Sage Geosystems, a Houston-based developer of geothermal energy and storage technologies, has a Department of Defense contract to examine the feasibility of installing a geothermal power system for Ft. Bliss. The U.S. Army Climate Strategy has a target of reducing greenhouse gasses from its facilities by 50% by 2030 (with a net-zero goal by 2050) and installing a microgrid on every base by 2035 in order to enhance energy security. 

Harnessing Dry Rock Geothermal Energy

A unique aspect of Sage’s technology is that it strives to tap into heat and pressure in what are known as dry-rock formations. Most installed geothermal systems are based on hydrothermal formations, where the geology interacts with existing water near the surface to produce steam. While the latter are relatively easy to extract heat from to run turbines for electricity, they are also relatively rare and relegated to regions with volcanic activity. 

“There are 16 gigawatts of geothermal power generation around the world,” said Cindy Taff, CEO of Sage Geosystems. “And all of that is hydrothermal, which geologically is a rare occurrence. Our understanding of geology and drilling techniques are enabling us to realize a goal of deploying geothermal energy everywhere.”

Sage’s technique drills down into rock formations to a depth of 9,000 to 20,000 feet where the ambient temperature is between 218 and 485 degrees Fahrenheit. This heat exists essentially everywhere. Fluid pumped into well reservoirs is heated by the surrounding rock and is then extracted to run a Rankine cycle turbine that runs on lower temperatures. Even better, it can heat “supercritical” CO2 (which has been pressurized to a near-solid state) to drive a turbine, which Taff says is more efficient. Sage has designed and built and is now testing a supercritical CO2-cycle generator. 

In a production facility, about 18 wells are envisioned that would produce a steady output of 50MW, enough to power at least 10,000 homes. Not all the wells are active at the same time. The process of introducing fluid to be heated and extracted eventually cools the surrounding rock. However, this heats back up again over time due to the ambient geological conditions. Plant managers rotate active wells, rather like farmers rotate crops, to keep the facility productive. 

Utilizing Fossil-Fuel Industry Tech

Taff said the company makes use of “off the shelf” drilling and related equipment from the oil and gas industry to construct its geothermal wells and reservoir fields. It’s an interesting example of fossil fuel technology being used to create clean energy. 

“Our technology relies on geological analysis and modeling that also originated in the oil and gas drilling industry,” Taff said. 

If the economics prove promising, the Ft. Bliss feasibility study could evolve into a test facility. Sage performed a similar study at the U.S. Air Force’s Ellington Field base in south Texas two years ago and is now building a prototype geothermal plant there. The technology can also be applied to long-term energy storage by using the Earth’s heat to keep fluid reservoirs at usable temperatures, ready to be tapped. The company has a contract with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to build a 3MW geothermal energy storage facility for deployment later this year. 

Of course, that is only sometimes possible, and that’s why it’s essential to understand peak days, or what some companies call high-demand days. Whatever the name, there are three significant challenges you have to reckon with during those periods.

1. Peak Day Surcharges

Many private jet flight providers heap surcharges on peak or high-demand days. These extra fees range from minimal to as high as 100%. The higher the surcharge, the stronger the message that the provider would prefer you not fly on that day.

In addition to being more expensive, busy days mean more delays. They happen on the ground at private jet terminals, which are still often short-staffed, post-COVID; and in the air, where the nation’s air traffic control systems are often overloaded.

2. Longer Booking and Cancel Windows

Flexibility is a crucial reason to fly privately. But restrictions on peak days can be intense.

Programs that let you book and cancel or change your flights at contracted rates as little as 24, 48, or 72 hours before departure will have a longer lead time requirement, or what’s known as “callout,” on peak days. In some cases, it can be as much as seven to ten days before your flight.

If you cancel too late, you could lose 100% of your money, according to the terms of the contract you signed. Some programs do not permit changes or cancellations at all after you book on peak days, so read the fine print.

And no, it’s not like the airlines where they assess a fee, and you receive the remainder of your value in a flight credit. With private aviation, your money is gone.

3. Sliding Departures on Peak Days

Another great benefit of flying privately is the ability to set your own schedule. But per their contract, virtually all providers can move your flight forward or backward by three hours on peak days.

That means fewer runs down the mountain when you get a morning call that the new return time is two o’clock instead of five. Sliding departures can also be a real pain for families scheduling flights for after the kids get out of school. They can also play havoc with checkout times, meaning you are cooling your heels at an FBO (a private jet terminal) or the hotel lobby.

How Many Peak Days Do Programs Have?

According to the buyer’s guide Private Jet Card Comparisons (where I’m founder and editor-in-chief), the average at the end of Q1 2024 was 47.5 peak days per year.

While that is below the all-time high of 55.7 days in 2022, it’s double the 22.8 days average before the Covid surge of private flyers.

It’s also important to know that some providers restrict upgrading jet size on peak days and guarantee fewer seats on smaller planes. That can be a bummer, since many times, it is those holidays when you are traveling with more people. In fact, some programs don’t guarantee availability or contracted pricing in those busy periods.

How To Avoid Peak Days When Flying Private

I always recommend reviewing any peak days, high-demand dates, or blackout dates before joining a program. Providers publish their calendars for the coming year, so ask your rep to include them when they send the proposal. Also, ask for a copy of the contract to understand the policies and penalties for peak days flying.

Earth Day 1970 brought people (mostly white, young, and liberal) together on college campuses and in school auditoriums. High schoolers biked through smog-choked Denver and picked up litter on the state capitol lawn. Walter Cronkite hosted a CBS News special at the end of the day in which he concluded, “As a demonstration, it was mixed—beyond expectations here, far below there.” 

He underestimated.

Earth Day rode on a growing movement for environmental reform. Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 and the National Environmental Policy Act in January 1970. But actions accelerated after Earth Day, including—in fairly short order—the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; the passage of the Clean Water Act, National Forest Management Act, and Endangered Species Act; and the beginning of the process to phase out leaded gasoline.

Earth Day largely succeeded in its goals: Skies have cleared up considerably from where they were, even in places like LA (although it still has a long way to go). And urban sewers like New York’s East River are now prime waterfront property. What’s more, Earth Day was part of a global trend of eco reform. Paris’s Seine River will (probably) be a competition venue at this year’s Summer Olympics. EarthDay.org claims to be active in more than 190 countries. 

Earth Day’s 1990 Reboot

In my freshman year of college—two decades after the first Earth Day—I joined a coalition of students in Washington, D.C., who united with Hayes and other earlier-generation leaders to reboot the movement.

Some of the environmental threats were still obvious and in the popular zeitgeist. “I’ve gotten real concerned over what’s going to happen with all the garbage,” Andie MacDowell’s character tells her therapist in the 1989 movie Sex, Lies, and Videotape. I felt the same. I could easily smell Staten Island’s massive Fresh Kills Landfill when I visited my big sister in New York City in the early 1990s. (It’s since been buried and turned into a park.)

But climate change was largely invisible. You couldn’t see the floods, droughts, disappearing glaciers, or planetwide coral bleaching that were, at that point, mostly just predicted to happen. So public attention focused on the obvious—like all that garbage. Recycling bins appeared everywhere. My “earthy-crunchy” friends and I even dug through trash cans on campus to redirect glass, aluminum, and plastic to the proper containers.

Corporate America jumped on the new environmentalist wave—in its marketing. The chemical industry assured the public that plastic could be rejuvenated at scale—part of many proclamations by companies that were often little more than feel-good advertising. Three decades later, as little as 21% of all U.S. recyclables make it into the bin, according to new research from The Recycling Partnership. And almost all the plastic that does still ultimately ends up in landfills, according to Greenpeace, which concluded that recycling plastic at scale is essentially impossible.

Of course climate change was on activists’ minds decades ago: It was already the biggest concern for many in my circles. But it was a lot harder to communicate to the public. Earth Day got a second reboot in 2000 to focus more on this greatest of challenges.

Earth Day in the Climate Era

Today is the 54th anniversary of Earth Day. That’s not the kind of round number that usually triggers a retrospective. But this is the most significant Earth Day in decades—the first in which the planet has consistently passed the 1.5 C warming mark that portends a point of no return.

Climate change has met our expectations from all those years ago—in the worst way. And it’s no longer hidden. Unprecedented Canadian forest fires choked the east coast last year and are expected to this year. Torrential rains just doused the Arabian Peninsula, of all places. Half the world’s coral reefs will be subjected to bleaching ocean temperatures this year, and global greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. The list could go on for pages and pages.

But many of the most hopeful expectations have also come true—especially in green power. Since 1977, solar panel costs have dropped from $126 per watt to 26 cents—and solar is now recognized to be the cheapest form of energy in most cases. Wind power prices are actually dropping faster than experts had predicted just a few years ago. CO2 emissions per capita have fallen considerably in the U.S. and China.

