Yes, 50 million climate change refugees by 2020. This PhysOrg article relays the announcement at an AAAS meeting in LA.
With global society strains like this, I expect the US will become more concerned about borders. The GOP will push hard for a wall on the southern border. The accommodation might include a wall, and probably will include drone patrols, added border personnel, maybe even robotic patrols on the ground.
I expect there will be more US Military missions of a humanitarian nature. If soldiers can help people survive where they are, then they won't have to shoot them at our borders. Better strategically to spend our money than their lives.
How to help people stay in a climate stressed region? And how would the military approach a solution? Desalination & water filtering. Localized education in permaculture, composting, solar thermal applications, etc.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Graphene and Fullerenes on PBS's Nova
Fullerenes and Graphene are going to radically change electronics and industry. They promise terrific features with a great potential for sustainability in their manufacture.
In the Making Stuff Stronger episode (about 25 minutes in) they discuss CNTs - Carbon Nanotubes. CNTs are about 100 times stronger than steel, yet you can make them without mining.
About 18 minutes into the Making Stuff Smaller episode, Graphene is described. These single layers of carbon are the best conductors (besides a superconductor), the best thermal conductors, and can be made using pencils and tape!
The Making Stuff Cleaner segment had the best news, IMHO. About 37 min. in, a researcher at Argonne National Lab was shown using shredded plastic bags to generate CNTs. The catalyst is cobalt acetate and is needed in volume. But the process converts about a fifth of the plastic bag mass to CNTs according to a New Scientist article.
Fullerenes (including CNTs) and graphene can be made into electrical components while still remaining very tough. So we may soon have printed computers, paper batteries, solar umbrellas, and auto bodies that store electricity. What if the foam insulation you spray into your wall could stop a bullet, record humanity's entire music collection, store enough electricity to run your EV, and be safe for your toddler to chew on?
With the supply resources for these carbon materials being readily available in most of our waste streams, the critical challenge seems to be how to get the energy costs down. But since the solar resource supply is 5000 times the current demand, I think that barrier will fall pretty soon. In a few decades the oil industry could be more about plastics than energy.
And someone may get really rich developing the most elegant solution to our growing climate change challenge: suck the excess carbon out of the air and mineralize it into cheap, high tech carbon materials that radically reduce our collective carbon footprint while offering the potential for stuff to get smarter.
In the Making Stuff Stronger episode (about 25 minutes in) they discuss CNTs - Carbon Nanotubes. CNTs are about 100 times stronger than steel, yet you can make them without mining.
About 18 minutes into the Making Stuff Smaller episode, Graphene is described. These single layers of carbon are the best conductors (besides a superconductor), the best thermal conductors, and can be made using pencils and tape!
The Making Stuff Cleaner segment had the best news, IMHO. About 37 min. in, a researcher at Argonne National Lab was shown using shredded plastic bags to generate CNTs. The catalyst is cobalt acetate and is needed in volume. But the process converts about a fifth of the plastic bag mass to CNTs according to a New Scientist article.
Fullerenes (including CNTs) and graphene can be made into electrical components while still remaining very tough. So we may soon have printed computers, paper batteries, solar umbrellas, and auto bodies that store electricity. What if the foam insulation you spray into your wall could stop a bullet, record humanity's entire music collection, store enough electricity to run your EV, and be safe for your toddler to chew on?
With the supply resources for these carbon materials being readily available in most of our waste streams, the critical challenge seems to be how to get the energy costs down. But since the solar resource supply is 5000 times the current demand, I think that barrier will fall pretty soon. In a few decades the oil industry could be more about plastics than energy.
And someone may get really rich developing the most elegant solution to our growing climate change challenge: suck the excess carbon out of the air and mineralize it into cheap, high tech carbon materials that radically reduce our collective carbon footprint while offering the potential for stuff to get smarter.
Monday, February 7, 2011
99% Wave Energy Capture?
According to this Popular Science article, researchers have figured out how to capture 99% of the energy in a deep ocean wave. Looking further into the technology, I find it is a bit like those old water wheels. And I found a terrific interactive graphic that shows how this mechanism works when used on a tugboat as a propeller.
When I see a 99% capture rate, I get a bit suspicious. Sounds too good. And looked at another way, we are talking about an almost perfect wave dampener. You should be able to set up a wall of these near a coast and protect the land from big ocean waves, even tidal waves if the system is powerful enough.
