Friday Five: March 3, 2017

One of my professional mantras echoes the sentiments of the commission: don't treat a symptom when you can cure the disease, because curing the disease will address even the symptoms you did not know. We must address the biases in our individual and collective priorities if we ever hope to move the nation forward.
Racism was a big factor in the Flint water crisis, a new report explains.
"Based on a year-long study, the report details how government failed Flint’s black residents for decades. Implicit bias and systemic racism ingrained in housing, education, infrastructure, and emergency management all perpetuated discrimination and eventually led to toxic lead levels in Flint’s water. The commission writes, “fixing the problems that originated in Flint’s latest chapter will address the tumor but not the cancer.”"

Regulations provide an easy target for those pushing back against government. However, regulations are simply laws...and for a nation that popularized "laws not men", it seems self-hating to rail against them. Old laws should go away when useless, but the existence of laws does not define government overreach, it defines our collective expression of what sets the floor of society. When repealing a law or interpreting it narrowly would cause death, we need to reconsider...
Clean Power Plan Repeal Would Cost America $600 Billion, Cause 120,000 Premature Deaths
"The Trump administration has prioritized repealing the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a set of rules by the U.S. EPA aimed at limiting pollution from power plants. New analysis shows that repealing the rule would cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars, add more than a billion tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and cause more than 100,000 premature deaths due to inhaled particulate pollution."

...otherwise we doom ourselves to relive an era when we did not enjoy the protections the laws provided. Taking things for granted challenges baseball and apple pie when defining the American experience, but enough people alive now lived back then that you would hope we would not have to relive to believe.
Why We Need the EPA
"Perhaps the EPA has been too successful for its own good. In the same way that vaccines have given parents the luxury of forgetting what measles and whooping cough were like, the EPA has nearly wiped out the national memory of the contaminated environment of the 1960s. But things were so bad then that support for creating the agency and our major environmental statutes was virtually unanimous—nearly everyone recognized the need for an environmental regulator."

I like hearing views that contradict my own. This article does that, but also highlights how challenging any prognostication can get. Can we assume innovation in one area but not another? Is countering a statement the same as addressing the core of an argument? My own writing improves as I read the words of others and learn from them.
California Is Considering a 100 Percent Renewable Energy Law. That’s a Bad Idea
"We don’t know that a 100 percent renewable approach is the fastest, cheapest or easiest way to decarbonize the grid. We do know that it will be expensive and hard enough that its own advocates compare it to the most gargantuan collective effort in the nation’s history."

The Department of Defense has led the way (along with NASA) in the development of some of the most impactful technology of the last 75 years. I find it most interesting that the approach of DoD to renewables focuses not on the climate impact (although the Navy specifically addresses energy issues because of the impact climate change has on its base locations), but on all the other impacts. Limiting the energy discussion to simply the point of transfer forgets all of the issues with transportation, storage, and handling that make renewables a more effective approach.
The Department of Defense Wants to Double Down on Renewables
"But military officials argue to Reuters that this shift to renewables isn’t really motivated by a desire to save the planet, but to make systems more efficient, safe, and robust. For instance, an Army facility running on renewables would be immune to grid attacks; a hybrid tank doesn’t need to stop to refuel as often; and in war zones a solar panel can’t explode like a tank of gas."

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: March 10, 2017

Clean energy and environmental justice work has greatest impacts on those communities already economically disadvantaged. Part of the struggle that social justice work has in improving the lives of the disadvantaged comes from the completely and utterly false impression that poverty results from immorality or a lack of work ethic. This. Has. To. Stop.
Laziness isn’t why people are poor. And iPhones aren’t why they lack health care.
"There’s one final problem with these kinds of arguments, and that is the implication that we should be worried by the possibility of poor people buying the occasional steak, lottery ticket or, yes, even an iPhone. Set aside the fact that a better cut of meat may be more nutritious than a meal Chaffetz would approve of, or the fact that a smartphone may be your only access to email, job notices, benefit applications, school work and so on. Why do we begrudge people struggling to get by the occasional indulgence? Why do we so little value pleasure and joy? Why do we insist that if you are poor, you should also be miserable? Why do we require penitence?"