The progress on electric vehicles is stunning. General Motors’s all-electric EV1 was quite sophisticated when it debuted in 1996, and even pretty respectable by today’s standards. It was notoriously expensive to develop and produce, however. GM got cold feet, shut down production, and in 2003 began a process of literally crushing nearly all the models as their leases expired. 

But the product’s demise inspired Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to found Tesla Motors in 2003. Electric vehicles are now the leaders in innovation and style. They may not be taking off as fast as boosters had hoped. But their growth rate is in line with how all new technology gradually ramps up. Sure, electric vehicles accounted for just 7.6% of the U.S. auto market in 2023, but that’s up from 5.9% in 2022, and it could top 30% by the end of the decade, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Changing Views

Hearts and minds have changed, too. Environmental values have progressed from the earthy-crunchy minority to the bulk of people today. A Pew Research Center survey (from 2021) found that the majority of every U.S. generation, from Boomers up, feels that addressing climate change should be a top priority. The percentages generally go higher as respondents’ age goes lower. And the partisan divide may be fading. About half of Millennials and adult Gen Zers who identify or lean Republican felt that addressing climate change needs to be a priority. (Another study shows that anxiety about the climate predominates among younger people across 10 countries, including the U.S.)

A Deloitte survey found that slight majorities of Millennials and working-age Gen Zers in 44 countries research a company’s environmental impact and policies before accepting a job (though far fewer would quit over what they learn).

And many corporations have progressed from greenwashing to serious sustainability commitments that might meet with approval, such as in material sourcing, waste reduction, green-energy purchasing, and more. Several of these efforts are led by people Worth has honored in the Worthy 100 and Groundbreaking Women, such as Vincent Eckert (Swiss Re), Alex Liftman (Bank of America), and Rachel Slaybaugh (DCVC).

Do all these positive technological and cultural developments bring hope that humanity will turn back from the brink? Yes. Are they a guarantee? No. 

Stay tuned.

Musk stated that this new batch of layoffs is due to a “duplication of roles”; however, there is a more plausible culprit. For the first time in the company’s history, its stock has been down over 31% year-to-date, as reported by Business Insider. Furthermore, Fast Company reports that sales have fallen by 8.5% each year since 2020. The company’s analysts describe this as a disaster, as some of Tesla’s competitors—such as Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, and BMW—have increased their sales in Q1. 

But Tesla isn’t alone. Ford, for example, has recently announced a delay in rolling out its new line of electric pickups and SUVs. Ford explained that it will first work on adding gas-electric hybrids, citing a slower-than-expected EV sales market as the reason for the change.

EV Market Shift Isn’t a Reason to Panic

Over the past few months, we have all heard about how the slowing EV market keeps us from hitting our CO2 emission-reduction goals. But there is no reason to panic, as the industry is following the natural product adoption process. 

Any marketing or sociology course will likely include Everett M. Rogers’s idea of the “adoption curve.” It details who and to what degree consumers adopt a new technology or product. Any population can be split into five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. 

The Adoption Stages

Innovators make up about 2.5% of the overall population. They’re eager to try anything new, not scared off by risk or the idea of failure. You can find them on crowdfunding sites like Indiegogo or Kickstarter, investing in products still in their conceptual stage. 

Then you have early adopters, who make up a whopping 13.5%. They’re willing to work around or ignore kinks in a product. But unlike innovators, they’re not as willing to risk failure. Thus, they’ll test it out before preaching it to the choirs. Think of them as the first people to own a Blackberry or iPhone. Were there bugs? Yes. Did they care? No. Did they preach about the usefulness of either product? Also, yes. 

Then, you get to the early and late majority, who together make up 68% of the population. The only real difference between the two is that the early majority is more trustworthy of data that shows a product or technology does solve a problem, at which point they are willing to try it out.

Lastly, there are laggards, who make up the remaining 16%. These are the few who refuse to try new tech even if a product is objectively better than its predecessor. They won’t naturally adopt it; rather, they must be convinced of its use and value time and time again before they even think it might be worth a look.

Where Did the Consumers Go?

So, how does this connect back to Tesla and EVs? 

Simple. Environmentalists, journalists, and market analysts alike were excited about early growth because they looked at sales data driven by innovators and early adopters. Now, we’re confronted by the reality of persuading the majority—which takes time. We jumped the gun in our excitement. That’s all. 

Let’s be frank: EVs have kinks that the majority do not want to deal with. Consumer Reports’ latest annual car reliability survey found that “EVs from the past three model years [have] 79% more problems than conventional cars.” The most common issues are with the battery and charging system, which would be the equivalent of a traditional car having an issue with its gas tank.

If you’re wondering where the majority is comfortable, that’s hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The latter vehicles can run on battery power for an average day around town and then switch to a gas-electric mix if they have to go further. When Pat Ryan, CEO of the car shopping app CoPilot, spoke with NPR, he stated, “The mainstream has adopted hybrids, so hybrid sales are white-hot.” Also, some PHEVs qualify for federal tax credits.

Using iPhone’s Roadmap for EV Expectations

Going back to the iPhone example, we can use its adoption as a roadmap of expectations for EVs. Innovators bought the product in 2008-2009; the early adopters then naturally came in with the iPhone 3GS as the product still had some bugs but nothing that would risk failure. And then with the iPhone 4, the market exploded in 2012. The early and late majority saw the mountain of evidence on how having constant access to their emails and the internet added something to their personal or professional lives but without the bugs. But that was after three years of innovators and early adopters acting as the guinea pigs.

With EVs, we are currently in limbo between the early adopters and the early majority because of persisting issues with charging speed, range, and overall reliability—just as the iPhone was before the 4’s release. In order to have the same boom as the iPhone, EV automakers need to do what Apple did—a complete upgrade. 

The iPhone 4 introduced what are now staple features, including the retina display and Facetime. Overall, it had over 100 new features and upgrades. Steve Jobs effectively took an iron to all of the 3G and 3GS’s wrinkles (antenna gate notwithstanding), such as spotty network connections and issues caused by the battery. Sound familiar?

So, as EV production begins to roll back to a more realistic pace, please note that this is the combination of the natural adoption cycle and the need for automakers to take an iron to EVs’ proverbial wrinkles.

“There are many challenges associated with a concept power plant, and the standoff distance was one of them,” said Ryan Ramsey, First Light’s chief operations officer. “This result has now given us a clear and simpler pathway to increasing the standoff distance in a power plant, which will be several meters.”

Commercial-scale fusion reactors based on this design will require electric guns positioned far enough away to survive the intense heat of the reactor chamber and still be accurate enough to hit the fuel target.

Kicking Off a Fusion Reaction

A number of companies are pursuing various approaches to achieving sustained fusion reactions as a means of generating electricity. First Light is among those focused now on the inertial containment process, where pressure from the bombardment energy helps achieve the conditions necessary for fusion. Other popular methods use electromagnetic fields to produce the needed pressure.

The U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Ignition Facility (NIF) now almost routinely announces headline-grabbing inertial containment advances. These are often touted as examples of how commercial fusion generation is just around the corner. In this context, “ignition” means that more power was generated from a fusion reaction than was used to create it.

According to First Fusion’s Ramsey, the ignition demonstration at the NIF in December 2022 was a watershed moment for inertial fusion. “NIF’s result has revolutionized the way we think of fusion and is one of the biggest milestones towards developing a commercial fusion source, because it proves that the core physics works,” he said.

A Simpler, Cheaper Ignition System

However, NIF’s mission does not necessarily include commercial fusion development, and its expansive and expensive laser-based system is not practical for sustained power generation. 

The trick is accomplishing ignition using more modest means that can be scaled into a commercial power generation setting. First Light has settled on an approach to ignition that uses lower-powered electric guns to create intense pressure instead of massive lasers that create intense heat, as at the NIF.

First Light’s system fires coin-shaped metal alloy projectiles at a special gel surrounding the hydrogen fuel. This gel transmits the inertial energy of impact into a pressure wave that compresses the hydrogen atoms, triggering fusion and a massive release of energy.

Ramsey characterized the design of the fuel-gel package as the company’s “secret sauce” that enables it to use projectiles that can be fired at much lower power levels than laser-powered, heat-based inertial containment systems require. Individual fuel packages may be dropped into a chamber and then hit by projectiles accelerated to hypersonic speeds. The projectiles are pulse-fired at targets, with each ignition event creating intense heat that turns water into steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity. 

Achieving Commercial Scale

First Light says its recent achievement demonstrates that its electric guns can be made accurate, powerful, and reliable enough to deliver projectiles on targets consistently in a power plant setting. At the same time, fusion is still a bit hazy as to when it will generate electricity for consumers. Estimates range from a decade to never. Consider First Fusion’s achievement: There is a long way to go from 10 cm to several meters. Also, the electric gun is only one part of the problem. 