Mind you, even if you captured all of the was energy in the oceans, according to Saul Griffith, it would still only supply about a fourth or a fifth of humanity's demand. I think wave energy will be viable in a few places, but the bulk of our efforts should go towards making solar cheaper than coal. The supply for solar is more than 5000 times the demand!
When I see a 99% capture rate, I get a bit suspicious. Sounds too good. And looked at another way, we are talking about an almost perfect wave dampener. You should be able to set up a wall of these near a coast and protect the land from big ocean waves, even tidal waves if the system is powerful enough.
Mind you, even if you captured all of the was energy in the oceans, according to Saul Griffith, it would still only supply about a fourth or a fifth of humanity's demand. I think wave energy will be viable in a few places, but the bulk of our efforts should go towards making solar cheaper than coal. The supply for solar is more than 5000 times the demand!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Productive Gaming, Drone Labor, Game-gineering
From Bruce Sterling's Beyond the Beyond blog:
"Play labor. The click machine. The monolithic block of eyeballs. The scam engine. The cognitive surplus."
He's talking about designing game networks so that the hoard of players might actually be accomplishing something while they are playing, the same way that Flickr gets visitors to tag photos as an entertainment.
I would like to add to the notion. Productive gaming.
Verna Allee talks about companies as a productive network so she has a label to use both for companies and for group endeavors outside of the corporation structure. The Open source folks collectively improve the Linux code without getting paid to do so. And the open source Apache server software is a superior product, with the larger market share, than the next competitor from Microsoft. We are not used to non-profit endeavors beating out corporate efforts in industry.
So what would you call mobile network games that had players performing a community service during gameplay for in-game rewards?
For example, a Zoo game App for smart phones with massive bonuses for uploading real pics of endangered species being traded or owned, extra point for including the GPS location. The pics could inform law enforcement and NGOs. The informants could be anonymous, not involved in the trading, and perhaps entirely oblivious to the issue. The game company could incentivize the good citizen behavior without needing to educate, protect or pay the informants. The potential customers for restricted trade animals would have to worry that even their own kid could naively clue in law enforcement. Like Orwell's Big Brother divided into lots of Little Brothers.And like any tool, potentially benevolent and malevolent.
Drone Labor. Displaced Attention. Armchair Daylaborers.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have seen the arrival of the killer robot. The Armed Forces use of drones and robots went from zero to over 5000 units in use. And as it did with the chip industry, the military is buying down the initial setup costs of the robotics industry. Or would that be the Drone Industry? They are buying the costs down for everyone.
The hawkish pessimist view will look first to the potential for hostiles using the same tech on us, oddly enough increasing the US military's demand for more drones. The pacifist pessimist will lament that we are removing the disincentive of bodily risk from the process of waging war. But I am noticing that many of the benefits that drones offer to the Pentagon might also attract the Peace Corps.
When you hear of humanitarian groups leaving a crisis zone, it is usually a safety issue. But drones remove risk for pilots, and reduce the risk for troops in the field via surveillance and bomb disposal. So why can't the NGOs continue to operate in risky areas through drones?
Military robots worry P. W. Singer: they are faceless, making America seem more callous; and they reduce the domestic political backlash for conducting war, inclining us towards more military actions. But there are advantages he doesn't mention.
Robots don't rape or marry the local women. They don't violate local customs on dress, gender relations, music, religion, politics, sexuality, drugs, or alcohol. They don't consume local food, water, or housing. They don't carry disease. They don't colonize, set up criminal networks, steal local cultural artifacts, or take over businesses. P. W. Singer is concerned that the US is telling host populations that we have nothing personal invested in their region by using robot and drones. This may turn out to be mostly a good thing.
The Peace Corps might find this facelessness to be quite valuable. Say they send a robotic well drilling machine into an Muslim rural community. Translation software could allow the local council to tell it where to drill, tacitly lending legitimacy to the project. The townsfolk might admire the technology, but they won't feel inspired to convert to Christianity, drink alcohol, demand democracy, or speak English. The Peace Corps gets to do good while only risking theft or vandalism, and less of that given the cameras on board. The only residue from their departure could be their good works and an appreciation for the US & robotics technology.
