overshot the puck factory

PUZZLE LINKS: JPZ Download | Online Solver Bonus Tuesday puzzle for you, and it’s a guest acrostic by Twitch streamer extraordinaire and all-around great guy JibbyMAX! Jibby, what do you have to say? Hi everyone! I’m very excited to present my second ever acrostic [ed note: check out the first one here!]. I was inspired...

As Barry Trotz continues to make his mark for the 13-9-3 Islanders, shot quality has been the running theme of the season. The idea is fairly simple - pass up lower danger shots to try and generate better opportunities to score. A lot of times that is easier said than done, but the Islanders seem to have - at least through 25 games - figured out some of the answers.

At a high level for the season, the Islanders rank 26th in Score-Venue Adjusted Shot Attempt Share (more popularly known as Corsi For) at 46.78% in 5-on-5 play. They rank 20th in High Danger Chance share at 48.59%. These are not great results, but the positive differential between their high danger percentage and overall attempt share percentage does indicate that they are generating a higher amount of quality opportunities than expected per attempt they take. In other words, they are practicing what they are preaching.

Over the last 10 games, the numbers are better for the Islanders. Even without Casey Cizikas, Matt Martin, and Andrew Ladd for much of the latest subset of games, the Islanders rank 19th in overall attempt share at 49.85% Score-Venue Adjusted. They rank 15th on high danger chances at 50.76% as well, which is marked improvement over their overall season performance. Below we can see the overall rolling 10 game average for the season for all attempt types, clearly indicating tangible improvements in performance as the season has progressed.

Let’s dig a bit deeper though. We know the coaching staff is accentuating the need for quality shots. However, what we can’t see in the above data are how individual players are performing themselves. The below visualization depicts some interesting findings.

Because this is looking at things solely from a team-relative perspective, we are using “relative” metrics on both axes. Essentially, what this does is normalizes all of the shot attempt data while a player is on the ice versus when they are on the bench. A Shot Attempt% Rel of 0 indicates the Islanders are no better or worse when that player is on the ice. A Shot Attempt% Rel of 2.50 would indicate the Islanders are getting 2.5% more shot attempts than their opponents, relative to the team’s average, while that player is on the ice. This works for high danger chances too, as well as any other type of attempt (shots on net, unblocked, scoring chances etc.).

From a technical perspective, a few things to call out. There is a high correlation between overall shot attempts and high danger attempts. Additionally, the data also appears to be pretty predictable given the high r-squared of 0.60. The data is also statistically significant, as the p-value is below 0.0001.

Furthermore, if we look at the diagonal trend line, we can discern a few things. The trend line itself sets expectations for future performance. In English, this means that for every coordinate on the shot attempt relative side, there is a coordinate on the high danger side that creates an expected value. You can use the following slope formula to get those expectations:

As an example for application purposes, if a player had a CF% Rel of +1.00, by plugging that into our formula, we could expect the high danger relative number to be +1.106%.

To bring this back to our chart, any player who is “above” the line (i.e. to the left of the line) has higher high danger relative percentages than their expectation (which we’d find using the formula). Any player below the line has percentages worse than their expectation.

Some key takeways? Anders Lee and Johnny Boychuk are performing well above their expectation. This means when they are on the ice, the Islanders are getting more quality shot attempts per overall attempt than any other player on the team. The player performing the worst? Jordan Eberle. When Eberle is on the ice, the Islanders are getting 4.78% more overall attempts than their opponents, but their opponents are actually getting 2.47% more high danger chances than the Islanders. That’s a huge difference and something worth monitoring as the season progresses. Below I’ve listed the overall differentials:

Now that we are over a quarter into the season, some clear findings are starting to take shape. How this ultimately parlays into the long-term strategy of Barry Trotz and Lou Lamoriello remain to be seen, but that doesn’t change the two main takeaways of this research:

There are some players who have not to the trend, both from a positive and negative perspective, which could be used in future strategy and roster construction discussions.

This was from minn kota tech support, when I was having problems getting the puck to calibrate.  "The puck does not control spotlock. Its only purpose is to orient the front of your boat, for the spotlock jog function"

My puck was next to the console and getting magnetic interference from something in that area. I moved it to the bow and it calibrated on the first try.

Tech support also said if spotlock is overcompensating, adjust the boat scale setting. All of their motors are setup from the factory for a specific boat weight. If your boat is lighter it will overcompensate. If it is heavier, it will work harder trying to hold position.

My boat is a ranger z175. I have the ultrex 80.  My boat was overshooting position. I turned boat scale down to the -1 setting. Spotlock started holding position better.

