate the green transition.
In its focus on long-term prevention, rather than short-term reaction, the EU's new wildfire strategy shows the direction in which the bloc should be heading with its climate policies. Punishing companies that have profited from geopolitical turmoil might cater to public anger at their windfalls; but in the long run it won't benefit consumers, nor will it help Europe reach its climate goals. To realize those, the EU needs to work with its biggest energy companies, not against them.
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist and critic based in Malaga, Spain. He writes regularly for The Spectator and Times Literary Supplement and is working on a biography of the philosopher Bryan Magee, due to be published by Bloomsbury (London) in 2028.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/unfair-gains/