The military has been fitting robots into roles that are dirty, dangerous and/or dull. It seems like a lot of humanitarian and environmental work includes one of these aspects. So I foresee a bright future for robotics in humanitarian and environmental efforts in developing countries. And the US population could express the giving aspects of its nature with less risk and unintended side effects.
And how do we adapt the good intentions of the frenetic first world to tasks they think are beneath them? By building a gaming into the control interfaces. "10000 points for each rainwater capture system install. And hurry, because your buddy is about to pull ahead."
So how about some new tags/phrases/memes:
WorkPlay. Carpal Tunnel from tunneling. Arcade Works. Gamegineering. Global Community Service. DroneWorks.
"Play labor. The click machine. The monolithic block of eyeballs. The scam engine. The cognitive surplus."
He's talking about designing game networks so that the hoard of players might actually be accomplishing something while they are playing, the same way that Flickr gets visitors to tag photos as an entertainment.
I would like to add to the notion. Productive gaming.
Verna Allee talks about companies as a productive network so she has a label to use both for companies and for group endeavors outside of the corporation structure. The Open source folks collectively improve the Linux code without getting paid to do so. And the open source Apache server software is a superior product, with the larger market share, than the next competitor from Microsoft. We are not used to non-profit endeavors beating out corporate efforts in industry.
So what would you call mobile network games that had players performing a community service during gameplay for in-game rewards?
For example, a Zoo game App for smart phones with massive bonuses for uploading real pics of endangered species being traded or owned, extra point for including the GPS location. The pics could inform law enforcement and NGOs. The informants could be anonymous, not involved in the trading, and perhaps entirely oblivious to the issue. The game company could incentivize the good citizen behavior without needing to educate, protect or pay the informants. The potential customers for restricted trade animals would have to worry that even their own kid could naively clue in law enforcement. Like Orwell's Big Brother divided into lots of Little Brothers.And like any tool, potentially benevolent and malevolent.
Drone Labor. Displaced Attention. Armchair Daylaborers.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have seen the arrival of the killer robot. The Armed Forces use of drones and robots went from zero to over 5000 units in use. And as it did with the chip industry, the military is buying down the initial setup costs of the robotics industry. Or would that be the Drone Industry? They are buying the costs down for everyone.
The hawkish pessimist view will look first to the potential for hostiles using the same tech on us, oddly enough increasing the US military's demand for more drones. The pacifist pessimist will lament that we are removing the disincentive of bodily risk from the process of waging war. But I am noticing that many of the benefits that drones offer to the Pentagon might also attract the Peace Corps.
When you hear of humanitarian groups leaving a crisis zone, it is usually a safety issue. But drones remove risk for pilots, and reduce the risk for troops in the field via surveillance and bomb disposal. So why can't the NGOs continue to operate in risky areas through drones?
Military robots worry P. W. Singer: they are faceless, making America seem more callous; and they reduce the domestic political backlash for conducting war, inclining us towards more military actions. But there are advantages he doesn't mention.
Robots don't rape or marry the local women. They don't violate local customs on dress, gender relations, music, religion, politics, sexuality, drugs, or alcohol. They don't consume local food, water, or housing. They don't carry disease. They don't colonize, set up criminal networks, steal local cultural artifacts, or take over businesses. P. W. Singer is concerned that the US is telling host populations that we have nothing personal invested in their region by using robot and drones. This may turn out to be mostly a good thing.
The Peace Corps might find this facelessness to be quite valuable. Say they send a robotic well drilling machine into an Muslim rural community. Translation software could allow the local council to tell it where to drill, tacitly lending legitimacy to the project. The townsfolk might admire the technology, but they won't feel inspired to convert to Christianity, drink alcohol, demand democracy, or speak English. The Peace Corps gets to do good while only risking theft or vandalism, and less of that given the cameras on board. The only residue from their departure could be their good works and an appreciation for the US & robotics technology.
The military has been fitting robots into roles that are dirty, dangerous and/or dull. It seems like a lot of humanitarian and environmental work includes one of these aspects. So I foresee a bright future for robotics in humanitarian and environmental efforts in developing countries. And the US population could express the giving aspects of its nature with less risk and unintended side effects.
And how do we adapt the good intentions of the frenetic first world to tasks they think are beneath them? By building a gaming into the control interfaces. "10000 points for each rainwater capture system install. And hurry, because your buddy is about to pull ahead."