“We have various streams progressing in parallel, too,” Ramsey said. “A major focus for us is to continually improve our amplifier technology that is wrapped around the fuel capsule.” He adds that the company will continue to design and develop a pilot power plant based on its projectile fusion approach. 

The important features of inertial containment remain in laboratory projects and simulations. At the same time, the radical improvement in the standoff range of the electric gun, one of its key components, shows that the way forward is promising.

Paring back our ambitious to-do list, we decided to skip the Louvre in favor of more time at the Musé D’Orsay; swap out a hotel room in a bustling area for a beautifully furnished, homey Airbnb tucked away in the 4th Arrondissement; and—perhaps most importantly—account for much-needed downtime. While it was hard for us to make some sacrifices, we knew that allowing for quiet time strolling the Luxembourg Gardens or reading at a local café would put both of us more at ease. 

There are many different kinds of travelers. From the ardent timekeepers packing every moment with sightseeing to the impromptu, “all I need is my passport,” vagabond, it is important to think about what kind of experience feels best to you. If you have the time and the means, I would encourage some experimentation. It was definitely outside our comfort zone to slow things down. But doing so led to a more rejuvenating trip that left space for the occasional (and much-needed) afternoon nap; prolonged meals; and some unexpected, treasured shopping finds we never would have stumbled across had we been racing from one place to the next. So, here are some tips on how to plan, and not plan, for a relaxing five days in Paris. 

Disclaimer: This trip may spark a sudden urge to browse Zillow for available studio apartments.

Where to Stay in Paris: The 4th & 8th Arrondissements

Opting for a cozy Airbnb tucked away in the Latin Quarter couldn’t have been a better decision. Even though ascending to our bird’s nest required climbing seven—yes, seven—flights of stairs, our little Parisian apartment quickly became one of the highlights of our trip. The lovely host had filled her home with what felt like several lifetimes’ worth of travel curios, rich textiles, books, and gorgeously curated furniture. The personal touches that surrounded us sparked inspiration. We spent one evening planning our next trip away, kept an eye out during our shopping adventures for little curios to add to our collections, and even opted for a night in—sponsored by wine and cheese—to recoup from a 13,000-step day. 

Feeling tuned into the place you are visiting, even when taking some downtime, means you can let go of the guilt for not always being out and about. You are still absorbing a new experience, just at a more comfortable pace for your body and mind. That said, not everyone is at ease renting out somebody else’s home. If you feel more comfortable in a hotel, I recommend going boutique. Request a room on an upper level, with east- or west-facing windows; and your bird’s eye view, combined with the cozy comfort of a smaller establishment, will provide a similar experience. I recommend La Réserve. This luxury hotel is situated on a quiet street in the 8th Arrondissement, but it feels like staying in a friend’s treasured home. The hotel has everything you need, including an indoor pool, gym, bar, and outdoor restaurant. 

What to Eat: Pastries & Cheese

If you’re like me and love cheese, love to learn, and don’t know much about French agricultural practices, I highly recommend this Montmartre Cheese and Wine Tasting Experience. At $55 a person, this activity is well worth the price. It is held in a small, locally owned shop called Fromagerie Racine in Montmartre. The owner, an artisan expert in cheese and making English speakers feel right at home, closed down the shop for the two-hour tasting. Dining in privacy at the singular table in the middle of the shop, we tried eight cheeses and four wines. Our guide was exceedingly generous with his portions (we couldn’t even finish the plate), as well as informative and charming. Plus, it brings you to the quaint Montmartre area—go on a Friday or Saturday and hit up the local farmer’s markets before your tasting for a local experience.

While we did end up with a hefty bag of delicious slabs from Fromagerie Racine to take home with us, we couldn’t stop there. The most impressive fromagerie we found—in terms of available selection, price point, and general experience—was Barthélémy (pictured right), located in the 5th Arrondissement. Pop in here to sample, smell, and buy some of the most glorious cheeses you can find. 

Pro tip: Plan to eat at least one or two slabs during your stay (perhaps during a picnic on the Seine), and get the rest sealed for travel. This makes for a less-stressful packing experience when it’s time to go home—particularly if you selected a few soft cheeses. 

The sheer volume of patisseries and boulangeries in Paris can feel overwhelming. And looking up “the best pastries in Paris” will likely leave you feeling even more confused.

So, here are three recommendations for tackling this very serious business:

1.  Look for the little green sticker on the window or door of the boulangerie that says “Artisan.” They can only use these stickers if their breads and pastries are made in-house. This will narrow the selection much more quickly as you walk about trying to decide where to stop. 
2. If you see a line of well-dressed people, it’s a good sign. The French don’t mind waiting for quality bread, and it’s pretty easy to distinguish locals from tourists. 
3. Gamify your pastry experience.  

Let me explain that last one. My mom owns a bakery in Western Massachusetts and is learning how to make chocolate eclairs. So, we did some market research and went on a quest to find the best rendition. While this is not a comprehensive review, we did try somewhere north of 20. Not on any list, the best chocolate eclair in Paris was made by the Boulangerie Beaubourg in the 3rd Arrondissement. While we tried many treats from each of these establishments, homing in on one specific type of pastry made it a fun challenge. We got a ranking system going and compared each one we tried to the others—this provided some structure to our wild goose chase and turned visiting countless shops into a very entertaining and enjoyable game. 

Pro tip: Grab a few extra pastries to return to your apartment or hotel room. They may be inconvenient to carry around, but if you bring a tote, you will be very happy to have them after your downtime snack of bread, cheese, and wine. 

What to Do: Landmarks, Shopping & Tours

This is where you are going to have to exercise some restraint. While it is tempting to try to see a significant site every day, I recommend choosing just a couple off of this list: The Eiffel Tower, The Louvre, Musé D’Orsay, Sacre Coeur, Luxembourg Gardens, Notre Dame, and The Pantheon. These famous locations are worth a trip, but spend too long running from one to the next, and you will find your time in Paris overrun by crowds of tourists. Instead, opt for just a couple scattered throughout your stay, and don’t be afraid to leave plenty of time for free-range exploration in the surrounding area. 

A city famed for its couture, Paris has plenty of luxury shopping. I wouldn’t blame you if you head straight for Maje, but don’t forget about the boutique options, too. A particular favorite of mine is Nina Kendosa Paris in the 6th, where you will find the last word in indulgent loungewear. A hole-in-the-wall leather goods shop called Sidonis Maroquinerie in the 18th is also worth a visit—a great place to stop after seeing Sacre Coeur. The proprietor seems to have morphed with his shop over the decades, eventually becoming part of the wall of haphazardly placed yet perfectly maintained, gorgeous vintage purses. It’s a little hard to spot, but you’ll make his day and yours because it’s impossible to walk out of there without picking up one of his collection. For those classic Parisian textiles, I recommend a stop at Simrane, which offers a beautiful selection of handmade quilts, throw pillows, placemats, etc.  

Don’t forget your umbrella. 

Finally, there are several tours that, while a bit cheesy, can add a really special element to your trip. Sitting back and letting someone else take the wheel for a few hours while you get to soak in the sights and architecture the city is known for is a lovely reprieve from the impossible decisions you had to make all day. Boulangerie or fromagerie? The designer first or the boutique? I recommend an evening boat tour along the River Seine. Bateaux Parisiens is a great option. Starting close to the Eiffel Tower base, you will cruise along for about two hours (depending on the package you select) and understand why it is called The City of Light. Green River Cruises offers a beautiful selection of private services if you want to avoid other people for an even more relaxing experience.

Remembering this experience, we thought it was time to get an update from Robin Kelley O’Connor, one of the world’s leading wine experts, lecturer, sommelier, writer, and international wine judge. What follows is an extremely truncated biography.

Mr. O’Connor is co-host with Kevin Zraly on “Windows on the World Virtual Wine School.” He worked for Italian Wine Merchants, as the director of wine education and private client portfolio advisor, specializing in rare and collectable wines. He was previously vice president, lead specialist, and head of wine, Americas, for Christie’s Auction House, and vice president at Sherry-Lehmann. He worked for 20 years with the Bordeaux Wine Bureau. He has been inducted into the wine world’s most prestigious institutions, including the Commanderie du Bontemps de Médoc, the Jurade de Saint-Emilion, Les Hospitaliers de Pomerol, and NY Chapter of the Commanderie de Bordeaux.

Before asking him about ethical wines, we asked him a little more about himself.

(This interview has been edited for clarity and space.)

What piqued your interest in the world of wine? 

Robin Kelley O’Connor: I noticed there was a wine appreciation course at my college, the University of Maryland, given by their adult education department, the largest university in the U.S. Because wine explains history, geography, and cultural mores, it fits nicely into my interests as a European history and political science major. The professor had us taste all the grand crus during the two years I took these classes. This was so many decades ago that the prices, even for the best wines, were a fraction of what they are today. Students could taste the best in a classroom. I was intrigued and started reading everything I could about wine, which wasn’t much then.  