You may be familiar with the term “hockey stick curve,” used describe a trend that has been flat/stable for a very long time, but shoots up at the end of the series in dramatic fashion, resembling the shape of a hockey stick. Hockey can be a violent sport, and it’s easy to get hurt by even one well-aimed swing. Today’s world is being battered from all sides by countless hockey sticks. Mostly, they seem to be targeting Earth’s critters, who are getting bludgeoned unsparingly. But in the end, we’re only harming ourselves.

This post is structured as a gauntlet of hockey stick curves that may leave the reader feeling a bit bruised. Depending on what’s being plotted, many of the graphs shoot up like an exponential, but a few are careening downwards. A theme emerges: the “bads” go up, and the “goods” go down—and not by coincidence.

We’ll start simply. Human population looks like a hockey stick curve. This is not a surprise to anyone. The fact is greeted with a range of reactions from joy to despair, but mostly simple acceptance. Whatever your disposition, here’s what it looks like.

All the plots in this post will share the same time axis, from the year 1000 to 2200—even for those lacking information across the whole span. The point will be to emphasize the anomalous nature of recent history: what I call the fireworks show.   Maybe it would be more fair to use a 10,000 year span (civilization), or 200,000 for modern homo sapiens, or even 3 million years for the entire human saga.  On such scales, the present era loses its graceful curve and looks rather more like a sudden brick wall.

Anyway, fine. Population has surged, but what of it? Am I attaching a moral judgment to this? In itself, no. But this is just the first stick—consider it a warm-up.

It is, of course, another classic hockey stick, essentially acting as a proxy for human activity on the planet (the use of energy and materials tends to follow GWP pretty closely). You might shrug this off as just a direct reflection of population, but not so fast. Most importantly, so what if it were? Even in that case, it’s still a measure of absolute impact, which is critically important, where the ecosystem is concerned. In actual fact, GWP per capita has also risen like a hockey stick.

This, to me, is truly alarming from an ecological point of view: not only has the human population grown like gangbusters, but the level of affluence per person has soared by an even larger factor. The impact on our planet scales as the product of these two (essentially, the GWP curve from before).

A similar story is visible in energy resources. Although the data for this plot starts in 1800, biomass provided a low-level baseline (roughly scaling with population) prior to this time. Yup: another hockey stick.

The upward swing in the energy plot is almost entirely a story of fossil fuels, whose ridiculous amplification of energy available to humans is largely responsible for the population surge, the economic explosion, and a number of ills to follow.

As was the case for the GWP plot, it is instructive to see that energy per capita has also shot up over the last two centuries, as another measure of increasing affluence.

One significant application of all this energy is in extractive industries. A plot of copper production—as a representative material—since 1900 confirms that we are pulling non-renewable materials out of the planet at an accelerating rate for yet another hockey stick curve.

I don’t see much point in tracking down data for other mined materials like aluminum or lithium, or products like cement. (I could be accused of the unsavory crime of beating a dead horse—with hockey sticks)  We would not expect anything but hockey stick curves to emerge from such an exercise—at least in broad-brush.

So that’s a snapshot of resource use. What about pollution and waste? A very obvious form of pollution is CO2, which is probably why most people have heard the term “hockey stick curve” to begin with. Here is the annual (not cumulative) emission of carbon dioxide due to burning fossil fuels.

Emissions were negligible until 1850 or so, but have shot up since.  In complete disregard for Kyoto and Paris agreements, each year emits more than the prior one—for the simple fact that fossil fuels power economies like nothing else can.

For waste, I immediately thought of plastic as a proxy for what’s going to landfills, and the data turned out to be pretty easy to find. I had to combine total plastic production with the fraction discarded as waste (now down to 55%) to produce the plot, but here it is.

Plastic was a little late to the landfill scene, but despite a monotonically growing recycled (and incinerated) fraction, the total amount of waste continues to climb like a mountain goat trying to escape its fleas.

So what has all this bustle of activity done to the non-human biosphere? Are the squirrels happy with our progress? The first hint comes in the form of extinction rates. The background rate is expected to be about 0.1 extinctions per year per million species. For context, we estimate something like 10 million species that are alive today, so the background rate translates to a normal level of one extinction per year across the globe.

The data I found has pre-1900 and post-1900 numbers for birds, for mammals, and for amphibians. In order to make a plot, I picked 1960 (halfway between 1900 and now) as the post-1900 date and 1840 (symmetrically 60 years before the transition) as the pre-1900 point, to come up with the following graph.

Extinction rates for three classes of vertebrates; data from OWID. Though not shown, the implicit data point at far left is the background extinction rate.

Amphibians are in the greatest peril, followed by mammals and birds. I also hear that insects (including, of course, many pollinators) are not doing so well, and encounter “evidence” in the form of fewer bugs smashed by our windshields these days.

