When Polling Leads You Astray: Truman v. Dewey

Leading up to November 8th, we will be looking at major U.S. presidential elections and the impact that they have made on the country. Check out 1800 and 1876. Our last blog covered the election of 1876, fast forward to the 1900s. As the 1948 election approached, incumbent President Harry S. Truman had grim election chances. The public perceived Truman as a weaker leader than four-term President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who Truman had replaced due to Roosevelt’s death in 1945. There was, once again, a split within the Democratic Party. Truman’s former secretary of commerce, Henry Wallace, was running for president as a member of the Progressive Party, leading pollsters, the public and other politicians to believe that Truman would not have a successful run.

The Republican candidate, Thomas S. Dewey, was the clear favorite to win. A Gallup poll, taken in mid-October and published the day before the election, gave Dewey a lead of 49.5 percent to Truman’s 44.5 percent. Truman believed he had lost the election when, at midnight on Election Day, NBC reported that although Truman was ahead by more than one million votes, Dewey was still expected to win. At four in the morning, Truman was awakened by his secret service agent to the news that he had gained a lead of two million votes. It was then that Truman realized he had won the election. Truman received 49.5 percent of the vote to

Truman Chicago Tribune

Photo from the Chicago Tribune of “Dewey Defeats Truman” Headline from November 3, 1948, via Wikipedia.

Dewey’s 45.1 percent, and 303 Electoral College votes to Dewey’s 189 votes.  One of the most well-known photographs of Truman’s time in office is of the President holding a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the inaccurate headline “Dewey Defeats Truman”.

The 1948 election illustrated the importance of a strong, late-game campaign that connected a candidate with voters and introduced the potentially erroneous aspects of polling. Truman campaigned energetically throughout the fall with train tours across the country, including “whistle stop” speeches delivered from the end of the presidential train. Truman’s connection with voters on the “whistle-stops,” as well as careful politicking with the key New Deal demographics, allowed him to reverse expectations on Election Day. The Republican nominee, Thomas S. Dewey was a strong candidate, having lost a close race against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944; however, his careful campaign against Truman, which stifled his previous combative style, resulted in bland speeches that left little impression on the electorate.

Gallup had significant success in presidential polling prior to 1948; such as correctly predicting the outcome of the 1936 election. After running their final poll in mid-October of 1948, the company did not believe that voters would change their minds between then and the election. This error in judgement caused them to miss indicators that voters had begun to shift support away from third party candidates and back to the major parties, leading to the Truman victory.

 

Resources:

http://www.270towin.com/1948_Election/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1948

http://millercenter.org/president/biography/truman-campaigns-and-elections

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-defeats-dewey

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/e1948election.htm

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-most-contentious-u-s-presidential-elections

 

 

A Battle of Political Parties: Election of 1876

In the late 1800s the citizens of the United States were becoming more polarized on the issue of political parties. The question of which party controlled the White House had become a matter of national concern that could cause consequences that would last for citizens’ lifetimes. By the election of 1876, Democrats and Republicans had become the primary parties of the American political system. The two parties were divided on a number of issues, but one of the most significant was each party’s perspective on Reconstruction, the recovery of the South following the U.S. Civil War. Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln, supported federal involvement in Reconstruction efforts and work to integrate former slaves into American society with equal rights under the law. Democrats, primarily represented in Southern states and with many of the same ideals that had led to the Confederacy seceding from the Union, opposed federal involvement in the South

On the evening of the 1876 election, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden appeared to be the clear winner with 184 of the 185 required electoral votes. Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes ended the evening with 165 electoral votes, twenty short of those required to win.  In the days following the election, however, it became quite clear that the results were not cut and dry. Although Hayes had won 51% of the popular vote, the electoral votes of four states − Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina − were being disputed. Both parties claimed victory in those states and accused the opposing party of election fraud ranging from Republicans accusing Democrats of refusing to count votes from African Americans and other registered Republicans to Democrats accusing Republicans of damaging pro-Tilden ballots by smearing them with ink. Those 20 electoral votes were enough to give either candidate the presidency.

While the election of 1800 had resulted in the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provided some clarification of what was to happen in the result of a tie or disputed electoral votes, the situation of four states with electoral votes in dispute was unprecedented. After months of debate and consideration, an Electoral Commission appointed by Congress and made up of five Senators, five members of the House of Representatives, and five Supreme Court Justices, had the final word. On a party line vote, the Electoral Commission voted 8 to 7 to give all of the disputed electoral votes to Hayes.