So how about some new tags/phrases/memes:
WorkPlay. Carpal Tunnel from tunneling. Arcade Works. Gamegineering. Global Community Service. DroneWorks.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Biochar: Cheap Fuel Plus CO2 Sequestering
I found a clip that shows the essential process in making biochar, a cheap way to generate heat while sequestering some of the carbon in agricultural waste.
It would be terrific if agriculture became carbon negative while still generating revenue. And biochar puts this within reach of not just wealthier nations, but developing countries as well.
The biochar process involves heating organic waste products, like manure or plant clippings, in a low oxygen container to a high enough temperature that the combustible molecules break their chemical bonds, releasing gasses that can be burned as fuel. The remaining biochar, which is essentially charcoal, can then be used as fertilizer. This increases soil fertility while trapping carbon in the ground for a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
By the way, those of you inspired to experiment with burying regular charcoal as a fertilizer and carbon sink, please use the charcoals that don't have the easy start additives.
Wikipedia has a great article on the process.
It would be terrific if agriculture became carbon negative while still generating revenue. And biochar puts this within reach of not just wealthier nations, but developing countries as well.
The biochar process involves heating organic waste products, like manure or plant clippings, in a low oxygen container to a high enough temperature that the combustible molecules break their chemical bonds, releasing gasses that can be burned as fuel. The remaining biochar, which is essentially charcoal, can then be used as fertilizer. This increases soil fertility while trapping carbon in the ground for a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
By the way, those of you inspired to experiment with burying regular charcoal as a fertilizer and carbon sink, please use the charcoals that don't have the easy start additives.
Wikipedia has a great article on the process.
Dan
Friday, January 1, 2010
Green Roofs for Container Housing
The shipping containers would be cheap. They could be cleaned and refurbished to become modular housing components. And by putting a green roof on top, they could keep the dwelling in the cool shade.
The containers would have the structural strength to support a green roof since they were designed to be stacked like blocks. Building soil filled planter boxes on the sides would provide further shade, some insulation, and even thermal mass effects. That last aspect is where the sheer volume of dirt would keep the dwelling cooler during the hottest part of the day and warmer at night.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Coal on the Decline
Articles out of Florida say that the next planned coal fired power plant has been cancelled. This markes a milestone of sorts, since it was partially an economic decision. The Seminole Electric Cooperative has cited...
- Uncertainty - there might be new fees on carbon intensive fuels or coal in particular
- Lower cost Natural Gas - the cleaner fuel seems more abundant with less risk of carbon tariffs
- Energy efficiency measures (from a scaled back economy and from Federal incentives) reduce demand
- Alternative Power, especially solar, is cheaper and in greater demand from power consumers
To my thinking, the cost of coal must now suffer with the additional cost of uncertainty in regulation when competing with the other energy sources.
Most alternative energies don't face the kind of minimum start-up size issues that coal and gas face. Installing a ten megawatt facility of wind or solar one megawatt at a time isn't much more expensive than installing it all at once. This allows a utility more financial flexibility in a fiscal landscape with less freely flowing capital. There might even be additional savings from falling wind & solar prices during an extended project. And there are no fuel costs with wind or solar, which brings in a owning vs. renting calculation.
It is analogous to weighing whether one should rent an entire home, or, for just a little bit more per room, buy that home one room at a time as your budget allows, while being able to fully utilize each of the rooms one has purchased. What resident wouldn't prefer the second option? I think the owning vs. renting model will be a major motivator for the more fiscally astute companies and landowners to chose wind & solar.
- Uncertainty - there might be new fees on carbon intensive fuels or coal in particular
- Lower cost Natural Gas - the cleaner fuel seems more abundant with less risk of carbon tariffs
- Energy efficiency measures (from a scaled back economy and from Federal incentives) reduce demand
- Alternative Power, especially solar, is cheaper and in greater demand from power consumers
To my thinking, the cost of coal must now suffer with the additional cost of uncertainty in regulation when competing with the other energy sources.
Most alternative energies don't face the kind of minimum start-up size issues that coal and gas face. Installing a ten megawatt facility of wind or solar one megawatt at a time isn't much more expensive than installing it all at once. This allows a utility more financial flexibility in a fiscal landscape with less freely flowing capital. There might even be additional savings from falling wind & solar prices during an extended project. And there are no fuel costs with wind or solar, which brings in a owning vs. renting calculation.
