Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
Shortly after 10 a.m. tomorrow, Elaine L. Chao will appear before the Senate Commerce Committee and, barring unforeseen developments, will breeze through a confirmation hearing on her way to becoming the 18th secretary of transportation in the agency's 50-year history.
Those will likely be the least complicated moments of the 63-year-old Chao's tenure. Ahead of her lies a multitude of challenges. Chao will serve as the Trump administration's point person for a proposed infrastructure improvement initiative pegged at between $550 billion and $1 trillion, though at this point no one knows what it will entail or how it will be funded. While Congress controls the process, Chao's decades of public policy experience, which includes five years at DOT and the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), and eight more as labor secretary in the George W. Bush administration, as well as her deep political connections—she is married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—could put her front and center of what will likely be a high-profile debate.
Beyond her role in helping shape infrastructure policy, Chao is tasked with balancing the commercial demands of a rapidly changing mobility landscape and the department's top priority of ensuring public safety. The DOT's new world includes autonomous autos and trucks as well as commercial drones, areas that will only grow in relevance during Chao's tenure and will likely require different regulatory approaches. She will be dealing with ever-more crowded roadways; the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Federal Highway Administration, both DOT units, forecast today that truck ton-miles—one ton carried one mile—will rise by nearly 50 percent by 2045. She will be sought after by intermodal freight interests anxious to gain a larger share of the infrastructure pie with the phrase "freight can't wait." Chao is also likely to face pressure from motor carrier interests, emboldened by President-elect Trump's broad pledge to reverse Obama administration edicts viewed as anti-business, to rescind some of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) regulations that truckers have complained are too costly and burdensome, and not justified by the potential safety benefits.
The only two regulations seen as being off the table are the mandate that each truck built after 2000 be equipped with an electronic logging device (ELD) by the end of the year, and the creation of a drug and alcohol information clearinghouse to let employers know whether a driver had a history of substance abuse at the time they were hired. Both are believed to have sound safety principles behind them, and, in the case of the ELD mandate, have been upheld by a federal appeals court, though the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which represents thousands of owner-operators and small fleets, has appealed the ruling.
James H. Burnley IV, who as deputy transportation secretary in 1986 helped launch Chao's transport career by recommending her as deputy maritime administrator, said Chao will take a rational and analytical approach to addressing economic regulation, and she will not let it conflict with her primary mission of maintaining safe roads, skies, waterways, railroads, and pipelines, all of which fall under DOT's purview. Though Chao will not layer the trucking industry with additional regulations, she won't put its economic interests above her overarching safety mandate, said Burnley, who served as DOT secretary in the last two years of the Reagan administration and has practiced law in Washington ever since.
Burnley, who has known Chao since 1983, was effusive in his praise. "She is one of the best qualified people, if not the best qualified person, to head DOT at this point in time," he said in a phone interview.
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and OOIDA, the nation's two principal trucking groups, either declined comment or were not available to comment. The groups issued statements of congratulations when Chao was nominated in late November.
A balanced approach?
Cost-benefit analysis will be the order of the day at a Chao DOT, according to Marc Scribner, a senior fellow specializing in transport issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-enterprise think tank with a jaundiced view toward regulation. "There will be a general skepticism of regulating first and asking questions later," said Scribner, a reference to what he said was the modus operandi of the Obama DOT. Ray LaHood and Anthony Foxx, the transport secretaries during President Barack Obama's two terms, "didn't really care about the costs" of regulations even if there were legitimate questions about whether the policies would result in safety improvements, Scribner said. That mindset will change under Chao, he predicted.
A tip-off to Chao's attitude toward trucking regulation may come with her choice to head the FMCSA, which over the past eight years has often been at loggerheads with truckers over alleged administrative overreach. The most recent administrator, T.F. Scott Darling III, has been relatively non-controversial. However, his predecessor, Anne S. Ferro, repeatedly incurred the wrath of an industry that accused her of ramming unfunded mandates with dubious safety benefits down its throat. A collective outcry of motor carrier interests is believed to have contributed to Ferro's departure from the agency in July 2014.
C. Randal Mullett, who was the long-time Washington lobbyist for the former Con-way Inc. trucking and logistics company, and now heads his own lobbying firm, said he's been told Chao is "actively involved" in selecting her leadership team, which would include the heads of sub-agencies like FMCSA. Mullett expects Chao to immerse herself in truck regulation with an eye toward better understanding the natural tension that exists between safety and economic imperatives. "Every administration is different, but based on the signals coming out of Trump Tower so far ... this administration will be very focused on such details, particularly in such a vital economic sector where good blue-collar jobs are involved," he said.
Chao's supporters point to her transport regulatory experience, which besides her stint at the maritime administration included one year as FMC chair and two years as deputy transport secretary in the George H.W. Bush administration. However, Kathryn B. Thomson, who was DOT general counsel under Secretaries LaHood and Foxx and is now a Washington-based attorney, said the significance of Chao's transport experience might be overstated. Thompson noted that Chao has been away from day-to-day transport policymaking since 1991, and in the years to follow did not keep her hand in the industry. Thomson, who never worked for or with Chao, said she has conducted extensive research on her work at DOT, the FMC, and the labor department since her nomination.
Throughout her stints in government, Chao has been supremely focused on reducing regulatory burdens and improving organizational behavior, Thomson's analysis found. Chao's style was to give directives to her staff and then expect those directives to be executed without much hands-on management. She excelled at completing what Thomson called one-off projects, and did not manage by consensus. By contrast, Secretary LaHood preferred to follow a big-tent approach where he sought views from multiple stakeholders before moving forward, Thomson said. It remains to be seen whether Chao's style will mesh with the work of an agency that takes a strategic, long-term view of the industry it governs.
"She is capable of doing it," said Thomson, referring to Chao's ability to re-align her management approach. "But she doesn't have a record of doing it."
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
Chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) must proactively embrace a geopolitically elastic supply chain strategy to support their organizations’ growth objectives, according to a report from analyst group Gartner Inc.
An elastic supply chain capability, which can expand or contract supply in response to geopolitical risks, provides supply chain organizations with greater flexibility and efficacy than operating from a single geopolitical bloc, the report said.
"The natural response to recent geopolitical tensions has been to operate within ‘trust boundaries,’ which are geographical areas deemed comfortable for business operations,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, VP analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release.
“However, there is a risk that these strategies are taken too far, as maintaining access to global markets and their growth opportunities cannot be fulfilled by operating within just one geopolitical bloc. Instead, CSCOs should embrace a more flexible approach that reflects the fluid nature of geopolitical risks and positions the supply chain for new opportunities to support growth,” Manenti said.
Accordingly, Gartner recommends that CSCOs consider a strategy that is flexible enough to pursue growth amid current and future geopolitical challenges, rather than attempting to permanently shield their supply chains from these risks.
To reach that goal, Gartner outlined three key categories of action that define an elastic supply chain capability: understand trust boundaries and define operational limits; assess the elastic supply chain opportunity; and use targeted, market-specific scenario planning.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”