For over a century, poor communities have suffered the effects of environmental issues to an extent much larger than that for the population as a whole. In fact, only when environmental issues come to roost on those of means do we see action on a large scale. America in the 1970s and China today highlight that observation.
Polluted environments kill 1.7 million children each year, WHO says
"The causes include unsafe water, lack of sanitation, poor hygiene practices and indoor and outdoor pollution, as well as injuries.
The new numbers equate to these pollutants being the cause of one in four deaths of children 1 month to 5 years old."

So for the party in power to take for granted forty-plus years of progress on environmental issues in an idealistic and utopian view that business will solve all ills smacks of arrogance. Government stalled regulation on asbestos for decades, and acted only after hundreds of thousands had died and lawsuits bankrupted the industry. Waiting for people to die in large numbers before acting does not reconcile with promoting "the general welfare".
What's at stake as the GOP moves to slash regulations? For starters, clean air
"By then, however, there was not much left for the EPA to do on asbestos, after legions of cancer victims took matters into their own hands with civil actions that bankrupted the industry. But the years of government inaction took their toll. A quarter-century later, nearly 15,000 Americans still die annually of diseases caused by asbestos exposure during their lifetime, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization."

The disconcerting nature of the lack of attention to clean energy and environmental issues only grows when we consider that jobs of the present and the future will flow from these actions. Pandering to the past by sacrificing the health of the present and the future to create fewer jobs makes as much sense as trying to recreate the Ice Age.
Clean energy is now as big as pharmaceutical manufacturing in the US
"Globally, advanced energy brought in $1.4 trillion in revenue last year, which is, the report says, 'nearly twice the size of the airline industry, equal to apparel, and close to global spending on media, from newspapers to movies to video games...' What’s more, the advanced energy industry is growing much faster than the world economy overall (7 percent vs. 3.1 percent)."

Then again, maybe recreating the Ice Age will not prove such a bad idea after all.
Welcome to Pleistocene Park
"Nikita is trying to resurface Beringia with grasslands. He wants to summon the Mammoth Steppe ecosystem, complete with its extinct creatures, back from the underworld of geological layers. The park was founded in 1996, and already it has broken out of its original fences, eating its way into the surrounding tundra scrublands and small forests. If Nikita has his way, Pleistocene Park will spread across Arctic Siberia and into North America, helping to slow the thawing of the Arctic permafrost. Were that frozen underground layer to warm too quickly, it would release some of the world’s most dangerous climate-change accelerants into the atmosphere, visiting catastrophe on human beings and millions of other species."

Happy Friday!

Kevin Tong

Healthcare is a human right

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all ... are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Emphasis in the above comes from me, because for about 240 2/3 years of the 240 2/3 years since the signing of the Declaration containing these words, we have done an exemplary job of focusing on the "Liberty" part - at least in our rhetoric if not in our actions, and fair job of pushing the "pursuit" part although with decidedly less concern about the success of the pursuit - again to varying degrees depending on your gender, race, identity, age, etc. The one part of this most oft-quoted cornerstone of the cornerstone of our Republic that has eluded our gaze since the beginning has to do with what defines a right to life defined self-evidently for all citizens of a country.* We wax poetically and fervently about dying for our country, extoll the virtues of striving for the American dream, and bleed passages upon passages resisting tyranny in all its real or simply perceived forms. We even have a Bill of Rights that quite literally defines all of the freedoms we hold as essential to the existence of our Republic, and in not one of them do we define what the primary self-evident right means (although hilariously, we do provide that the government cannot take a life without due process...so I guess there's that).