Democrats, unsurprisingly, were very concerned with the continuation of Republican leadership. The 1876 election occurred only eleven years after the conclusion of the Civil War and Republicans had held the executive office throughout the entire decade. A smooth transition to the Hayes presidency was secured with the Compromise of 1877, which removed federal troops from the South, provided federal funding for internal improvements in the South, and ensured a prominent Southerner would be named to the President’s cabinet. To satisfy that requirement of the compromise, David M. Keys of Tennessee was appointed as Postmaster General. The removal of troops from the South effectively ended Reconstruction, meaning that the Federal Government would no longer be involved in preventing racial segregation and the disenfranchisement of black voters in Southern states. After troops were removed, the Republican governments in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina collapsed, bringing a formal end to Reconstruction and returning the Democratic Party to power throughout the South. Without federal involvement in Southern affairs, legislatures in the South were able to pass segregation laws known as “Jim Crow laws” which established “separate but equal” facilities for people of different skin colors, as well as the disenfranchisement of African American voters through strict, race specific voting requirements. Segregationist practices would be part of life in many Southern states for nearly one hundred years, until the successes of the 1960’s civil rights movement.

Want to read more? Leading up to November 8th, we will be looking at major U.S. presidential elections and the impact that they have made on the country. Check out our previous post on the election of 1800.

 

Resources and Additional Reading

http://www.270towin.com/1876_Election/

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3109

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_election.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/grant-election/

http://elections.harpweek.com/09Ver2Controversy/Overview-1.htm

http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/compromise-of-1877

http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/president/display.asp?id=511&subj=president

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1876

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000156

http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/compromise-of-1877

The Historic U.S. Election of 1800

Throughout history, the race for President of the United States has been a contested affair closely watched by Americans and others around the world. Leading up to November 8th, we will look at major U.S. presidential elections and the impact they had on shaping the country.

Amos Doolittle. A New Display of the United States from the Library of Congress

Amos Doolittle. A New Display of the United States from the Library of Congress

In 1796, the Constitution did not provide for separate votes for President and Vice President, and state legislators chose electors in most states. John Adams of the Federalist Party ran against Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party. Adams won the 1796 election and Jefferson, with the second highest number of votes, became Vice President, rather than Adams’ running mate Thomas Pinckney.

Adams and Jefferson faced off again in 1800, with Charles C. Pinckney (Federalist) and Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican) running for the Vice Presidential seat. The election, decided by an electoral college, resulted in a tie. Jefferson and his running mate Burr each received 73 votes, while Adams secured 65 votes and Pinckney 64 votes.

The tie meant the election would be decided by the House of Representatives, where each state had one vote. The House was controlled by Federalists strongly opposed to Jefferson; however, two state delegations, Vermont and Maryland, remained evenly split, causing deadlock between Jefferson and Burr. Six days and over 30 tied ballots later, the Federalists in the tied states withdrew and Jefferson was elected President.

The election of 1800 was the first example of an opposition party peacefully taking over power through the electoral process. At the time, the United States was barely over a decade old and many founders worried that a change in political party could disrupt the young nation.  The election of 1800 also saw the growth of a two party system, a political development that George Washington fervently opposed, as well as the beginnings of modern campaigning through attack ads, introductory campaign headquarters, and the use of newspapers to spread political messages. Finally, the election of 1800 was the direct cause for the adoption of the 12th Amendment, which separated the Presidential and Vice Presidential races.

 

Resources & Additional Reading:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/20a.asp

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thomas-jefferson-aaron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/?no-ist

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-republic/essays/presidential-election-1800-story-crisis-controversy-and-change

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/deadlock-over-presidential-election-ends

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/elections/p/election1800.htm

http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii

Developing Big Data: Three Things a State Needs to be a Tier 1 Data Center Market

As data consumption and technology usage grow, the need for data centers to store and manage information increases at an unprecedented rate. Today, Americans utilize technology, smart phones, and the internet for everything from booking doctor’s appointments to shopping for groceries. The more data used, the bigger the need for a place to protect and store information. Phoenix is one of the top ten Tier 1 Data Center Markets in the United States, according to Colliers International. Tier 1 Data Center Markets are areas, such as Phoenix and Dallas, that house a large percentage of the nation’s data centers, and are able to provide what they need for further growth. big data, data centerPhoenix, alongside areas like San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Los Angeles, is poised to take advantage of the growth in data usage through the development of new data center markets. But what makes Phoenix one of the top ten data center markets, and how can the city maintain its position? While a number of elements are crucial to the health of a data center market, access to power, work force, and a positive tax environment are three of the most crucial aspects for a data center’s success.