Then I did a semester abroad in Eastern Europe where wine was offered with every meal, so I learned a lot about Eastern European wines—not the usual route of France or Italy as the foundational wines.

A few years after graduation, I planned a two-month trip to Europe but I “missed” my return flight and stayed five years, mostly in Paris, but with significant periods in the rest of France, Spain, and the UK, where I was allowed to take wine classes in return for doing entry-level work. Before that, in France, I worked with several prestigious Chateaux picking their grapes. 

From there, how and why did you make the transition to fine wine? 

The Chateaubriand Restaurant at London’s Mayfair Hotel didn’t have anyone who knew how to decant wine. No kidding. To get the job, all I had to do was decant an old port without damaging the decomposing cork. I was 25 years old, working with one of London’s best wine lists. It was a night job, so I could continue with my wine education during the day. Luckily, this included more grand cru tastings. My mentor, Michael Broadbent, happened to be the head of Christie’s wine department. He was considered the world’s greatest wine taster.

In your exploration of fine wine, when did you realize that so many of the world’s top wines are quietly organic or biodynamic? 

People were flirting with organic grape growing in the 90’s. I started working with the Bordeaux Wine Bureau in ’89. There’s a French wine expo every other year. The first organic participants I remember came from a small movement in the Loire Valley, led by Nicolas Joly and his Clos de la Coulee de Serrant, along with Burgundy’s Lalou Bixe-Leroy. They organized an organic wine side event that grew over time. Participants included a few vineyards from Burgundy, notably André Noblet’s, La Romanée-Conti. There were also pioneers from Alsace and Minervois. By 1995, the organic movement was reaching a critical mass with the driest areas, where it’s easiest to grow grapes, like Alsace, in the forefront. Notable vineyards were and are Zind-Humbrecht, Marcel Deiss, and Domaine Weinbach. 

There are 5,300 chateaux in Bordeaux. By 2025, all aim to be sustainable, which means a lot in France. They’re tackling something difficult because Bordeaux is infused with moisture from the Atlantic. 

How has the world of fine wine changed in the decades you’ve been doing this? 

Overall, wines have never been better. We’re in the golden era of wine. It’s such a lucky time for both consumers and professionals. The only regret I have for young people is they can’t afford to taste the top wines. When I was a poor student, I could experience the best. Now Petrus is $4,200 a bottle. I can’t buy it now, but I have so many vivid memories because I worked there for 2 years. Also, young producers who used to sell to coops now take pride in bottling their own wines. Up and down the wine chain, the emphasis is on quality. For example, the late, legendary Burgundian négociant, Becky Wasserman taught us to care about terroir.

If a vineyard is organic or biodynamic, why would they choose not to tell the consumer? 

There are a few reasons. Mostly because they sell out, so they don’t need it as a marketing tool. Also, they don’t want to be labeled as making wine in a particular way. Lastly, many of these family producers have been making wine for generations before there was such a thing as pesticides. They never used them, so why advertise them now? 

What do you think the future of organic/biodynamic wine is? Is it on the upswing or not?  

I see it as a gradual growth. For example, in Bordeaux, only 77 of the 5,300 vineyards are certified biodynamic. But with the sustainable movement taking hold there, I think you will see other Chateaux becoming organic. There’s a global push to be environmentally friendly. Organic is a step toward that. 

Which is most important to consumers: organic, biodynamic, or natural? 

Organic is first. Most people appreciate what it means. Next is natural, which I’m not a fan of but has taken hold in a big way among young drinkers. I fear their inconsistency and odd characteristics may damage the reputation of good organic and biodynamic wines. Last is biodynamic because most people don’t understand the farming requirements.

In your opinion, which country is the leader in the ethical wine movement? 

Italy is at the forefront because they have the weather and soil, making ethical farming easier. But France and Spain aren’t far behind.

How important do you think ethically made wine is to retailers?

Those in hipper, younger neighborhoods, like Brooklyn, care. I don’t think it’s gone mainstream yet.

When you are drinking for your pleasure, do you seek out bio/org wines? 

Not really. It’s a bonus if it’s organic or biodynamic, but I’m more interested in drinking the most rewarding wine.

Where is the movement going?

Currently, the whole world is focused on the concept of sustainability.  But it’s a baby step.   

Robin Kelley O’Connor’s Top Picks

France 

Château Palmer, Petrus, Château Pontet-Canet, the very affordable Clos du Jaugueyron, Château Y’quem, Domaine Zind Humbrecht, Domaine Weinbach, Gerard Bertrand Source of Joy Rose

Spain

Alvaro Palacios’s Finca Dofi and his $600 L’ermita, Raventós sparkling wine blanc de blanc ($20!)

Italy 

Querciabella Chianti Classico

Argentina 

Catena High Mountain

California 

Opus One, Iron Horse sparkling Ocean Reserve, Tablas Creek (joint French-American venture) 

There is no evidence that anyone in the EA movement was aware of the FTX fraud, and one of its founders, Will MacAskill, has strongly denounced Bankman-Fried’s actions. Still, the company’s collapse, and SBF’s November 2023 conviction for stealing billions of dollars from customer accounts, caused immense reputational damage to the movement.

The Baggage of Sam Bankman-Fried

It wasn’t just because FTX had funneled game-changing amounts of money in its direction. Until 2019, Bankman-Fried had also served on the Center for Effective Altruism board, which MacAskill co-founded. Mac-Askill served on the board of the FTX Future Fund—until resigning in November 2022. 

It was also a huge black eye for effective altruism’s “earn to give” philosophy, which encourages individuals to amass as much wealth as possible to give it away. MacAskill reportedly convinced Bankman-Fried to do just that by taking a high-paying job in finance when he was an undergraduate at MIT. SBF was later billed as the “world’s most generous billionaire” for his support of EA causes since then.

Intentionally or not, ‘‘earn to give’’ has concentrated decision-making power about who benefits from effective altruism around the globe in the hands of a small group of billionaires—the wealthiest of them in tech. Bankman-Fried was not even the movement’s largest funder. Open Philanthropy, set up by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna, is by far the biggest donor to EA causes, and handed out over $650 million of grants in 2022 alone. 

Launching the Effective Altruism Movement

Effective altruism certainly didn’t begin this way in 2009, when MacAskill and fellow Oxford University postgraduate philosophy student Toby Ord founded Giving What We Can. The charity asks that normal people, not billionaires, pledge to give at least 10% of their income to “effective” charities, and to date it has received pledges from 8,703 people in 99 countries, totaling $3.8 billion.

Since then, the movement has spawned many other nonprofits in the U.K. and the U.S. that have collectively raised billions more from a large donor pool. GiveWell, a U.S. nonprofit that researches and funds charities that it estimates save or improve the most lives per dollar, raised over $600 million in 2022. 

How effective altruism expanded in a few short years was dramatic. Its key tenets—focusing on doing social good, making decisions informed by evidence and logic, and intentionally trying to do as much good as you can—were not new. So says Katherina Rosqueta, founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy and faculty co-director at the University of Pennsylvania’s High Impact Philanthropy Academy.

However, increasing publicly available data about the nonprofit sector and the influence of Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, turned EA into a movement. “You had this set of young people who had access to data and information, and this philanthropic practice tied to this moral framework,” says Rosqueta. “That was a great package to engage a new generation of donors.”

Addressing Immediate Philanthropic Needs

Some effective altruism groups have had a real impact in saving and improving lives worldwide. GiveWell, for example, has donated over $120 million to New Incentives. The charity provides direct cash transfers to caregivers in Nigeria who take babies for routine childhood vaccinations. It has enrolled 2.6 million infants to date. 

GiveWell has also donated over $82 million to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Evidence Action’s Deworm the World Initiative, two programs that treat children with parasitic worms. And over $176 million has gone to the Against Malaria Foundation, which has protected around 450 million people with mosquito nets. 

Once all its currently funded nets have been distributed, the Against Malaria Foundation estimates it will have prevented 185,000 million deaths. “When we first set up AMF there was a very simple aim: raise funds, purchase nets, distribute them so that they ended up over heads and beds, and make sure we had the data to prove it,” said Rob Mather, the Foundation’s CEO, during an AMA chat hosted by the Effective Altruism Forum in December. 

These early EA movement projects worked because they supported proven, cost-effective humanitarian solutions, says Brian Berkey, associate professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. “I think mosquito nets, deworming, and direct cash transfers are the cases where there is the clearest evidence of significant impacts,” he says. “They were all things where you could run randomized control trials and test the effects of the intervention.”

This focus on impact per dollar has been one of the EA movement’s most important influences on philanthropy. “It’s not the exclusive domain of effective altruism, but I hope that thinking about the relationship between impact and cost and philanthropy’s role in creating more public good persists,” says Rosqueta.