Note that the extinction rates were already substantially above the background rate well before climate change entered the scene. I forced the exponential curves to go through the available data points as a guide to the eye, so they should not be taken literally as predictions or even as an accurate history.  What is certain is that the extinction rates are thousands of times higher than the background rate, and rapidly getting worse.  If the hockey stick fits…

Extinction is a worst-case ecological impact: a final and irreversible winnowing of life on Earth. But on the road to extinction is population reduction. In 1970, the Living Planet Index (LPI) began tracking over 20,000 populations of nearly 5,000 species of vertebrates, finding that the number of animals now is only 32% what it was 50 years ago.  Translation: most of the animals (in this sample) have disappeared in my lifetime.  To be sure, the LPI can’t be a perfect capture of the situation, but it’s about 20,000 times better than anecdotal observations, and the outcome is a sad one.

Mammal mass on this planet is now 96% made of humans and our livestock, leaving a paltry 2% of mammal mass in the form of wild land mammals and 2% in marine mammals. If this doesn’t signify a boot on the throat of Earth’s creatures, I don’t know what would. The unjust tragedy is enormous in scale, but earns a tiny slice of our attention. If we could hear the animals talk, we might expect to hear: “I can’t breathe.”  Would we take to the streets on their behalf?

If the exponential fit has any truth to it, we’re cruising toward effective elimination of wild  mammal mass on land by 2050. OMG! Does this result justify ringing an alarm bell, or is it all part of our elegant plan for world domination?

Closely related to animal population decline is the disappearance of habitat, commonly in the form of deforestation. Data on the fraction of Earth’s land covered by forest produces the following plot.

If continuing the current trend, we might expect to be deforested by 2200. I could make a case for a more rapid demise, whereby declining fossil fuel supply may incentivize burning more firewood, as is already happening in Europe in reaction to reduced methane availability.  Prior to fossil fuels coming onto the scene, large areas of Europe were being denuded, so that timber for ships had to come from across the oceans. Thus, trees have had a bit of a reprieve this last century (while nonetheless still declining) thanks to fossil fuels.  I compute that satisfying our current 18 TW energy appetite via biomass corresponds to burning all biomass on earth (land and sea, plant and animal) over the course of just 15 years. If we turn to forests to replace even a fraction of our fossil fuel habit, these trends of decline become even more dire for forests and for the animals that depend on them.

At this point, a number of people may wish to point out that some areas in the U.S. are experiencing reforestation. This is expected when a country outsources manufacturing and extractive industries over the horizon. The global story is the important one, preventing such local shell games from clouding the overall picture.  In this case, American demand for resources causes three trees to disappear elsewhere for every one that grows back on American soil—or something to that effect.  There’s no hiding.

Presumably, in the distant past, all of the forest cover tracked in the previous plot was primeval, or “old growth.” Today, only 24% of the forest cover is old-growth. If this fraction was 50% in 1900 (my guess), we would get the following plot for old-growth forest cover:

It doesn’t look good: gone by the end of this century. How many animals and species do we consign to elimination as a result?  Is the palm oil worth it?

This is not an exhaustive set of such curves. I spent less than one day scooping up data, plotting it and drafting the post. You can easily imagine other metrics that would have the same form: they’re everywhere we look. Hint: almost anything dealing with modern human activity is likely to realize the hockey stick shape. But I think I’ve landed enough blows to leave a lasting mark.

Whatever model we have adopted for existing on this planet, it seems to be a poor choice. It appears to be on track to fail. The dream of eventually having 10 billion people living at American standards completely ignores the glaring fact that we seem to be circling the drain even at today’s impact level (i.e., overshoot). How could we possibly entertain the factor-of-five increase in resource demand that would accompany a realization of “the dream?” It seems delusional to me—and likely to turn into a nightmare if pursued.

As bad as climate change is, it’s not the core problem—just another symptom of a flawed approach to life on this planet. Many of these hockey stick curves were well underway before climate change began to disrupt the environment in recent decades, only to compound already-serious crises. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable technologies and storage will not automatically lower resource demands on the planet, and may well only ramp up the pressure. Just the massive build-out and maintenance of this infrastructure is an enormous draw-down on non-renewable resources and concomitant ecological distress. Ironically, if we somehow achieved “unlimited” energy, I tremble to think what we would use all this energy to do. Without a reversal of mindset, it seems we would simply ratchet up our crushing assault on the non-human world for the sake of short term profit and (ostensible) human benefit.