1. Power

Data Centers are base load users of energy, meaning that they use the same amount of energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Without a reliable supply of energy, it is nearly impossible for a data center to operate. Arizona’s low chance of environmental disasters, such as tornadoes or earthquakes, that disrupt power delivery and redundant power supplies, through utilities like Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service, allow Phoenix data centers to enjoy a relatively reliable energy supply.

2. Work Force

Between 2012 and 2014, Phoenix tied with San Francisco as the nation’s fastest growing technology market, with a growth of 42.7%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. With several universities located in or near the Phoenix metropolitan area, the city is well-equipped to educate young professionals in the emerging marketplace. Many graduates from Arizona’s universities and colleges stay in the state; A recent study by the Arizona Republic reported that 420,000 alumni from Arizona universities and colleges are still in the state. . With enrollment in Arizona’s universities growing each year, the state is well-equipped to train the necessary workforce required to grow and sustain  a successful technology market.

3. Taxes

The third key factor in developing a strong data center environment is establishing a positive tax environment. The passage of a tax exemption for equipment purchased by qualifying data centers, and the recent finalization of the rules related to applying for the exemption, were key factors in securing Arizona’s position as a Tier 1 Market. B3 Strategies helped educate stakeholders and lobby for the passage of the tax exemption in 2014. For more information on the tax exemption and application process, please visit “The Number One Way to Save Over $2 Million on an Arizona Data Center.”

B3 Strategies represents the Arizona Data Center Coalition and supports continued development in Arizona’s data center market. The rise of big data creates new opportunities for growth in the data center space. As a Tier 1 market, Arizona continues to grow and develop its data center and technology industry; however, in order to remain competitive, the state must maintain its tax exemption and support for the industry. B3 Strategies looks forward to continuing to work with Arizona’s data centers to create partnerships and identify new ways to help serve Arizona.

If you would like additional information regarding big data, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at erice@b3strategies.com.

The Growth of Big Data in Pediatric Medicine

As technology advances, it is being used in ways that, ten years ago, people never could have imagined. One such example is the pairing of big data with pediatric medicine. Big data is a simplified term referring to large sets of data – potentially billions or trillions of records.

Tom Davis, manager of business intelligence at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, has discovered a unique way to use big data to better treat young patients. Specifically, Davis and his colleagues wanted to know how neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients were enduring testing for retinopathy, an eye condition that can lead to partial vision loss or blindness if left untreated. The team created an application that provides doctors with the ability to review babies’ vital signs before, during and after the retinopathy exam. That data is then used by the doctors to determine if and when the babies are experiencing stress so that the test can be made more tolerable.

big data, data centerOther pioneers in this field are the doctors and researchers at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, home to the Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City. Raj Srivastava, M.D., M.P.H., the assistant VP of research, says the hospital uses big data as a core indicator for many of their treatments. A dedicated team is assigned to analyzing data. The information is then provided to doctors and nurses so that they can change their behaviors and treatments based on the data they receive.

Additionally, the PEDSnet learning health system, a national network focused on improving the quality of institutions through clinical trials and research, has been instrumental in efficiently utilizing big data in the 21st century. PEDSnet’s motto is “data in once, used many times.” In other words, the company can bring in one set of big data, analyze it, and use it across a large spectrum of patients and families.

One concern some have about this immense gathering and sharing of data is privacy – who owns the data, who can share the data, and who will see the data. It is possible that with the advancement and future use of big data, some states may see legislation surrounding the procurement and use of this information. But big data, however it may be regulated, seems to have a bright future in the healthcare industry and will continue to help providers efficiently treat and monitor patients.