It is analogous to weighing whether one should rent an entire home, or, for just a little bit more per room, buy that home one room at a time as your budget allows, while being able to fully utilize each of the rooms one has purchased. What resident wouldn't prefer the second option? I think the owning vs. renting model will be a major motivator for the more fiscally astute companies and landowners to chose wind & solar.
Dan
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
More Efficient Carbon Fiber Airplanes
Boeing has just done a test flight for their new 787 Dreamliner. I usually don't fawn over a big corporation's newest product launch, but this one is a highlight for efficiency. It is mostly made from carbon fiber composites and titanium, uses more efficient engines and should save an airline 20% on fuel costs.These fuel savings will constitute huge reductions on greenhouse gas emissions since flight is one of the most CO2 intensive activities one can pursue. A couple percent savings with the largest wasters can have a bigger effect than a huge savings in less wasteful sectors. Amory Lovins of RMI has presented evidence linking energy efficiency with improved profits at some major corporations. There are now sustainability MBA programs at institutions like the Presidio College that are training the next generation of managers and executives. This profit oriented demographic will uses their newly acquired efficiency paradigms to drive the more forward thinking corporations towards sustainability as a competitive strategy. And being less competitive will quickly drive the other corporations towards efficiency. As Lovins says, "We will change their minds or their managers."
Companies like FiberForge will be cranking out the new ultra-light, ultra-strong materials to meet an ever rising demand. A concept I would find conceptually appealing would be generating some of those carbon fibers from CO2 emissions. To sequester carbon within the industrial materials that will reduce the CO2 emissions has a kind of intellectual symmetry that is very satisfying.
Dan
Monday, October 12, 2009
Governor Schwarzenegger Signed Two Solar Bills
Our solar-advocating governor has signed in two bills that will add monetary incentives for installing more solar. AB 920 will mean that solar on your home won't just reduce your electric bill; you might actually get paid by the utility for producing more than you consume. And SB 32 means that the utilities have to buy energy at above-wholesale prices from producers between 1.5 and 3 megawatts. So we might see more big installations on large roofs and large parking lots. Articles:
LA Times
NASDAQ
LA Times
NASDAQ
Dan
Industries of Inefficiency?
Efficiency Effects
Perhaps, in a small way, efficiency has contributed to our recent economic downturn.There has been a kind of split personality amongst managers and executives for quite some time. They have been of two minds regarding their internal operations and their external financial entanglements. Borrowing Rushkoff's paradigm of the corporation as fundamentally a manager of debt, the decisions made have been less than ideal because of the different standards used when managing 'external' vs. 'internal' debt. By internal, I mean that when a company purchases equipment, it doesn't expect to instantly regain the value of that equipment at the flip of the 'on' switch. They plan the purchase with a Return On Investment (ROI) scheme. They predict how much the equipment will cost to purchase and to operate, balance that against how much revenue they expect to generate, and decide if the purchase is profitable enough. And by external, I mean that the company will sell stocks, take loans from banks, purchase insurance, and make other financial arrangements with third parties to collect capital for operations and fiscal security. So Rushkoff's label of 'managers of debt' seems apt. But they are inconsistent in their management. Per Amory Lovins, internal equipment is often purchased with very short ROIs requirements while the external fiscal deals can have an order of magnitude longer ROIs. That effectively makes the equipment look like a worse investment when compared to investing in stocks, for example. Which is not consistent with trying to maximize the profitability of the company, since both the external fiscal dealing and the internal operations contribute to the bottom line. This bias did not arise from intentional neglect or outright stupidity on the part of executives and managers, but rather from a cultural bias amongst the major fiscal decision makers. The same way scientist and engineers as a community look down on mixing with end users, the executives and managers have difficulty seeing a more efficient tool as having the same capability for generating profits that a bit of market speculation might. So they skew their company's spending towards external financial ventures rather than internal investments that might pay off quicker with less risk. Right now the smart investment money prefers US government bonds over stocks, since stocks are riskier. Which makes internal investments into efficiency much more attractive. The confidence is high, the returns are rapid, and the external fiscal environment favors trimming down. Some major companies have been proving the soundness of these investments. Lovins' recent debate with an economist (with lots of actual numbers from actual firms) cited profitable efficiencies found at Dow, BP, IBM, GE and Dupont. They are teaching their competitors that going efficient is the best strategy for the near future. But someone is probably losing revenue somewhere along the line. At least part of the billions of dollars of profits he cited must have been a loss to some part of the economy. An Industry of Inefficiency?