Here’s a proposed rubric for deciding what things in life are “good” and what things are “bad.” If its plotted curve is a hockey stick pointing up in the present system, it’s probably a bad thing. Extinctions are going up: extinctions are bad. CO2 is going up: CO2 emissions are bad. Waste/disposal is going up: waste is bad. Meanwhile, wild mammal mass is going down, so wild mammal mass is good. Forest cover is going down, thus forest cover is good.

Now for the trickier elements. GWP is going up. So…is GWP bad? I would say yes: a financial gain is an ecosystem loss, almost every time. Think about restoring ecosystems or setting them off limits to exploitation/extraction. Where’s the money in that? Money points the other (wrong) way: toward ecosystem failure, not ecosystem (thus long-term human) success.

Human population is going up. Also bad? Well, look. We’re not exactly doing the planet (or ultimately ourselves) any favors presently. Will adding more humans that subscribe to our current cultural model somehow make the situation better? Will improving standards of living (thus increasing resource demand) mysteriously turn things around? It’s hard to see how—not without enacting a whole new model.

One point to make is that it’s not a problem with humans per se. It’s the system humans have adopted: the one we call our global civilization. But that choice is not written in our genes. We are not obligated to cling to our current (and recent) approach to living on this planet. That’s where any real hope lies. But the change would have to be radical, and performed quickly in order to avert collapse. Thinking it can happen may be its own form of delusion.

As thrilling as this ride is (think of a roller coaster), be aware that we didn’t design the whole course for a safe and sustainable run. We therefore cannot have laid all the tracks, yet. Initiating our ride was thus a little premature, and we may regret the outcome. Can we step off the train early, before it finishes its first climb and commits to whatever plunging disaster awaits, then maybe make our way back down to safety along the side of the track?

Not content with one stupid analogy, here’s another. This fireworks show we’re witnessing is spectacular and awe inspiring. The hockey stick curves are a representation of the unprecedented dazzling nature of this experience. But now we recognize that we’re strapped to the next launch, and the fuse is lit. How enjoyable is a fireworks show to a firework?

What will it take to dowse the fuse, or shut off the roller coaster? How big of a hint do we need that this isn’t likely to work. At the very least, let’s pause and reconsider. If, after a thorough investigation, we decide to pick up where we left off, well, what real harm is done—and kudos for taking it seriously. More likely, we will continue to hear the ooohs and ahhhs, and watch people waving their hands in the air like they just don’t care.

On the day I posted this piece on Do the Math, someone threw it onto Hacker News, where it got a fair bit of attention.  As a result, the site statistics looked like the following:

“107 feet long (weighs over 3 tons, and has an accompanying 700-pound hockey puck) Manufactured by Christian Brothers Hockey Stick factory of Warroad, Minnesota. (Puck manufactured elsewhere) Eveleth, Minnesota ”

www.vision-systems.com is using a security service for protection against online attacks. An action has triggered the service and blocked your request.

Please try again in a few minutes. If the issue persist, please contact the site owner for further assistance. Reference ID IP Address Date and Time 927e85d574e382700cd18ab5857f45b9 63.210.148.230 02/10/2023 12:41 PM UTC

Given that there is no system for deliberately creating a vacuum, I"m still not sure why there should be any suction at all. Releasing pressure doesn"t create vacuum*, nor does it cause the system to drop below atmospheric pressure. I suppose if the drain is 100% full of water, then the momentum of that water might create a low pressure area behind it (i.e. it keeps going at high speed after the pressure is released, similar to cavitation in a pump or propeller), but that would seem unlikely given the very small amounts of water involved. My machine always seems to vent an air (steam?) + water mix when the three way valve is released, and that would seem likely to further reduce the chance of any vacuum being formed - for the split second of potentially negative pressure from the momentum of the water, the air in the headpsace and valve mechanism would expand, the more air the less pressure reduction. In fact, if there is sufficient compressed gas to eject all the water (as seems to be the case in my machine) such that steam/air vents after the water, then the entire concept of the vacuum being created by water moving down the pipe is moot because the water has been ejected whilst there is still positive pressure.

*OK, technically if the gas is moving fast enough there is the potential for a vacuum to be formed as the air molecules "overshoot" or generate a Bernoulli effect, but we"re not talking about the wing of a plane here, we"re talking tiny amounts of air and (relatively) far larger amounts of coffee and water.

In any case, the expansion in the video I watched does appear to be "expansion", rather than the entire puck moving upwards. I"ll see if I can find some of the other videos and have a look, but I can"t see any reason why releasing a three way valve should cause ANY suction, never mind enough to lift a puck that is underwater.

[At this point I"m ignoring what seem to be extremely unlikely explanations such as flexing of the filter, water/steam/pressure/temperature vapour pressure interactions etc.]