We must correct this egregious oversight immediately.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on which all member states agree as a condition of participation, does a better job of defining some attributes of what a right to life looks like, most specifically in Articles 22 through 27 of the Declaration. (Admittedly, with only twelve original amendments proposed in the Bill of Rights, I might need to give the framers of the Constitution a bit of slack that they did not get to it when the UN did not get around to it until the twenties.) I highly recommend reading them all, but two phrases leap out at me as important statements about the right to life:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. (Article 22)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (Part 1 of Article 25)

Within the means afforded to a state, membership in a society means that barring a choice that separates the person from that society, each citizen has a right to "health and well-being" within the limits of the resources of the country. Note, this does not require that everyone have the same amount or type of the necessary resources for these basic needs, but simply a minimum threshold to maintain "adequate...health and well being". One could live in a completely casted society (although other Articles of the Declaration have stronger language dissuading such structures) which recognizes that elites earn and deserve more than those of lesser value and still accept that the lowest working class should have everything it needs to maintain health so as to keep working tirelessly for the benefit of the elites.

The United States of America - the country that first codified the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - has a decidedly more dystopian view of what that right looks like. For the better part of four generations now, while we have had the means to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care to the entirety of our citizenry, we have sought regularly to make these basic components of "health and well-being" a conditional provision based upon one's ability to obtain work. Note, not the desire of one to obtain work, but the ability. Nowhere does the unnatural precondition show itself more plainly than in our approach to providing healthcare for our citizens.

Prior to the mid-twentieth century, citizens of the US paid for the health care they could afford. If they could afford the needed medicines and treatments they lived, if the could not, they did not. Occasionally, some held accident insurance or sickness insurance, but these primarily covered lost wages and not the cost of the care. During World War II, when the government imposed wage controls, employers started offering health insurance as a benefit to lure worker in a competitive labor market. Post-war attempts to make access to this type of mechanism a right ran against cries of "socialism", thus establishing the system that has held for the past 70-plus years whereby those who work have coverage while those who do not have - until recently - had no options. The late 1960s found us recognizing at least some of the inequality of this and attempted to rectify the disparate treatment of the elderly and disabled by passing Medicare and Medicaid, however this still leaves the poor and unemployed out of the picture, and ties millions more to unproductive employment simply for the privilege of having access to healthcare.

Over the past century, all industrialized nations (members of the OECD - Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) except for Mexico and the United States have established universal health care available to all citizens regardless of ability to pay. If the US sat amongst the top of the world in all health-related outcomes like life expectancy, children surviving childbirth, and obesity rates - to name a few, then having an outlier approach to health management would make sense.

But we do not, and it does not.

The crazy thing is: universal health care actually makes more sense if one thinks that the primary responsibility of a citizen centers around providing work valuable to the economy of the country. Ensuring that each member of the society has necessary health coverage means that a small group of people getting ill will not endanger the working-capable individuals through unnecessary epidemics. Additionally, if an individual falls out of the workforce due to layoff or business closing, we should want them to remain as healthy as possible so that they can return as quickly as possible to active work.

Instead, we introduce the specter of death to those who lose their job, or become unable to work through no fault of their own. Prior to a couple of years ago, we even went so far as to limit or eliminate affordable access to health coverage for those most unhealthy in our society: those with pre-existing conditions, or with catastrophic illness, or those whose coverage lapsed. In my old neighborhood, the local bar/restaurant held fundraisers on a weekly basis for local families struggling under the weight of unpaid medical bills, or needing financial assistance to pay for special treatments for their children. Although these shows of community support provide a wonderful opportunity for communities to come together, the fact that we necessarily tie one's ability to provide "health and well-being" to one's ability to make friends with means enough to provide support places an entirely uncertain condition on our survival.

Prior to 1945, the argument existed that maybe we did not have the means to provide universal healthcare, however that position has long since died as country upon country has adopted the policy. On an economic level, no persuasive argument exists. On a moral level, no persuasive argument exists. On a political level only one argument exists: that we callously cling to the maxims that only those who work deserve to live, and that profitability depends on depressing wages through limited mobility (as a result of a fear of losing healthcare). For a country that grew up and grew rich on entrepreneurship, universal healthcare provides the perfect foundation for freeing up the labor force to innovate. Freeing up labor will better allocate skills and resources to the places most needed. Removing the fear that having the right kind of job will determine whether one's loved-one will live or die will significantly increase the quality of life and create a decidedly healthier and more just society.