Shifting EA’s Focus to the Future

However, more recently, the movement’s focus, particularly among its wealthiest funders, has shifted towards advancing longer time horizons. The FTX Future Fund focused on “long-term improvements for humankind,” like pandemic preparedness and AI safety. Open Philanthropy has donated over $330 million to organizations—such as OpenMined, an AI audit software company—that are researching or tackling the potential risks of advanced artificial intelligence.

Longtermism, the tenet of EA that saving the lives of humans living in the future is as important as saving the lives of people living today, is a controversial philosophy. Interventions in longtermist causes are also based on educated guesses about their impact, not on proven, cost-effective solutions to current humanitarian needs, according to Berkey. “The core ethical commitment can be lost if you focus on cool tech and sci-fi stuff, as opposed to how we prevent more people from dying from malaria [and get] money to people who are suffering now,” he says. Still, it’s currently what excites EA’s powerful tech industry funders. “If longtermism dominates the resources and attention of prominent effective altruism organizations, bringing more people into the movement will become much more difficult,” Berkey says.

Measuring Effective Altruism’s Impact

Effective altruism needs to refocus on funding cost-effective solutions to current problems, according to Berkey. But cost effectiveness, while important, is only one way of measuring a charity’s impact. For example, Charity Navigator, the largest non-profit evaluator in the U.S., considers a charity’s impact and results alongside its accountability and finance, culture and community, and leadership and adaptability. 

“A key differentiator between Charity Navigator’s approach and effective altruism is that we’re also looking at the broader set of metrics that lead to high performance and a healthy organization,” says CEO Michael Thatcher. “Is this charity financially sound? Does it have good leadership and governance, with an independent board? Are its internal equity practices meaningful? Are they receiving input from their beneficiaries and using that input in a way that’s going to change how they deliver their programs?”

Input from beneficiaries is not a focus of effective altruism. “They determine the need and then fund the intervention that is supposed to address that need,” says Rosqueta. “If you believe that individuals should be able to determine their own lives, it should be the other way around. Philanthropists should be listening to what self-determined needs are.” This is the funding strategy of billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, who believes that people struggling against inequities, not large donors, should drive giving.

Rosqueta says that some effective altruism groups do consider the beneficiary perspective in their funding of direct cash transfers to those that need them most, but that’s the exception, rather than the rule. “There is a lot of evidence about how effective it is to give cash to individuals, but I have not yet heard effective altruists talk much about the philosophical underpinnings behind that evidence, which is the self determination of the individuals.”

Determining Altruism

EA can be prescriptive for donors, as well as for recipients. “Part of the philosophy around effective altruism is figuring out the most effective interventions to save lives,” says Thatcher. “That often restricts the cause areas that you would be donating to. Our position is that we’re going to help you find the best organization doing what you care about.” 

That adds to the perception that the leaders of the movement are scolding or condescending about other efforts to do good and ignore the role that the business and public sectors play in advancing social change. “In practice, the ways in which some of the movement’s leaders have approached it has been a little bit of ‘We’re smarter than you.’ That tends not to hold as a movement because you’re not inviting anyone in, but instead creating a crowd that feels sort of exclusive,” says Rosqueta. 

Which brings us back to the tech billionaires, who have the most sway in the movement. Instead of being a mechanism for tackling global inequality, hasn’t “earn to give” just led to an even greater concentration of power in the hands of a few, super-wealthy donors? Berkey does not see it that way. “If more people actually took up the recommendation to earn to give, then you’d have a lot more people whose salaries are really high, but who aren’t keeping most of the money…We don’t want to cede these positions of wealth and power to people who are incorrigibly selfish,” he says.

Changing Generational Values Around Philanthropy

But it could be that the concept of ‘’earn to give,” where individuals make money in one sector of the economy and give it away elsewhere, is already outdated. “I work on a college campus and, much more than a generation ago, young people are using their money to align with their values—what they eat, where they shop, where they donate, and where they save and invest,” says Rosqueta. “Instead of saying, ‘I’m going to optimize the amount of money I make and donate it to certain causes,’ more young people are blurring those lines.”

Experts say that for effective altruism to thrive and attract a new generation of young people, it needs to be more inclusive; to listen to the views of all of its donors, not just the very wealthiest; to incorporate feedback from beneficiaries; and to refocus on what it does best—funding proven, cost-effective solutions to today’s humanitarian problems. 

In a post on the Effective Altruism Forum last June, MacAskill acknowledged some of these requirements, writing that the effective altruism movement needed a more decentralized organizational structure, a greater diversity of funding sources, and a culture emphasizing that “there are many conclusions that one could come to on the grounds of EA values and principles, and celebrate cases where people pursue heterodox paths (as long as their actions are clearly non-harmful).” 

Following Bankman-Fried’s conviction and its impact on the movement, a lot of attention will be focused on whether that happens.  

They plan to push for legislation to force foundations and a growing type of philanthropy called donor-advised funds to move more money to charities, on a faster timetable. The to-be-written law would also tighten rules about how philanthropies spend and account for their money, including more public reporting.

The initiative also released a report on foundations, nonprofits, and financial institutions lobbying against reform legislation.

Mandating More Giving

“The whole idea that we’re subsidizing a perpetual, multigenerational, dynastic foundation is not a good use of taxpayer subsidies,” says Chuck Collins. The director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the solidly left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies is the main driver of the campaign. (It’s joined by progressive organizations Patriotic Millionaires, Solidaire Action, the Excessive Wealth Disorder Institute, Resource Generation, the #HalfMyDAF Campaign, and the Decolonizing Wealth Project.)

The “perpetual” notion comes from the fact that current law requires yearly payouts that are generally less than the rate at which foundations have seen their endowments soar in the stock market. Under federal law, private foundations have to give away a minimum of 5% of their assets annually.

“Typically, over the years, we’ve made about twice that in our investment returns,” says Scott Wallace, a Donor Revolt signer and co-chair of the Wallace Global Fund (and grandson of one of FDR’s vice presidents). “So the idea of the minimum is that they tried to pick something that was approximately enough to allow a foundation to last forever.”

What’s more: There are no payout requirements at all for the increasingly popular donor-advised funds. DAFs are small nonprofits that allow a wealthy individual, couple, or family to set aside tax-deductible money for charitable giving. They are more loosely regulated and have more-favorable tax benefits for donors than a private foundation would. (They are also popular with young heirs to family fortunes due to their flexibility.)

Pandemic-Shocked Philanthropy

Dissatisfaction with charity regulations has been brewing for years among progressive donors and advocates. But the Covid pandemic supercharged the issue, as foundations, worried about the economic hit to their endowments, pulled back on giving. “I was surprised that at a time of such immense need, and hardship to nonprofits, that foundations were actually reducing their payout, when you would have expected that they would increase, in light of the humanitarian crisis,” says Wallace. In response, he organized a campaign supporting draft legislation to temporarily up foundation payouts to 10% per year.

That didn’t get far. But in 2021, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the DAF-focused Accelerate Charitable Efforts Act. The ACE Act would require 5% annual payouts, cut back on several DAF tax benefits, and eliminate benefits on any money that sits in the fund for more than 15 years. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House, but the bills haven’t progressed far.

Tech multimillionaires Jen and David Risher (the CEO of Lyft) have proposed going much farther than ACE. In May of 2020, they launched an initiative called #HalfMyDAF, putting up $1 million as partial matching funds to DAFs that gave away half of their assets by September. Their organization has issued roughly the same challenge every year since, facilitating $50 million in giving.

“I would love to see a bigger pot of money with matches, so that we can have more money moving,” says Jen Risher. “I mean, there’s billions of dollars. But how do we inspire that money to actually move?”

A New Call for Legislation

Wallace has given up on inspiring. “I am afraid that a federal mandate is the only way to force those conservative foundations to increase their payout,” he says. By “conservative,” he doesn’t mean on the political spectrum, but on how freely philanthropists spend money. “The stinginess cuts across ideology,” he adds.

While even the ACE Act remains stalled, Donor Revolt has far-bigger plans. “We are talking to several members of Congress about introducing some sort of an omnibus charity reform bill,” says Collins.

He won’t quite say who those politicians are. But he names likely allies in the Senate, including Democrat Ron Wyden and ACE Act sponsor Angus King, an independent, and cosponsors Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.

The key demands would be to increase annual private foundation giving requirements to at least 7%—and 10% for those with more than $50 million—and to require DAFs to pay out funds within 5 years of receiving them. There would also be accounting changes. For instance, foundations can now count management expenses as part of their required payout. Donor Revolt says this should be limited to 1% of assets and not include compensation to family members. Their desired law would also tighten up a range of tax benefits and deduction amounts, among other measures.

Prodigious Givers

One bit of pushback that Wallace hears is that foundation boards have a responsibility to maximize returns on their endowments—which spending above the mandated 5% would hamper. “That’s a subjective interpretation of what their fiduciary responsibility is,” he says. “The substantive programmatic priorities of the foundation trump any subjective notion that our sole mission is to maximize assets.”