One thing I did notice is that through the shot pull (whilst under pressure), gas bubbles can be seen moving upwards from the top of the puck. Any compressed gas that remains in the puck (either inter or intra coffee particles) _will_ expand when the outside pressure is released, but those gas bubbles, and any other air trapped in the headspace or the valve mechanism will also expand (as mentioned in the previous paragraph) to nullify any vacuum created by fast moving water.

I"ve also always assumed (I remember my lecturers 40odd years ago - "NEVER ASSUME") that coffee expands when wet, and the finer the grind and higher the pressure would (in my mind!) create a greater depth of penetration in any given time, resulting in a larger amount of expansion. This, I"ve always assumed (!?), was also why my Teddy takes a coarse grind and 18 hours, whilst my espresso"s use a fine grind, 9bar of pressure and 25 seconds....a faster rate of movement of water through each coffee particle. Mind you, I remember reading a theory about whether the chemicals ("flavours") in espresso are actually extracted from inside each coffee particle or whether they are simply washed off the surface. But my ageing brain doesn"t recall the details!

Tom is Associate Professor in Global Public Policy at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government. His research explores how political institutions evolve--or not--to face the challenges raised by globalization and interdependence, with a particular emphasis on environmental, economic, and health issues. He holds a PhD in Politics from Princeton University, a Master of Global Politics from the London School of Economics, and a Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy from Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. His books include Beyond Gridlock (Polity 2017), Between Interests and Law: The Politics of Transnational Commercial Disputes (Cambridge 2015), and Transnational Climate Change Governance (Cambridge 2014). Tom leads the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

Joshua serves as C40"s Director of Special Projects. In this role, he currently works on the creation of an inclusive climate action plan for megacities, templates for city investment and divestment, and a host of other projects. Prior to starting with C40, Joshua was Chief of Staff to Mayor Charlie Hales in Portland, OR. As Chief of Staff, Josh worked with and advised the Mayor on long-range strategy and policy, led City efforts on addressing homelessness and was the lead for C40, where he helped launch a seven-city pilot to quantify and measure the green economy. Before joining Mayor Hales" administration, Joshua worked for 7 years as the Northwest Director of Conservation Strategies for The Trust for Public Land. Joshua holds a J.D. from the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College and a BA in Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania.

Manjyot is the Senior Program Officer, US and International Climate Cooperation at World Wildlife Fund-US and co-convenes the Alliances for Climate Action on behalf of WWF and its global partners, providing strategic support to a growing body of national alliances across North America, Latin America, Africa and Asia. Manjyot holds a PhD in Public Administration and Environmental Policy from the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC, a Masters in Corporate Sustainability from the School of Sustainability, at Arizona State University, and a Bachelor of Economics from St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai.

Jesica is a Senior Project Manager at the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, where she leads portfolio target-setting with investors in the UN-Convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance. She also serves as the Co-Director of the Investor Agenda Investor Climate Action Plans Working Group. Prior to working with UNEP FI, she worked on climate change projects across with multiple UN agencies, governments and private firms across some 35 countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Jes supports investors in understanding climate risk and aligning with the UNFCCC Paris Agreement. She graduated summa cum laude from the University of New Mexico with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics and holds a Master of Finance from the University of Cambridge, Judge Business School.

Kyra leads CDP’s Cities, States & Regions team, having joined the organisation in 2010. Prior to her role at CDP, Kyra worked in various research positions at NBC Universal, eMarketer and the City of New York. She holds a Master of Public Administration from Colombia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and a degree in Environmental Earth Science from the Johns Hopkins University. @AppleKyra

Nick is Policy and Practice lead for IEMA, on Climate Change, Natural Environment and Corporate Sustainability, collaborating across professions, partners and stakeholders.  He is also the Convener of ISO’s new Climate Change Coordination Committee and helped establish ISO Working Group 15 for ISO14068, a developing International Standard on carbon neutrality. Nick has led the development of a range of professional guidance including the development of IEMA’s GHG Management Hierarchy and with partners to develop UK principles for Biodiversity Net-Gain.  In 2016, he led the transition of IEMA to encompass a broader Corporate Sustainability focus, and merger with the Global Association of Corporate Sustainability Officers (GACSO). He has developed profession-based evidence in support of major policy developments and is experienced in climate change related guidance and standards. Nick has multi-sector experience and is both a fellow of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and a Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv).

Derik is a Senior Scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute, where his work focuses on the effective design and implementation of environmental market mechanisms, and assessing subnational and local climate mitigation policies. Prior to joining SEI, Derik was Vice President for Policy at the Climate Action Reserve in Los Angeles, where he oversaw development of the Reserve’s voluntary carbon offset program and its transition into California’s regulatory cap-and-trade program. Before that, he served on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative team at the World Resources Institute, where he managed work on the design of emissions trading programs and greenhouse gas accounting standards. Derik has a Master of Public Policy from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Bachelor of International Relations from Stanford University.