Regardless of how we accomplish this: Medicare for all, single-payer, two-tiered, whatever...the time has come for us to move beyond the barbaric, callous, and simply immoral way we have approached healthcare for the better part of the last century and move to a system that truly recognizes the right of every citizen to life.

*Note: Although the "right to life" movement uses the phrase as a focus exclusively on the unborn, this discussion focuses on the meaning intended by the author and signers as pertaining to all living citizens of the Republic.

Friday Five: February 24, 2017 ($1 short edition)

Boycotts - both intentional and unintentional - produce consequences of varying degrees. I find it fascinating the degree to which some organizations think their actions occur in a vacuum, while others have such a strong concern for their brand that even a minor blemish that does not affect the bottom line will still cause a reaction. In the end, even with information fatigue and consumer apathy, it still appears that voting with one's wallet will have an impact.
After Travel Ban, Interest in Trips to U.S. Declines
"The short-term weaker demand for travel to the United States aside, the bigger concern for travel analysts is the ban’s potential to damage the country’s lucrative tourism industry in the coming years. Statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, part of the United States Department of Commerce, show that tourism-related spending in the United States was $1.56 trillion in 2015; tourism created 7.6 million jobs in the United States that same year."
Why #DeleteUber and Other Boycotts Matter
"According to research from King, at Northwestern, it might not matter if boycotts never go mainstream. Most companies are worried enough about their reputations that they’ll change their behavior, even if the number of people partaking in the boycott is rather small. When boycotts receive national media attention—as 25 percent of boycotts do, King says,—a company will react, even if sales aren’t affected."

Consumers have a more difficult time using those same tactics on monopolies. Since electricity monopolies govern much of the power generation in the country, we must find an alternative way to force that shift.
How electric utilities could revive their sagging fortunes and decarbonize the country
"There is a clear and fairly well-understood path to zero carbon for electricity. The same cannot be said of energy services that run on liquid fuels — think gasoline for transportation and natural gas for heating. Efficiency can reduce those fossil fuel emissions, but it can’t eliminate them, and no economical zero-carbon liquid-based alternatives have emerged.

'An alternative path toward significant decarbonization of these sectors,' the Brattle authors write, 'is to aggressively pursue electrification of transportation and heating.'"

One way to accomplish this lies in our public policy. Arguments abound as to whether governments at any level should get involved in picking winners and losers, however as a matter of public health, governments can say how we want the power generation sector to perform and then allow the best technologies to succeed in getting us there.
Lawmakers in California and Massachusetts Introduce Bills for 100% Renewable Energy
"The California Senate leader has introduced legislation that would require the Golden State to get 100 percent of its electricity from climate-friendly energy sources by 2045. That's a big step up from the state's current renewable energy mandate, 50 percent by 2030 -- a target that's only been on the books for a year and a half, and that California is still a long way from meeting."
"Three Massachusetts legislators have filed a bill that would require that all electricity used in the state be generated from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2035, and fossil fuels be eliminated as power sources for heat, transportation, and anything else by 2050."
Bill would increase Nevada renewable energy mandate to 80% by 2040
"The bill, AB 206, introduced by Assemblyman Chris Brooks (D), calls for a phased-in approach that would increase the RPS goal by 4% every two years, starting in 2018-2019 when the goal would be set at 26%."

Citizens can also advocate that energy companies include all the cost - including the cost of risk - associated with their product. Too often we allow companies to push the cost of secondary effects of energy systems onto taxpayers. As we learn more about the consequences, we need to shift those costs back to where they belong. Only in this way can the market work effectively.
Fracking Caused Pennsylvania Earthquakes, New Report Confirms
"Evidence indicates that induced earthquakes occur when the separation between Utica Shale and basement rocks is lessened during drilling operations. That means, when someone drills too close to basement rocks, there can be earthquakes.