B3 Strategies represents both Phoenix Children’s Hospital and the Arizona Data Center Coalition. The rise of big data creates new opportunities for growth and partnerships within Arizona’s pediatric and data space. Arizona is a Tier 1 market for data center growth and development, and home to the third largest freestanding pediatric hospital in the United States. We look forward to continuing to work with both Phoenix Children’s and Arizona’s data centers to create partnerships and identify new ways to help serve Arizona.

If you would like additional information regarding big data, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at erice@b3strategies.com.

Child Life Specialists: The Unsung Heroes of Children’s Hospitals

When a child is recovering from surgery, whether it is from something minor or something much more serious, the doctors and nurses assigned to that child’s case are life-savers. They are the ones prepping the child for surgery, the ones performing the surgery, and the ones helping the child through recovery. Pediatric doctors and nurses play a vital role in the healthcare system, but a group of people you may not have heard of, child life specialists, also play an essential part in helping children recuperate and heal.

According to Child Life Council, there are about 5,000 child life specialists across the nation. Child life specialists not only take the child’s physical health into consideration, but also focus heavily on the developmental and psychosocial aspects of a child’s well-being. This provides child life specialists a broad and unique perspective into a child’s life. Some children, for example, have to be hospitalized for weeks to months at a time. Not only does this pull children out of school and delay their learning but it removes them from social situations that they would otherwise have with their peers. A large part of child life specialists’ job is ensuring children have a “normal” childhood, with opportunities to grow and learn academically and socially, just as any other child would. Additionally, these specialists are there to help family members cope and adjust to their child’s life inside the hospital.

FullSizeRender (7)A prominent valley hospital utilizing these incredible specialists is Phoenix Children’s Hospital (PCH), the largest freestanding children’s hospital in Arizona. At PCH, child life specialists are part of a larger group, the Child Life Program. This program employs twenty-five child life specialists, eleven child life assistants, and six staff members who work in the hospital’s school. According to a family quoted in a Cronkite News article, a child life specialist was deemed “a life saver for helping the family get through this tough time.” Not only do the specialists help the patient, they also help the patient’s siblings and family members understand, in layman’s terms, the medical procedures involved with the patient’s hospital stay. B3 Strategies has had the opportunity to meet some of these specialists during various tours with legislators, staff, and members of Arizona’s Congressional delegation, and they are every bit as kind and enthusiastic as people describe. Child life specialists are rewarded by having an extremely positive influence on the patients and families they work with on a daily basis. PCH’s commitment to their patients overall well-being is clear through their commitment to the Child Life Program. The work of these specialists ensures children receive the proper attention they need during what would otherwise be a traumatic and scary time in their young lives.

B3 Strategies is proud to represent Phoenix Children’s Hospital. For more information on our work with PCH, please visit www.b3strategies.com/clients/. For more information about PCH and how you can help support pediatric patients in the Phoenix community please visit www.phoenixchildrens.com.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Flag_of_Arizona.svg/1280px-Flag_of_Arizona.svg.png

Laws of the 1st Regular Session of the 52nd Legislature: Part 3 – Gambling

In this multi-part series, we will be looking at some of the laws that Governor Doug Ducey signed during the 1st Regular Session of the 52nd Legislature. You can see Part 1: Food and Drink and Part 2: Motor Vehicles. Unless otherwise stated, all laws discussed below went into effect on July 3. We will not cover all of the 278 bills signed into law, but if there is a particular bill you are interested in, please email Emily at erice@b3strategies.com and we will try to include it in an upcoming post.

This post will look at new laws related to gambling, raffles and the Arizona lottery.

HB 2182 – Raffles; Lawful Conduct

HB 2182, sponsored by Rep. Paul Boyer (R-Phoenix), allows certain entities to contract with an external organization that manages, sells, or operates a raffle if the raffle proceeds are used both to provide services to “prevent child abuse and to provide services and advocacy for victims of child abuse. The organizations must be tax exempt through either ARS § 43-1201(A) (4) or 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The organization must also have at least a two decade history of providing services to prevent child abuse and advocating for victims of child abuse. The raffles must occur no more than three times per calendar year, and the contracted organization must not receive a fee of more than fifteen percent.

HB 2312 – Amusement Gambling; Merchandise Prize Value

HB 2312 increases the market value of a merchandise prize for a single win in amusement gambling from $4.00 to $10.00. Sponsored by Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-Gilbert), the bill had bi-partisan co-sponsors including Rep. Russell “Rusty” Bowers (R-Mesa) and Rep. Mark Cardenas (D-Phoenix). HB 2312 passed 53-4 in the House and 25-3 in the Senate.

