A real economy should be eliminating waste, improving service, and supporting high quality of life. It is disturbing that most businesses seek first to maximize revenue without concern for whether a product minimizes resource use, and in truth want people to waste more in order to increase revenue. As consumers, we need to demand better our of the businesses and products that we support. (Note that the original WSJ article requires a subscription, so I have included a freely available article that has the most egregious quote.)
Is innovation killing the soap business?
"The sales downturn has set off an unusually frank debate in the industry over when innovation goes too far, and it has led to finger-pointing about who might be at fault. James Craigie, the outspoken chief executive of Church & Dwight Co., CHD -1.16% which sells low-price detergents under the Arm & Hammer and Xtra brands, has an answer: P&G. 'Pod is killing the laundry detergent category,' Mr. Craigie said at an industry conference in February. New products ought to expand the revenue pie for manufacturers and retailers, not shrink it, he said. That is what innovation always did in the past, he said."
There is great debate right now as to where and how we should invest our limited capital in a transition to a new energy economy. There are those that want the focus on efficiency and renewables, and those that want the focus on natural gas and nuclear as a bridge to a potential for a future dominated by renewable energy. As with every piece of "independent analysis", we must be careful to consider the source, but it is worth following this discussion over the coming months and year.
Citigroup: Renewables will triumph and natural gas will help
"The good news is that Citi expects renewable energy to triumph; it believes that typical forecasts like those from the International Energy Agency are too pessimistic. Contrary to a certain strain of conventional wisdom, it says, shale gas will not crowd out renewable energy. Quite the opposite.
The pill? Citi expects it will take lots of natural gas — more than we’re currently using, in the medium term — to get to a power system run primarily on renewables. In fact, renewables and shale gas are in a 'symbiotic' relationship, the report says, each helping the other increase market share. If that’s true, a moratorium on fracking, called for by many greens, might serve to inhibit the spread of renewable energy."
Any attempt to predict the future always makes some assumptions on the costs and benefits. I find it interesting that when we talk about the economic impact of protecting the environment, predictions always overstate the costs and understate the benefits, but when looking at investment in fossil fuels, predictions always overstate the benefits and understate the costs. As we enter a crucial time period in the discussion on the Keystone XL pipeline, recent pipeline leaks in Arkansas - as well as those previously in Michigan - should serve as reminders that whatever sense of security one wants to imagine, the only thing we know for certain is that there will be a leak in a pipeline. We must be prepared to accept that consequence - or more truthfully to force someone else to accept that consequence - if we decide to allow the investment to happen.
Kalamazoo River reopens, 23 months after spill, but submerged oil remains
"Crews have been cleaning the waterway since July 26, 2010, when a ruptured pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy Partners, the U.S. branch of Canada's largest transporter of crude oil, was discovered in wetlands in Marshall, Mich. The Canadian crude oil, known as diluted bitumen, contaminated more than two miles of Talmadge Creek and about 36 miles of the Kalamazoo, forcing people to flee their homes because of the overpowering smells.
The cost of the cleanup has now reached at least $765 million, making it the most expensive oil pipeline spill since the government began keeping records in 1968. Enbridge is responsible for all of the cost, with most of the cost being paid by its insurance company."
We have seen that smart approaches to policy, and a willingness to focus on the resiliency and decentralization, can lead to a strong marketplace for renewable energy...even in climates and areas not blessed with abundant sun.
Can you have too much solar energy?
"In 1991, German politicians from across the political spectrum quietly passed the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz (renewable energy law), or EEG. It was a little-heralded measure with long-lasting consequences.
The law guaranteed small hydroelectric power generators—mostly in Bavaria, a politically conservative area I like to think of as the Texas of Germany—a market for their electricity. The EEG required utility companies to plug all renewable power producers, down to the smallest rooftop solar panel, into the national grid and buy their power at a fixed, slightly above-market rate that guaranteed a modest return over the long term. The prices were supposed to balance out the hidden costs of conventional power, from pollution to decades of coal subsidies."
It is understandable that we hold tightly to what we know, for fear that anything new might not be as reliable. However, the evidence is mounting that if we reduce our waste and use the right amount of energy to support our life, then invest new capacity only in those technologies that support a high quality of life for all - with no transference of risk to another - we have the technology available to us today. It only takes a focus on what is important, and the incentive to put our best minds on finding the most optimal solutions.
Off-shore wind: State-by-state analysis
"Potential for offshore wind is best where population is largely focused - along the East Coast. States such as Delaware, Massachusetts and North Carolina could generate enough electricity from offshore wind to equal current electricity generation, entirely eliminating the need for fossil fuel based electric generation.
New Jersey, Virginia, and South Carolina could supply 92%, 83% and 64% of their current electricity generation with offshore wind, respectively. In all these states, wind could provide more energy than the states currently get from fossil fuels."
Happy Friday!
No comments:
Post a Comment