Pelepko said that seems to have been the case in Lawrence County, where the basement rock is shallow compared to other areas in the state.

The distance between Utica Shale and basement rocks were between 2,500 to 3,000 feet at the fracking site."

Truly transformative action also requires that we think ahead and mitigate impacts to people, planet, and economy to the greatest extent possible. Driverless, electric vehicles will provide a boost to the quality of life and eventual transition to a decarbonized electricity system, but they will also cause a seismic shift in the job market. We need to plan now so that shift happens gradually and not all at once.
Here's where jobs will be lost when robots drive trucks
"'Issues around regulation and the business model' will delay full automation even after the technology is ready, said Princeton professor Ed Felten, who worked on this issue while serving as Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer in the Obama White House. Automaker Daimler, for example, estimated in 2015 that it could take 10 years to bring truck automation technology to market."

Happy Friday!

#WOW: Ten engineers to celebrate the birthday of the US's first engineer: George Washington

I am all for celebrating the great things that engineers have done and continue to do for our quality of life (recognizing, of course, that engineers also contribute to some of the most heinous acts in the history of the world). Although some might consider it a stretch to latch onto arguably the greatest of our founders to make this happen (Washington was a surveyor in addition to the other important jobs he held), all the same, engineering deserves the attention.

This link will show you profiles of famous engineers from throughout history the world over. As a personal exercise, and because we Americans love our lists, I present my top 10 engineers of all time (sorry, George):

10. Archimedes/Imhotep/Al-Jazari/Ge Hong: Because little is known other than historical record, I wanted to give a general acknowledgement to scientists and engineers throughout the known ancient world for laying the foundation. They gave us the arch, aqueducts, printing, gun powder, machines, and a fabulous foundation on which to build our recorded past, present, and future.

9. Jules Verne/George Lucas/Gene Roddenberry: I will leave this as the last of my "not quite one per line", but all three of them (as well as others I am sure I have left off) directly and indirectly inspired generations of engineers. Who would have thought that today we would hold devices in our hands that can communicate, scan, and analyze (Roddenberry)? And what more self-fulfilling scientific prophecy exists than Verne's From the Earth to the Moon?

8. Stephanie Kwolek: Anyone can make strong, protective materials out of heavy, cumbersome but effective materials like stone and metal. Kwolek showed us how to achieve the same level of strength with significantly lighter materials.

7. George and Robert Stephenson/Isambard Brunel: This trio made the expansive railway system work at scale and ushered in a new era of expansion that ultimately provided the key infrastructure to modern globalization.

6. James Watt: The Industrial Revolution is not a revolution without the steam engine.

5. Hedy Lamarr: Look at the updated Maslo's hierarchy of needs, and at the base you will now find WiFi. Without Hedy, WiFi and Bluetooth as we know it might never have existed.

4. Walt Braithwaite: My college advisor made me draw an entire machine apparatus by hand to make sure that all of the components would fit appropriately and we could get them machined correctly. He also did this because as a sadist, he wanted me to fully appreciate computer-aided design and manufacturing. The increase in industrial quality and production the world enjoyed in the last century owes a debt to the Boeing engineer who made it happen at scale.

3. Steve Wozniak: I expect grief from this pick, but since I did not say "best", "favorite", or "most accomplished", I am fine putting Wozniak in for his work developing the Apple operating systems. We have yet to feel the total impact of this approach to man/machine interface.

2. Leonardo da Vinci: He would sit at the peak of any list of favorite or most accomplished engineers of all time in a heartbeat. Everything about being a cool engineer he had in spades, and dabbled in art on the side (to some pretty astounding results).

1. Nikola Tesla: This wunderkind tops the list because there is no way to imagine our current world without AC power, the radio (and its technological descendants), or X-ray technology. Some may have contributions to match his in impact, but none surpass them.

From The American Surveyor

Celebrating the fourth shaman

My Irishness sometimes seeps through my everyday demeanor. A clannish and superstitious people by nature, I regularly find fascination in the mystic and supernatural. Perhaps this fascination explains my interest in the role of the shaman in clan and tribal culture.