Cesar Leads the Climate Team services for Nexio Projects, a Rotterdam, Netherlands based consultancy which supports the private sector with compliance for Ecovadis, B-Corp and additional key sustainability services such as Science Based Targets support, CO2 footprint for both corporate and product based on GHG Protocol and ISO 14064, Climate Gap Analysis and Green supply chain.

Between 2015 and 2021 Cesar worked for ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability in Bonn, Germany where he led the Climate Data Team, this fruitful tenure offered the opportunity to support the 2021 edits of the Global protocol for Community Scaled GHG emissions inventory and collaborate with the Cities Science Based Target technical guidance report.

From 2011 until 2014 he worked for TÜV Rheinland in Cologne, Germany as project Manager for Carbon and Energy services in which he became acquaintance with Kyoto Flex-Mechs as well as Iso 14064 and the GHG protocol. Cesar has a Bachelor in Agricultural Engineering with a minor in business management from Universidad Católica de Guayaquil, a Master of Project Management from Universidad de León, Spain, and a Master of Sciences in International Material Flow Management from FH Trier in Germany.

Alberto is Director of Science Based Targets at CDP. He leads CDP"s efforts to help mainstream climate action within the corporate sector through the adoption of science-based GHG emission reduction targets. Alberto is co-founder of the Science Based Targets initiative, the largest voluntary climate mitigation initiative for businesses, and represents CDP in the Steering Committee of the initiative. In his previous role, Alberto led WWF’s climate and business strategy at the global level as part of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative. In his role, Alberto oversaw WWF’s global climate & business platforms, including WWF’s Climate Savers leadership program and the Science Based Targets initiative. Alberto holds a Master of Science (Environmental Change and Management) form the University of Oxford and a Bachelor of Science (Chemical Engineering) from Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

Cynthia is the Director of Private Sector Climate Mitigation at the World Resources Institute. In this role, she leads WRI’s efforts on science-based targets and is a co-founder and Steering Committee member of the Science Based Targets initiative. In her prior WRI roles, Cynthia was the Deputy Director of GHG Protocol and also managed the development of the GHG Protocol Scope.3 and Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting standards. Before joining WRI, Cynthia was the Director of Carbon Management at Clear Carbon Consulting where she managed carbon quantification and management projects for multiple Fortune 500 clients and large public institutions and she was also the Founding Director of U.S. EPA’s Climate Leaders Program, a voluntary program that partnered with businesses to develop corporate-wide greenhouse gas inventories and reduction goals.

Dr. Todd Edwards is the Executive Director of Camda for credible climate action. Until 2020, Todd was the principal advisor of research and analytics at Mission 2020 and was a co-chair of Camda for credible climate action. In his Camda capacity he is a ClimateWorks Fellow and a member of the High-level Climate Champions’ team for COP26. He is also a member of the Expert Peer Review Group for the Race to Zero campaign led by the UNFCCC. Todd is a co-founder and steering committee member of Galvanizing the Groundswell of Climate Actions.

Prior to joining the Mission 2020 campaign in 2016, Todd was the head of climate change programming at The Stanley Center for Peace and Security where he helped develop the foundation’s strategy on global policy coordination and advocacy across national and subnational governments and the private sector.

As a previous director of sustainability at a consulting firm, he led cross-functional teams in energy management, greenhouse gas accounting, and sustainability projects for cities, multinational corporations, power utilities, and public institutions. He was also a research fellow at the former Brussels Institute of Contemporary China Studies.

Todd has a Ph.D. in political science from Vrije Universiteit Brussel with a focus on the role of subnational and non-state actors within global climate change governance. He has a M.A. in international relations from Brussels School of International Studies and a B.S. in economics.

Paula leads Fundación Avina´s Climate Action Program, engaging with local and sub-national actors as well as national governments and regional networks, to accelerate the transition towards a net-zero and resilient future. Paula is member of the technical committee of Climate Finance Group of Latin American and the Caribbean (GFLAC) and was part of the Executive Committee of the Center for Climate Change and Decision Making Between 2014 and 2016. She holds a Bachelor of International Relations from Universidade de Brasília and Master of Local and Regional Development from the International Institute of Social Studies, part of Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Nehmat is Head of Global Government Relations for the Climate Group’s Under2 Coalition Secretariat. For more than ten years, she has worked with key government and private sector stakeholders on accelerating climate action in India and across the world through evidence-based analysis, expertise and stakeholder engagement. She has worked on a wide range of issues including energy efficiency, clean energy, energy access, clean transportation, international climate policy, air quality and climate resilience. Nehmat has a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Delhi and a Master of Development Studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Kennedy is currently a PhD candidate at the School of Social and Political Sciences, and the Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne. He is also the Co-Convenor of the African Research & Impact Network (ARIN). Kennedy’s research examines the role of trade policy in global climate governance. Kennedy has previously worked in public policy research and served in international climate diplomacy.