Several foundations are certainly getting away with it. “Our payout has gone from 5, 6, 7% to now habitually 15, 20%…because we see crises,” says Wallace. He points to other philanthropists who have drained their foundations. Steelcase heir John Hunting’s Beldon Fund spent down all of its money between 1998 and 2008. Duty Free Shoppers magnate Chuck Feeney’s over $8 billion Atlantic Philanthropies closed out at the end of 2020.

Collins also praises multibillionaires who have been spending at a rapid rate, including Salesforce cofounder Marc Benioff, Amazon tycoon MacKenzie Scott, and Apple beneficiary Laurene Powell Jobs.

Foundation and Business Opposition

Much of Donor Revolt’s own community seems resistant to its wishes. Wallace and Collins name as one of their main opponents the Council on Foundations, an association of over 900 philanthropies (including, at times, the Wallace Global Fund). “They have a board that’s made up of mostly large, perpetual-legacy foundations,” says Collins. “They don’t want…to pay out any more than they have to. They don’t want any new rules or requirements.”

I sent a message to the Council, through its press email, for its perspective on this characterization. I did not hear back by press time.

There are particular challenges around DAFs. Community foundations or financial institutions’ nonprofit spinoffs, such as Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, administer the funds and receive a small percentage of the fund’s value in fees. Collins and other critics believe this creates an incentive to resist draining the funds faster. “In the case of the community foundations, DAFs are becoming more and more their bread and butter,” says Collins.

“Fidelity has indicated that they would not oppose a mandated payout requirement,” he adds. And the organization reportedly estimates that most DAFs it administers are paying out 15-20% each year. Although Jen Risher is wary. “They’ll tell you that they’re spending out 20%, but it’s very opaque,” she says.

I reached out to Fidelity for its perspective but did not hear back by press time. A Worth contributor writing about DAFs has been trying to arrange an interview with Vanguard.

I did connect with Schwab Charitable, a nonprofit entity separate from Charles Schwab Corp (although the latter provides services to the nonprofit). “Two-thirds of Schwab Charitable donors say they give more to charity as a result of having a donor-advised fund account than they otherwise would,” the organization said in an email, based on its annual survey of donors. It went on to say that its donors granted more than $6 billion to charity in 2023—up 31% from 2022. This came out to more than a million grants to over 127,000 charities.

A Controversy Over Lobbying

Despite some promising signs from Fidelity, Collins believes the company is also lobbying against his cause. Also today, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) released a report asserting that 21 for-profit firms and nonprofit organizations have spent $11 million lobbying against DAF reform since 2018. But the data—from OpenSecrets.org, the U.S. Congress Lobbying Disclosure Act database, and nonprofits’ publicly available tax returns—is a bit fuzzy.

For instance, the report cites disclosures from Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, showing it spent $40,000 from Q1 2021 to Q2 2023 on lobbying efforts that included the ACE Act. But it can’t say specifically how much of that money went to ACE, because the report doesn’t provide a breakdown. The Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program is listed as spending $590,000 on lobbying that includes ACE.

To estimate the ACE portion, IPS considered how often it was mentioned relative to other legislation in disclosure reports—and reckons that all of that Fidelity Charitable and Vanguard Charitable lobbying focused solely on the ACE Act.

For Schwab, data comes from lobbying reports for the separate Charles Schwab Corp, not Schwab Charitable. The ACE Act is mentioned in Schwab Corp’s $530,000 lobbying disclosures (Q1 2021-Q2 2023), and IPS believes the entire amount went to ACE Act lobbying. Schwab Corp disputes this, saying in an email to Worth, “Schwab advocates on many topics of importance to our clients. The quarterly filling you refer to covers Schwab’s advocacy on the issues listed and does not reflect the amount of time spent on any one issue [including the ACE Act].”

The IPS report also estimates spending on lobbying against DAF reform by several other nonprofits, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Community Foundation Awareness Initiative, the Council on Foundations, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the National Philanthropic Trust.

A Possible Inflection Point

Drafting and passing legislation is hard under any circumstances—let alone in a closely and bitterly divided Congress, astride a Presidential election, in a more-than-trillion-dollar sector with countless vested interests. If the ACE Act—a focused, bipartisan effort by Congressional heavyweights—is stalled, what hope is there for a yet-unwritten law that aims to do far more?

But the Donor Revolt advocates do seem to be tapping into important sentiments—from the general mistrust of the ultra-rich to longstanding dissatisfaction with how private foundations and especially DAFs are run (including pressure from the IRS). And while they champion the masses, these progressive organizations may also get a boost from some of the world’s richest people—like Benioff and Scott—who are setting the example of giving money out much more freely.

If nothing else, a heated debate among the wealthy and powerful has started.

Miami is beginning a new chapter. As ever, the city’s soul lies not just in the shimmering façade of its luxury developments but in the stories told by its streets, the murals that adorn its walls, and the rhythmic pulse that defines its cultural heartbeat. Here’s how you can dig into all of it.

Where to Stay in Miami

Eden Roc

Designed by the renowned architect Morris Lapidus, the Eden Roc Hotel in Miami is a testament to the city’s golden era of glamour and luxury. Opening its doors in 1956, the hotel became an instant icon with its distinctive mid-century modern architecture characterized by sweeping curves, opulent details, and a sense of grandeur. Lapidus, famous for his innovative and theatrical designs, created a space that exuded sophistication and elegance.

During its early years, the Eden Roc attracted a glamorous clientele, including Hollywood celebrities, prominent political figures, and international jetsetters. The hotel quickly became a hotspot for the elite, drawn to its lavish amenities and prime beachfront location. Every room has an ocean view, and guests can choose between two experiences. There’s traditional Miami-Beach style in the Eden Roc property, where the rooms have a breezy beach vibe with minimal color, allowing the ocean, sky, and sandy beach to provide the pop. The Japanese beach house style at the Nobu property, nestled within Eden Roc, offers quiet, modern luxury. No matter which guest experience you choose, you’ll inevitably want to grab a drink at the 16-seat bar in the landmark hotel lobby.

Nobu Restaurant

While there, you can grab elevated bar bites from Nobu or reserve a table at the restaurant, its own singular experience. The restaurant features undulating washi paper that floats above the dining tables, as if you’re immersed in the ocean under ribbons of seaweed. On the menu, Chef Matsuhisa’s iconic fusion of traditional Japanese dishes with Latin American flair, like the Nobu Tacos, each delicately prepared with fish. Can a taco be chic? At Nobu, the answer is yes.

Miami Art Immersion 

Miami hosts Art Basel every December, but you don’t need to plan a special trip to immerse yourself in the city’s dynamic art scene. From contemporary galleries to avant-garde museums, the Magic City has a range of experiences to offer.

Pérez Art Museum

Located in Museum Park overlooking Biscayne Bay, PAMM is a cultural landmark designed by Herzog & de Meuron. Opened in 2013, the museum has become synonymous with Miami’s commitment to contemporary art. PAMM features a diverse collection of international contemporary art, including works by established and emerging artists. The museum showcases paintings, sculptures, and installations that push the boundaries of artistic expression. Permanent exhibitions include “Transfer Download: Sea Change,” an immersive exhibit that reflects on the interconnectedness of technology and the natural world. The museum also features an outdoor sculpture garden and Verde, an on-site restaurant that boasts sweeping views of Biscayne Bay.

Wynwood

Always a good idea and always changing, Wynwood is an outdoor street art museum in the Wynwood Arts District. Established in 2009, this project transformed the neighborhood into a global destination for street art. Murals and graffiti by renowned artists like Shepard Fairey and Retna adorn the walls, creating an ever-evolving outdoor gallery that blurs the lines between street and fine art. One of the best ways to view it is to book a curator to guide you through the different works. You can also add your own graffiti experience to the schedule: a 30-minute hands-on spray-painting demo to immerse yourself fully in the Miami street art scene. While you’re there, stop by the Margulies Collection at the Warehouse. Founded by Martin Z. Margulies, this private-collection-turned-public-institution has been a cornerstone of Miami’s art scene since 1999. The collection spans various mediums, featuring sculptures, installations, and multimedia art. Artists like Willem de Kooning, Anselm Kiefer, and Olafur Eliasson contribute to the museum’s diverse and impactful collection.

ICA Miami, the Institute of Contemporary Art

A cutting-edge institution in the Design District, ICA Miami opened its doors in 2017 and has been a focal point in Miami’s evolving art landscape ever since. The institute hosts rotating exhibitions that push boundaries and promote continuous experimentation. Their commitment to advancing the work of local, emerging, and under-recognized artists is apparent: Admission is free all year round, providing open access to the public. ICA also hosts public events designed to promote the exchange of ideas and stimulate creative thinking. 