As glad as I am to hear of such wonderful efficiencies and reductions in the carbon footprints of major corporations, I have to consider further: Who is being hurt by this? With less electricity and water being consumed, with less materials entering the waste stream, there must be some companies that are getting less business. Could these companies be said to be part of an industry of inefficiency? Here in California, we have been proven wise to have been tough on our utilities in the 1970's. We forced them, kicking and screaming, to work under rules that rewarded them for selling less energy to their customers. The power companies of other states work under the old model where they get more money for selling more power, and polluting more along the way. It is not very surprising that PG&E has become the greenest utility in the country, even to the point of lobbying for more efficiency and clean energy mandates. Relative to PG&E, utilities that rely on coal, for example, seem to benefit when corporations and individual consumers are wasteful. They get more revenue from a wasteful, inefficient customer base than from an efficient one. So they have no interest in implementing new efficiency standards. In fact, their obligation to their shareholders that they maximize profits would seem to require them to discourage efficiency legislation and practices. I am not saying that there are people who get up for work looking forward to creating some more waste for the sake of sheer malevolence. I am saying that there will be some who will rightly worry when the public thinking of the day turns towards efficiency. The insecurity they feel about their investments, their workplace, or their job will be quite justified as our consumer economy demands a higher MPG rating, as our health care reforms discourage unnecessary procedures, and as the shareholders demand better management techniques. Amory Lovins used a wonderful phrase when talking about corporations being forced through competition to adopt efficiency practices: "... they will either change their minds or their managers." Maybe the manager whose training didn't include sustainable management techniques might want to educate himself on such methods as a hedge against getting fired some day soon. And considering how many managers had efficiency low on the priority list, how few executives paid attention to something as lower management as the electric bill, how few employees are even asked to turn the light off in an empty room, one must wonder how much of our economy is based upon waste? As we find our society can't afford the wasteful practices in the face of global competition and global warming, how much of the old investments in the industries of inefficiency will evaporate? What will happen to those who owe at least part of their paycheck to waste? We should feel some sympathy for those who will be displaced by the sustainability trends. But we should try to give them "a hand up, not a handout" when that demographic is large enough to warrant government expenditures. Let's retrain those coal workers to do efficiency retrofits, install solar panels, or process biofuels. Fewer people will suffer less if we adopt the green practices sooner rather than later. We should be expect some real resistance to change from those that invested heavily in the inefficiency industries. They will be willing to devote a significant portion of their investment capital towards preventing the loss of the rest of their investments. But ultimately, our capitalist system will seduce them back towards the industries of growth and profit. One of my favorite aspects of Amory Lovins' lecture series was the discovery that the fundamental drives of capitalism might happily coincide with the need to reduce civilization's carbon footprint. Corporations and capitalism might be our most effective tools for getting us out of the mess that corporations and capitalism got us into. After all, they are terraforming the Earth without even really trying. Imagine what they can accomplish when they are deliberate and motivated. Reference:
- Amory Lovins debate on ForaTV
- Amory Lovins 4th of 5 lectures on energy efficiency at Stanford.
- Doug Rushkoff's interview about his new book, Life Inc.