SB 1047 – Lottery Prizewinners; Confidentiality

Sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh (R- Fountain Hills), SB 1047 keeps the names of lottery winners confidential for 90 days from the date the prize is awarded. The same confidentiality does not extend to information regarding the prizewinner’s city and county of residence. The prizewinner is allowed to waive the confidentiality requirements. After 90 days, the prizewinner’s name becomes public record.

The Search for Reliable Carbon Neutral Energy

With the release of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan this summer, states are looking for new ways to reduce carbon emissions and identify carbon neutral power sources. In Arizona, reduction of coal usage and an increase in natural gas usage has been one of many considerations on how to reach the EPA’s reduction goals. With the adoption of natural gas comes risks in pricing fluctuations that could cause major rate changes for utility customers. Additionally, while natural gas produces less CO2 than coal, it is still a far cry from a carbon neutral energy source. While solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are considered carbon neutral by the EPA, without constant sunshine and blowing wind, they are unable to provide power every hour of the day, every day of the year. In the search for sustainable energy sources, biomass has become an important part of the conversation.

When timber is harvested in a forest, some materials, such as limbs and small pieces of wood, are considered unusable by mills. These materials are considered “forest biomass.” Until recent years, forest biomass was considered a mostly useless byproduct of forest harvesting, thinning, or restoration. Today, forest biomass can be used to produce energy at specialized power plants. For instance, Novo BioPower in Snowflake, Arizona utilizes forest biomass to produce power which is then sold to electric utilities such as Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project.

In June, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) introduced H.R. 2822, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. Part of H.R. 2822 was a requirement for the EPA to consider forest biomass used for energy as “carbon neutral.” The White House rejected H.R. 2822 for a variety of reasons, including that classifying forest biomass as carbon neutral conflicts with existing EPA policies and findings from the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.

While the EPA had previously rejected the carbon neutrality of forest biomass in its 2010 Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, it had also failed to note the difference between biogenic CO2, such as what is created by burning forest biomass for fuel, and fossil fuel emissions. In its newest review released in November 2014, the EPA revised its findings to note that certain forest-derived products used for energy are carbon neutral if the forests are grown, harvested, and consumed in a sustainable manner.

A carbon neutral power source absorbs as much carbon as it releases. The argument for the carbon neutrality of forest biomass hinges on a shift in how the United States’ forests absorb carbon. Historically, the United States’ forests have been “carbon sinks,” absorbing more carbon than they have released. Forests absorb carbon as they grow, and forests naturally release carbon when trees die, decay, or catch fire. When forests are in a healthy state, they are carbon sinks. For the most part, however, the United States’ forests are not healthy. With over 9 million acres burned in the United States in 2015 and increased insect damage and disease weakening trees, forests are now creating more carbon than they absorb.

With growing concern nationwide over climate change and sustainable environmental practices, it is becoming more and more important to identify carbon neutral power sources. Utilizing forest biomass opens up additional paths for potential power as well as answering a need, one that is especially seen in the Western United States, to better care for the nation’s forests. A managed forest, one that would produce forest biomass as a byproduct of thinning treatments, absorbs more carbon through growth than is “extracted through harvest.”

While considering forest biomass to be carbon neutral will not solve all of the United States’ energy woes, it is important to continue investigating biomass as a carbon neutral energy source. Additionally, support for further innovation for establishing carbon neutral sources utilizing forest biomass could better drive forest treatment as the United States’ forests struggle under decades of overgrowth. Without research and action, forests will continue to die, decay, and burn, causing further problems for the United States.  B3 Strategies will continue to watch this issue closely. If you are interested in more information or would like to add to the conversation, please email Emily Rice at erice@b3strategies.com.

The Consequences of Forest Fires: Smoke and Ozone

When a forest fire occurs, the damage it causes is widespread. This is the first part of a three part series examining the effects forest fires have on smoke and ozone, water, and the land.  For more information, please contact Emily Rice at erice@b3strategies.com.