Neighborhood Culture

Miami Design District

The Design District is renowned for its luxury boutiques featuring international and local designers, offering a shopping haven where fashion enthusiasts can explore the latest trends and exclusive collections. Cutting-edge galleries and public art installations dot the artfully designed streets, transforming the district into an open-air gallery that transcends traditional boundaries. And there’s always something happening—a maker’s market, a design fair, a celebration, or other events that give you a reason to drop in and stay awhile. You’ll also find Michelin-starred restaurants—Le Jardinier, recently awarded one star, and L’Atelier de Joël Robuchon, boasting two Michelin stars. And don’t miss Mia Market, a chef-driven food hall that might be the best way to taste all the flavors Miami offers.

Allapattah

Named after the Seminole Indian word for “alligator,” Allapattah is a barrio just west of Wynwood and an emerging cultural hot spot. It’s grounded by the Rubell Museum, renowned for showcasing thought-provoking contemporary art from the extensive Rubell family collection, featuring works by some of the most-influential artists of our time, including Jeff Koons, Keith Haring, and Jean-Michel Basquiat. Allapattah is a cultural melting pot, with residents from Central America, Cuba, and the Caribbean making up much of the local population. You’ll find many hidden gems to experience, from sophisticated Basque cuisine at Leku in the Rubell Museum to a Dominican chimichurri sandwich from the Chimichurri Donde El Primo truck on 36th Street.

Española Way

It is not a neighborhood per se, but a vibrant street tucked inside of South Beach. Built as an artists’ colony in the 1920s and designed to evoke the quaint villages of France and Spain, this pedestrian-only corridor features more than a dozen restaurants and cafés, three boutique hotels, and a smattering of specialty shops.

Prefer to stroll through Espanola Way and dine nearby? Gianni’s at the Former Versace mansion is a few blocks away. Located inside the former home of Gianni Versace, which has been both a membership club and boutique hotel since he died in 1997, it features an upscale Italian menu, and the setting is undeniably one of the most beautiful in the state. Casa Tua, also located a few blocks away on 17th Street, could be described as a hidden gem, as it still manages to fly under the radar. Dining at Casa Tua is like attending a dinner party at a well-heeled but low-key friend’s house, complete with a library, lantern-lit trees in the garden, and a 20-seat chef’s table with a view of the kitchen.  

An Uneven Employment Landscape

But the fortunes vary by industry. The biggest dips, according to data from jobs marketplace Indeed, are in the “knowledge sectors” (a term the other sectors may not appreciate). Jobs for software developers are down 28% on its platform. For mathematicians (including data scientists), they’re down 20%; and for marketers, it’s 19%.

But jobs that must be in person, such as construction and childcare, are “actually booming,” says the company—40% higher than their pre COVID levels.” This may jibe with less-granular government data, which, for instance, clocked over 90,000 new jobs in “health care and social assistance,” in February, and nearly as many in January. The broad “professional and business services” category dropped from 40,000 new jobs in January to 9,000 the next month.

Struggling Job Recruiters

Another profession that’s taken a hit: job recruiters. In a Harris Poll survey of 300 hiring managers, commissioned by Indeed, 65% reported cuts to their recruiting teams. Those who haven’t lost staff are doing a bit better at their jobs, with a 69% average response rate from candidates, vs. 61% for businesses overall.

All this data tees things up nicely for Indeed’s formal launch of a new AI-powered recruiting tool, called Smart Sourcing, that aims to find better job candidate matches, faster. (Announced in September, it was live online at least a day before today’s press release.) But as such a big job marketplace—reporting more than 350 million unique monthly visitors for a stretch of 2023—Indeed’s data and insights are genuinely interesting, beyond their marketing value.

Frustrated Job Applicants

Indeed and Harris also polled 1,107 employed adults in the same February 15-20 timeframe. The results may ring true to anyone who’s been looking for a job, especially in this tougher environment for the keyboard-tapping professions. For instance, 54% of potential jobseekers said it takes too long to hear back about next steps in the evaluation process.

That may line up with how overloaded recruiters say they are—spending an average of 13 hours on each role they need to fill. “Imagine a recruiter having 10 roles [to fill]—130 hours. That’s pretty much three weeks in a month,” said Raj Mukherjee, EVP for Indeed’s Employer division, in a press briefing yesterday.

The long hours are mainly driven by those “knowledge” sectors—with hiring for a manager role taking 15 hours and a technical role taking 14. (Most roles require about 10 hours, per the survey.)

Poorly Aimed Candidate Outreach

But that still isn’t enough time, or it’s not being spent well, according to potential employees polled. Forty percent said they have been contacted about jobs that are not a good fit—in terms of pay, level, and even location or industry. And 70% of the workers who have been contacted say the recruiters should have done more homework before reaching out.

Most recruiters agree, with 63% saying they have contacted the wrong candidates because they didn’t do enough research.

It seems to be a spray-and-pray approach, especially for lower-level jobs. According to the survey, for a VP or higher-level position, over half of the searches reach out to 10 or fewer candidates. For the lowest-level jobs (called “individual contributor”), nearly half of the outreach is to 26 people or more—with about a quarter contacting more than 40 candidates. This seems to gibe with Indeed’s and the Federal government data that lower-level jobs are harder to fill.

This includes reaching out to a lot of what Indeed calls “passive candidates”—people who are not really looking for a job. Predictably, most of these people aren’t interested: Just 36% reply, according to the hiring manager survey. Although higher-end workers are a bit more receptive. Manager, VP, and higher-level recruits reply at 41%.

Promised AI Help

Indeed aims to cut time and improve accuracy with Smart Sourcing. Some aspects seem no-brainers. For instance, the company promises that the service will surface candidates who match the companies’ job requirements—and who have been active on Indeed in the past month (a sign that they are in the market). But the software also exercises a bit of discretion. Indeed gives the example of not ruling out someone who has four years of experience, just because the job requirement states five years.

The tool will explain its recommendation in AI-generated candidate summaries. Smart Sourcing can also generate tailored outreach letters to candidates, promising big time savings.

Given the hit-and-miss nature of text-generating technology over the past two years, it will be interesting to see how well Indeed hits the mark. Or if it incorporates biases—something I (and another reporter) asked about during the briefing.

“We are collecting, all the time, a lot of structured information about jobs, just as we’re trying to collect a lot of structured information about job seekers and what they’re solving for and what they can do,” said Maggie Hulce, Mukherjee’s counterpart on the Job Seeker side of the company.

“Your [the employer’s] job is looking for the following skills in the following types of environments. And this job seeker is a good match for that because of the overlap that we see in this job seeker’s profile and what’s true about the job,” she added. “And that’s fairly easy to give a synopsis on. AI giving sort of additional color commentary on things that might stand out can be helpful. But there’s also the true, clean sort of structured [process]. Like, ‘You asked for these five things, and all of these candidates have all those five things and are interested in this type of role and your type of company.’”

Other economists say that the Olympics can lead to some long-term benefits if planning is done well. “Some cities do [the Olympics] very well,” Dean Baim, professor of economics and finance at Pepperdine University, tells Worth. “If there’s a solid plan, it’d be a success. Los Angeles did it in 1984,” he says. “I would argue that Seoul and Atlanta did it too. Every facility that was built, they had a plan for it after the Olympics.”

France’s Big Bet on the 2004 Olympics

This preparedness that Baim thinks imperative and critical is what France boasts of against summer 2024—the centenary of the celebrated Paris 1924 games—when the eyes of the world will turn to it. The country believes it can change the opinions of Olympic naysayers with critical strategies that target gaining local public support and upholding sustainable practices. 

It is also banking on its modest $4.4 billion budget (which may change), a gender-parity pledge in athlete and event selection, and the fact that a majority of Olympic facilities (like the 1924 “Chariots of Fire” stadium) are already in place for the July-to-August games. Like most host countries who have tried to use the Olympics to sponsor an economic boom, France projects that it will make a profit—$5-10 billion from the games alone.

Still, critics like Johan Rewilak, assistant professor of sports economics and finance at the University of South Carolina, assert that hosting will be unnecessary to France’s economic growth. It’s not a sustainable financial decision, he says, as the games are inherently destructive—echoing Andrew Zimbalist’s view. 

Rewilak thinks that an already-thriving tourist destination like France does not need the Olympics to place itself on the global map. “Hosting the games may not generate the economic impact that has been previously mentioned, as Parisians may substitute spending from other areas of the local economy for sport,” says Rewilak.

He also thinks tourists will be forced to stay away from Paris for a long time for fear of being crowded or overpriced on normally affordable goods, especially as inflation is also rising (as of early 2024). “There is a sports management conference in Paris coinciding with the Olympics,” he says, “and I am choosing to stay away given how busy Paris will be!”

Accurately forecasting the economic impact of the games has remained a challenging task, but it is important to understand where the argument between optimists and skeptics is rooted and how the intricate history of the games’ economic circumstances profoundly influences present-day Olympics and ideologies about it. 