Perhaps, in a small way, efficiency has contributed to our recent economic downturn.There has been a kind of split personality amongst managers and executives for quite some time. They have been of two minds regarding their internal operations and their external financial entanglements. Borrowing Rushkoff's paradigm of the corporation as fundamentally a manager of debt, the decisions made have been less than ideal because of the different standards used when managing 'external' vs. 'internal' debt. By internal, I mean that when a company purchases equipment, it doesn't expect to instantly regain the value of that equipment at the flip of the 'on' switch. They plan the purchase with a Return On Investment (ROI) scheme. They predict how much the equipment will cost to purchase and to operate, balance that against how much revenue they expect to generate, and decide if the purchase is profitable enough. And by external, I mean that the company will sell stocks, take loans from banks, purchase insurance, and make other financial arrangements with third parties to collect capital for operations and fiscal security. So Rushkoff's label of 'managers of debt' seems apt. But they are inconsistent in their management. Per Amory Lovins, internal equipment is often purchased with very short ROIs requirements while the external fiscal deals can have an order of magnitude longer ROIs. That effectively makes the equipment look like a worse investment when compared to investing in stocks, for example. Which is not consistent with trying to maximize the profitability of the company, since both the external fiscal dealing and the internal operations contribute to the bottom line. This bias did not arise from intentional neglect or outright stupidity on the part of executives and managers, but rather from a cultural bias amongst the major fiscal decision makers. The same way scientist and engineers as a community look down on mixing with end users, the executives and managers have difficulty seeing a more efficient tool as having the same capability for generating profits that a bit of market speculation might. So they skew their company's spending towards external financial ventures rather than internal investments that might pay off quicker with less risk. Right now the smart investment money prefers US government bonds over stocks, since stocks are riskier. Which makes internal investments into efficiency much more attractive. The confidence is high, the returns are rapid, and the external fiscal environment favors trimming down. Some major companies have been proving the soundness of these investments. Lovins' recent debate with an economist (with lots of actual numbers from actual firms) cited profitable efficiencies found at Dow, BP, IBM, GE and Dupont. They are teaching their competitors that going efficient is the best strategy for the near future. But someone is probably losing revenue somewhere along the line. At least part of the billions of dollars of profits he cited must have been a loss to some part of the economy. An Industry of Inefficiency?
As glad as I am to hear of such wonderful efficiencies and reductions in the carbon footprints of major corporations, I have to consider further: Who is being hurt by this? With less electricity and water being consumed, with less materials entering the waste stream, there must be some companies that are getting less business. Could these companies be said to be part of an industry of inefficiency? Here in California, we have been proven wise to have been tough on our utilities in the 1970's. We forced them, kicking and screaming, to work under rules that rewarded them for selling less energy to their customers. The power companies of other states work under the old model where they get more money for selling more power, and polluting more along the way. It is not very surprising that PG&E has become the greenest utility in the country, even to the point of lobbying for more efficiency and clean energy mandates. Relative to PG&E, utilities that rely on coal, for example, seem to benefit when corporations and individual consumers are wasteful. They get more revenue from a wasteful, inefficient customer base than from an efficient one. So they have no interest in implementing new efficiency standards. In fact, their obligation to their shareholders that they maximize profits would seem to require them to discourage efficiency legislation and practices. I am not saying that there are people who get up for work looking forward to creating some more waste for the sake of sheer malevolence. I am saying that there will be some who will rightly worry when the public thinking of the day turns towards efficiency. The insecurity they feel about their investments, their workplace, or their job will be quite justified as our consumer economy demands a higher MPG rating, as our health care reforms discourage unnecessary procedures, and as the shareholders demand better management techniques. Amory Lovins used a wonderful phrase when talking about corporations being forced through competition to adopt efficiency practices: "... they will either change their minds or their managers." Maybe the manager whose training didn't include sustainable management techniques might want to educate himself on such methods as a hedge against getting fired some day soon. And considering how many managers had efficiency low on the priority list, how few executives paid attention to something as lower management as the electric bill, how few employees are even asked to turn the light off in an empty room, one must wonder how much of our economy is based upon waste? As we find our society can't afford the wasteful practices in the face of global competition and global warming, how much of the old investments in the industries of inefficiency will evaporate? What will happen to those who owe at least part of their paycheck to waste? We should feel some sympathy for those who will be displaced by the sustainability trends. But we should try to give them "a hand up, not a handout" when that demographic is large enough to warrant government expenditures. Let's retrain those coal workers to do efficiency retrofits, install solar panels, or process biofuels. Fewer people will suffer less if we adopt the green practices sooner rather than later. We should be expect some real resistance to change from those that invested heavily in the inefficiency industries. They will be willing to devote a significant portion of their investment capital towards preventing the loss of the rest of their investments. But ultimately, our capitalist system will seduce them back towards the industries of growth and profit. One of my favorite aspects of Amory Lovins' lecture series was the discovery that the fundamental drives of capitalism might happily coincide with the need to reduce civilization's carbon footprint. Corporations and capitalism might be our most effective tools for getting us out of the mess that corporations and capitalism got us into. After all, they are terraforming the Earth without even really trying. Imagine what they can accomplish when they are deliberate and motivated. Reference:
- Amory Lovins debate on ForaTV
- Amory Lovins 4th of 5 lectures on energy efficiency at Stanford.
- Doug Rushkoff's interview about his new book, Life Inc.
Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)