Wallow Fire Arizona forest fires

Image from the 2011 Wallow Fire from wmicentral.com

 Where there is fire, there is smoke. Wildfires, especially catastrophic wildfires such as the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire and the 2011 Wallow Fire, cause severe smoke. Unsurprisingly, breathing smoke, a mixture of gases and fine particulates, can cause health problems, especially to individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma. Air quality conditions can cause recommendations for limiting outdoor exposure and restrictions to outdoor activities; for instance unhealthy air quality conditions in Washington State would keep all students indoors during recess.

While smoke will fade as the wildfires are put out, the health effects of smoke may linger. The Forest Service, in a 2010 report summarizing various literature, found that the health effects of smoke come from four categories: medical costs, labor loss, averting costs, and discomfort or suffering.  Unfortunately, limited research has been completed quantifying the total costs of wildfires on health outcomes nationwide or even by region. The Forest Service report concluded that forest fires cause economic costs related to health that should be seriously considered when making policy decisions related to wildfire management. What those costs are, however, they could not determine.  A separate study published in 2015 in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that wildfires may increase the danger of “acute heart problems, including cardiac arrest and ischemic heart disease, especially among vulnerable people.” A third study, completed in 2011 with researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of California at San Francisco found that more than 760,000 encounters with the health system between 2000 through 2009 could be attributed to wildfire smoke, with a $740,000 in direct healthcare costs and $14 billion in overall health costs. The 2003 wildfires in California were associated with “69 premature deaths, 778 hospitalizations, 1,431 emergency room visits, and 47,605 outpatient visits, mostly for respiratory and cardiovascular health problems aggravated by smoke exposure.”

Rodeo-Chediski forest fire Tucson, AZ forest fires

Image of the Rodeo-Chediski fire from the Tucson Citizen.

It is likely not surprising that severe smoke can cause severe illness. Yet, beyond the health consequences of severe wildfires, smoke also causes severe damage to the ozone. With the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan final rules released detailing the need for each state to reduce the carbon emissions, an important factor that is left out of the equation is carbon released from wildfires. The EPA considers carbon and particulate matter released by wildfires to be “background ozone,” or ozone that would exist without human interaction. According to a 1998 study, carbon emissions caused by forest fires made up 30-35% of their entire carbon emissions. Following the devastating wildfires in California in 2007, the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimated that the fires emitted “7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from Oct. 19 through Oct. 26, the equivalent of about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning in the entire state of California.” A second study by the same organization, published in Carbon Balance and Management found that large-scale fires in the western states can cause as many carbon emissions in a few weeks as occurs in an entire year due to vehicle traffic.

Catastrophic forest fires, outside of their damage to the land, watersheds, and the homes and structures that fire may threaten, cause damage to the health and environment as a whole, contributing to premature deaths, heart problems, and the severity of our environmental crisis. Without proper management, forests across the Western United States are at severe risk for continued catastrophic fires and the health risks that go along with them. For more information on the risk of fire in Arizona’s forests, watch Russell Smoldon discuss how forest health management is cheaper than fighting forest fires, or reach out to the B3 Strategies team at erice@b3strategies.com.

The Growth of Phoenix’s High-Tech Jobs

The Phoenix Business Journal published an article on September 1st announcing that Phoenix tied with San Francisco for the best growth in high-tech jobs among major North American markets over the past two years. The report, released by CBRE, detailed that Phoenix added 12,662 new high-tech jobs between 2012 and 2014, a 42.7% increase.

In the past two years, Phoenix added more overall tech jobs than Chicago, Austin, Boston, Los Angeles and Dallas, and had a higher rate of percentage growth compared to Austin, Silicon Valley, New York and Seattle.

While growth rates were higher in the last two years, San Francisco Bay area, Silicon Valley, Seattle and Dallas still have a significantly larger tech-industry footprint than exists in Phoenix. The good news is, though, that growth is still growth. Additionally, Phoenix’s relatively inexpensive rent (averaging $22 per square foot) is significantly less than other markets such as San Francisco ($68), Seattle ($32), New York ($69), and Silicon Valley ($49), according to CBRE. Lower rent than many of our nearby competitors makes Phoenix an attractive location for regional headquarters, with 23 Fortune 100 companies with a major base of operation in the Phoenix metropolitan area as of 2013.

B3 Strategies is proud to be part of the Phoenix business community, and will continue to watch the growth and development of our emerging technology sector. For additional information, please reach out to Emily Rice at erice@b3strategies.com.