There was a time when the games were simple to host, when financial losses didn’t deplete national economies, and when failed Olympics didn’t have any colossal impact on a country’s image. In the time after, though, the Olympics became so costly that financial losses had a grave national impact. What’s more, debates over the games’ economic fairness started strong arguments that could be perceived as a reflection of one’s morality. 

“In the early days of the modern games, not much was spent in preparation and on facilities,” says Rod Skyles, an economist and seasoned business professional. “The Berlin games in 1936 changed that trend.”

The Economic Boom of the Early Modern Games 

Pierre De Coubertin served as president of the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for the first 28 years after the games’ rebirth in 1896. In that time, Olympic disasters never resulted in any major financial losses for hosting countries. The Olympics weathered setbacks like canceled games in 1916 and World War I, and experienced gradual international recognition until Paris 1924—which changed things.

These Olympics didn’t run on any obscure political or economic windfall motivations but on the French’s desire to show their sportsmanship to the world, as well as redeem themselves from the poor work they did in Paris 1900, when they hosted the games for the first time.

It was the Olympics of many firsts, recording the largest attendance yet, being broadcast over radio, and preceding the golden era of France’s booming economy. It was also the last one for Pierre De Coubertin. 

Much of Paris 1924’s success was defined by how many attendees, countries, and international delegates were present to witness and participate in it—remarkably larger than any games before. The games were especially a signifier that France’s suffering economy, fresh out of World War I, was getting back on its feet. 

Increating Revenue

France did not recover the money spent on hosting and infrastructure through ticketing. But the games had converted spectators to tourists, including frequent American visitors, and eventual permanent residents who were gob smacked by the low cost of living in France. And this boosted trade. Paris had put on a good, convincing-enough show, and this naturally yielded monetary benefits. Soon after, in 1926, the country entered its Franc Poincare (named after its finance minister) zenithal era, as rates of exchange lowered, and the economy prospered.

This was a massive shift—one many bidding countries looked forward to achieving and even beating—and one that may have influenced the use of the Olympics for political propaganda years later. 

The next host, Amsterdam, which had initially bid for 1924, experienced a better economic impact than Paris. It had spent $1.183 million and recovered $1.165 (about $38 million and $86 million, in today’s dollars), with a negligible loss of $18,000 ($585,000). It was also the first to introduce brand-sponsored marketing through Coca-Cola, providing American teams 1000 crates of their drink. 

The Los Angeles Olympic games of 1932 were better still—superb even—and are referenced in the list of historically successful Olympiads. It’s a usual example of why some economists posit that the Olympics could be a significant financial decision. ILA powered through the limitations of the Great Depression in America with sufficient architectural, monetary, and innovative strategies. Planners considered the futuristic use of Olympic infrastructure, the safety of local communities, and the economic recession of that time—and finished with a $1 million ($32 million today) profit. It was the first Olympics not to lose money. 

After the Olympics in Los Angeles, it had been established that the games were potentially a great tool in reaching peaceful international relations, especially after global conflict, scoring trade boosts, and championing a colossal increase in tourism. But the path the Olympics took after Los Angeles, politically and economically, was a sharp left.

Germany’s Budget-busting Extravaganza

Adolf Hitler was fascinated with the widespread popularity of the recent games. He saw the Olympics as a vehicle to demonstrate his racial superiority ideologies, highlight the power of Nazi Germany, and exert a propaganda coup. “1936 Berlin was driven by Hitler’s desire to show off Nazi Germany and announce to the world how special they were,” Skyles tells Worth. “Since then, many of the games have been driven by politics and not common sense or for the benefit of the people.”

Berlin 1936 cost more than $500 million in today’s dollars and was 10 times more expensive than any preceding games, putting Germany in more debt than all previous host countries combined. It was meant to be outrageously extravagant like nothing ever seen before and signal the return of Germany to the global stage after its defeat in World War I. Hitler’s unsuccessful plan plunged Germany into an economic crisis, but he had carved a new path for the Olympics. 

The cost of the Olympics in the interwar era had grown naturally, but not exorbitantly, as attendance increased, participating countries multiplied, and brand awareness through the games improved. But what Hitler did in 1936 changed the economy of things forever. It created a new hope: the possibility of a global legacy. The recent Olympics era strayed far from De Coubertin’s original ideas. It gave the Olympics a fresh motto and told developing countries that the games could be their ticket to gaining global recognition. At the same time, it made industrialized countries more energized than ever.

“Each city [after Berlin] had a specific reason why it wanted to host the Olympics, and in most cases, it was to make their country appear to be a global leader. To some extent, they were successful,” Baim tells Worth.

The Modern Olympics Spending Spree

There was a 12-year break due to the Second World War after Berlin in 1936. The cost of the Olympics reverted to tens of millions of dollars for a time, a typical rate for hosting it in the interwar period. But costs soon rose with economic growth.

The Olympics after the ‘60s signified the world’s recovery from the war. It was now visible that a state could assert itself through the games. Bidding became tougher as countries scurried for the chance to show how much development they had made through the world’s center stage, the idea of exerting themselves as global leaders, and the potential economic gains (which they believed would overshadow the projected costs incurred by host cities). 

Mexico, the first developing country to host the Olympics, was able to assert itself as a contemporary, cosmopolitan country through the flamboyant sports and housing architecture it built (and that remains useful). But this meant using large amounts of public funding and even massacring student protesters who sought to use the games’ global popularity to demand democracy and the elimination of authoritarianism. 

The city of Rome could flaunt its high-end urban reimagination as it was the first city to get television coverage, but it left a pile of debt ($19 billion today) in its wake. 

Tokyo, in 1964, went as far as spending over $10 billion in national makeovers—from stadiums to transportation infrastructure—which led to a large-scale displacement of citizens and substantial debts. Montreal in 1976 shackled the city with $1.5 billion in debt. “They ran such a huge deficit that the people of Montreal had to pay for it,” says Baim.

What to Expect for Paris 2024

There are decades of overwhelming evidence that hosting the Olympics is a costly investment, in which returns are vaguely probable, but governments remain ever hopeful.

This is hardly surprising as the payoff—when it pays—is also easy to see. The 1988 Seoul Olympics, for example, reimagined the war-linked image of South Korea and brought in investments. Barcelona became a Mediterranean gem after 1992 through modern renovations that showcased its culture and increased annual tourist visitors from 1.8m in 1990 to over 3 million in 2000. London, today, still generates money from its Olympics 12 years ago through several tournaments hosted in the Olympic stadium it built in 2012.

Many hosts have fruitlessly spent much money trying to recreate these successes, and France may be on track to do the same. It is faced with spiraling cost concerns, which made several cities like Boston withdraw their bids. This explains why bidding in general has dropped. There are also problems of rising inflation and existing security challenges, which were a big factor in Japan’s enormous financial losses after Tokyo 2021. Citizens will also leave the city during the games because they think it will be unbearable—hampering shopping, transportation, and basic day-to-day activities.

France could have chosen not to bid for hosting, and nothing would have changed. As Rewilak insists, countries like it don’t need to assert themselves as global leaders, nor do they need the Olympics to boost their economy. “The Olympics is not necessary to place Paris on the map. People go to Paris no matter what,” he says. 

Mixed Signals

The country’s intent for hosting the Olympics remains somewhat vague, especially with a lot of downsides threatening its success. However, France’s evacuation of homeless people out of Paris ahead of the Olympics is an angle to consider for Baim, as he thinks it is a move to hide the city’s problems from citizens and visitors.

“The Olympics are sometimes bread and circuses to keep people’s minds off of a country’s problems,” he says. “Paris may be motivated to host the Olympics to keep Parisians and the press distracted from its number of unhoused. I think it’s the most efficient way to distract people.” Rewilak adds, “If the movement and transfer of homeless people stops—or there is movement back to Paris—after the games, it may tell the full story.”

In 2020, the IOC, an institution with a history of bribery and corruption and involvement in hospitality and doping scandals, put out a strategic roadmap agenda. The agenda seeks to reform the Olympics and the IOC. And Paris, as a host choice, may be part of it. “This isn’t a sullied country using the Olympics to improve its image. This is a sullied Olympics using a country to decontaminate itself,” Jon Werthiem, Sports Illustrated executive editor writes.

There are a few economic upsides to cling to in France’s story, though. Firstly, its eco-smart and sustainability plans to make the games pro-bike, pro-pedestrian, anti-jet, and anti-car are forward-thinking and will save costs. Secondly, Paris may be able to replicate the efficiencies of London 2012 and L.A 1984, since—like those former hosts—it doesn’t need to construct any new buildings, just rehab old ones. 

France has had the ball in its court since 2017, and in a few months, it’ll play before global spectatorship. If the country has learned from mistakes of past hosts and has properly executed its pre-game strategies, it’ll be evident in the aftermath of the tournament. If not, the results would hardly be surprising.