Miguel Naranjo is Programme Officer with the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, Germany. He worked as process engineer and environmental supervisor for a transnational corporation and later joined the United Nations Environment Programme, in the climate change team. He joined the UN Climate Change Secretariat in 2011, where he has focused in capacity building for mitigation and carbon market mechanisms, and promoting climate action among the private sector and other stakeholders.

Dan is the Director of Standards at B Lab, a global non-profit that serves people using business as a force for good. As Director of Standards Dan is responsible for the standards and content of the B Impact Assessment, the social and environmental performance measurement and management tool used to certify B Corporations. The B Impact Assessment is currently used by more than 100,000 businesses, ranging from publicly traded multinationals to SMEs, to measure, compare, manage, and improve their impact on stakeholders including workers, community, customers, and the environment.

Degree in Environmental Sciences, with Specialization in Chemical Sciences and Environment, Specialization in Policies and Instruments of Environmental Management and Master in Project Evaluation. She is Climate and Energy Manager at the Business Council for Sustainable Development in Argentina (CEADS). CEADS is the local chapter of the WBCSD, a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world. Since 2004, she has been leading programs and initiatives to promote climate action in the business sector, both individually and collaboratively among sectors and actors, through business-led solutions across renewable energy, circular economy, sustainable food system, natural climate solutions and SDGs. Most recently, her work is focused on promoting carbon disclosure and science based targets among companies in the region, in alliance with CDP Latin America. Currently she is Lead Author of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) on Climate Change Mitigation and previously was Lead Author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels. She is a member of the Climate Policy Working Group of the WBCSD. She participates in the expanded round-table of the National Climate Change Cabinet in Argentina, promoting business engagement in climate policy. She is a Member of the Community of Practice (CoP) on Private Sector Engagement in Climate Policy Processes in Latin America, facilitated by the EUROCLIMA+ Program, GIZ, the Regional Platform of Low Emission Resilient Development Strategies (LEDS LAC) and INCAE Business School. She acted as Expert Member of ISO Working group on GHG management in the value chain and been engaged in the development or pilot testing of GHG Protocol standards for agriculture and land sector. She also presents seminars and is a visiting lecturer at various academic institutions.

Peter Boyd is Lecturer at Yale School of the Environment and Resident Fellow at Center for Business and the Environment. Outside Yale, he is Founder & CEO of Time4Good, helping Leaders and their teams build purpose-driven paths to maximum impact. He also serves as an advisor to REDD.plus and Chair of ‘Sustainable Westport’ in his hometown of Connecticut. For over twenty years he has worked on, led and advised, high-growth organizations on purpose-driven leadership and the transition to net-zero and beyond. He was Launch Director and COO of Sir Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room; served as Chair of The Energy Efficiency Deployment Office for the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change; and led The B Team’s ‘Net-Zero by 2050’ initiative focused on business encouragement of an ambitious Paris Agreement at COP21. The Charity & Government experience followed twelve years at the Virgin Group (including CEO of Virgin Mobile South Africa), and his first job with McKinsey & Co.

Joana is an Assistant Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where she leads the Climate Change Laws of the World project – the most comprehensive global resource on climate legislation and litigation. Joana was a British Academy Post-Doctoral Fellow. She holds a PhD and an MSc from the LSE, a Masters and a BA in Law from the University of Sao Paulo. Prior to moving to the UK, she worked as an environmental lawyer in Brazil. Joana regularly advises a range of international, governments and non-governmental organisations.

Marcelo Mena is a scientist and professor turned activist and policymaker. He is the director of the Climate Action Center at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (PUCV). Previously he was the practice manager in climate research at the World Bank and the former vice minister and minister of the environment for Chile under President Bachelet from 2014 to 2018. He spearheaded multiple environmental initiatives such as taxes on new car sales and power generation based on local and global air pollution — the first of their kinds globally. He helped craft a landmark agreement to phase out coal power generation, create 45 thousand square kilometers of national parks, protect 1.3 million square kilometers of ocean and institute the first national plastic bag ban in the Americas. At the World Bank, Mena helped create the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, which includes 62 member countries that represent 63 percent of global GDP and 39% of global emissions., and contributed to the Action Plan on Climate Change Adaption and Resilience and methodology on Paris Alignment. Mena earned his PhD in environmental engineering, focusing his research on estimating the externalities of biofuels, power generation, transportation and residential heating. He used his research to advocate for renewable energy and push for more stringent regulations to stop dirty coal power generation in Chile. In his career, he has received awards from UNEP, National Geographic, Oceans Unite, NASA and EPA as well as fellowships from MIT and the Fulbright Commission.

Emma Watson joined CDP in 2021 as the SBTi’s Senior Manager for Net-Zero. Under the strategic direction of the SBTi’s Steering Committee, Emma is leading the development of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard. Previously, Emma worked at Carbon Intelligence where she led delivery of strategic services. At Ci, Emma was the technical lead for their science-based targets offering – a service which she developed and brought to market – and had worked with 30% of UK companies with approved science-based targets at the time of her departure. Emma has extensive knowledge of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Scope 3 Standard, and co-authored the UK Green Building Council’s Guide to Scope 3 Reporting in Commercial Real Estate. Emma has also worked at environmental consultancy, RPS Group, and gained an MSc in Carbon Management and BSc with Honours in Environmental Science, both from the University of Edinburgh. Emma is based in London.

Yixian is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in International Development at the University of Bath. His research explains the changing role of China in global environmental and climate governance, including sustainability transitions within China as well as sustainability impacts of China’s overseas engagement. Prior to moving to Bath, he worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Yixian holds a Ph.D. and a Master in Political Science from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva, a B.A. from Nanjing University. He is the author of Certifying China: The Rise and Limits of Transnational Sustainability Governance in Emerging Economies (The MIT Press 2022) and has published his work in leading scientific journals on environmental policy and politics including Global Environmental Change, Global Environmental Politics, and Ecological Economics.

Lisa Benjamin is an Assistant Professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland Oregon. Her research includes climate impacts and actions of non-state actors, including companies and institutional investors, with a focus on energy companies. Her doctoral studies focused on carbon major companies, corporate and energy law and climate change, and is the basis for her monograph with Cambridge University Press Companies and Climate Change: Theory and Law in the United Kingdom (April 2021). She is currently a member of the Compliance Committee (Facilitative Branch) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, nominated by GRULAC states, and a Director of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

Lisa received her B.A. from McGill University, her LL.B. from University College London, her LL.M. from University of London and her PhD from the University of Leicester. In 2018 she was a postdoctoral Global Leaders Fellow at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University, and 2019 she was a postdoctoral fellow at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University in Canada. Prior to academia, she was in private practice for eight years, as an associate in the commercial department of CMS Cameron McKenna in London (now CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP), and was a legal advisor to The Bahamian Government in the Paris Agreement negotiations.

Just a quick update which is about the half second skips, screen freezes, I"ve experienced on the puck in the living room which lead me to do a factory reset. This morning watching Sky Comedy and it was almost unwatchable as it happened so often so changing the channel and going back to the stream didn"t help. Asked my partner if the same issue was occuring on the other tv sets and we couldn"t remember having it probably the very rare half a second skip.

Then I realised that them two were on WIFI (I"ve got a velop wifi 6 router plus a matching node ) so the only puck with an issue was connected by ethernet....put it on WIFI and I was able to watch Sky Comedy for an hour with no issues after the switch; I don"t know if it"s a fluke so will wait a day or two then put the ethernet back to see if I get it again. Also I"ve had three times a loss of connection as the box was telling me there was no internet although the cable was firmly in place, and other devices were still happily connected. It could be the cable ( I will switch it with another one once I test it again; the puck ethernet socket; the ethernet socket on the velop ). I was also wondering if the DNS would be better with a Google IP first and Cloud Flare as a fall back on my router (it"s the reverse at the moment).

As for the complaints I feel they are legitimate when people are honestly trying to troubleshoot the problem and they"ve got something to compare it with. If my old 6 years old clunky toshiba telly can stream the various apps with no issues whatsover and I never had, even once, the odd temporary screen skip or audio loss in all that time then I expect new technology such as Sky Stream not to have these issues at all. I"ve had the slight odd hiccups on the other two pucks so it"s obvious they"re still tinkering with their stream delivery.

I believe in my case that WIFI has probably a slightly longer buffering amount in the cache and when connected with Ethernet that drops a little bit and the puck has to play catch up? Also my issues are never with the apps but the live stream of channels such as BBC 1, Sky Comedy and Sky Nature.

I"ve asked a couple of times if we should revert back to Sky Q but we"re still waiting until the 31 days are nearly up to make a decision. At the moment we enjoy sky stream despite these occasional issues. I seem to spend more time watching shows then looking for stuff to watch and then losing interest. So that"s a good thing