I always warn young people I mentor to avoid definition by negation, but I found this statement by Stephanie Tighe and Take Durda to hold particular relevance when discussing the idea of a shaman:

Shamans are not persons concerned with gaining personal power, but are persons who are willing to make sacrifices in order to bring healing to individuals, their communities, and the earth.

Some dramatizations like to paint those in a shamanic role as "the power behind the crown" or some similar function, but entertainment value aside, the defining characteristic of a shaman comes not from the power they wield, but from the service they perform. The idea of placing one's self in between the known and unknown in order to protect, heal, and sustain one's people inspires me.

Over the past twenty years of my career, I have noticed how we have split the role of shaman in our culture and sent it out in four directions. Romantically, I like to think we did this to blunt the power of the shaman...and odd conspiracy of the everyday citizen and the leaders of the tribe to disperse power. Practically, I know that this happened because as we began to develop language and understanding by which we demystified some of nature, the span of knowledge with which the shaman must have facility grew exponentially. In our modern civilization, the shaman's role sits divided among the following:

1. The farmer: Constantly working in harmony with nature, the farmer marries steadfast planning based on lessons of history with spry ingenuity responding to the variety of threats that appear on a day-in and day-out basis. The farmer literally translates the energy of nature into the energy that sustains our lives.

2. The doctor/healer: Perhaps the most celebrated of the four, the doctor has flown closest to the sun in their command of the balance between spirit and nature. Tempted by the god-like power their training can unleash, the most successful humbly recognize the sheer magnitude of the consequences of their action and strive vigilantly to protect us and help us protect ourselves.

3. The teacher: A selfish shaman who attempts to hoard knowledge for their own benefit runs headlong into the great humbler of man...mortality. The true shaman understands that in order to sustain our people, knowledge must travel fully and freely between generations. Our teachers fulfill this role walking deftly between the doing and shepherding so as to ensure our survival.

4. The engineer

Since we celebrate engineer's week this week (in honor of our nation's first engineer, George Washington), we can afford a bit more on this lesser-known but equally important guide between the natural and the unknown.

For generations, engineers have taken a backseat to scientists in the public's imagination. Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and even Degrasse Tyson all weave marvelous tales about the wonders of our world and the possibilities held within it. And do not get me wrong, I share in that imagination and fascination along with the rest of the world. The reason why scientists in general do not hold the title of shaman comes down to the sacrifice of bringing the healing to individuals. Scientists push boundaries of thought and open our world to new possibilities, but until the engineers come along, no one knows how to apply that science to everyday life.

The engineer looks at Einstein's theory of relativity and sees the opportunity to capture solar energy to power our world. The engineer looks at a gas that liquifies at room temperature and sees the opportunity to refrigerate food to extend its value. The engineer looks at flashing lights and sees the opportunity to send large packets of data over great distances in the blink of an eye. The engineer looks at the moon and sees the way to get there and - even more miraculously - to get back. The engineer even looks at the words a screenwriter puts on a page and sees how to make those words come to reality through special effects.

These examples only scratch the surface of the ways in which engineers affect our daily lives. Did you wake up in a warm (or cool depending on your locale) bed this morning? Thank a mechanical engineer for creating the equipment that provided the heat, supervising its manufacture, choosing the right size of system for your situation, then ensuring that all the necessary parts and pieces got put in place to deliver that comfort to you. Did you turn on a light or microwave a meal or turn on a computer today? Thank an electrical engineer who made sure that the electrons that power our devices received the right excitation at a generating plant, moved safely across copper wires spread throughout the country, and brought just enough energy to the devices you needed today. Did your house/apartment/office not fall down while you lived in it today? Thank a structural engineer. Did you get clean water at your sink, and did the waste products you deposited in a toilet safely leave your building and flow somewhere other than your drinking water supply? Thank a civil engineer. Did interface with any one of a million different items across your day that came from raw materials scattered over the planet? Thank a chemical engineer who figured out how to combine those materials into useful tools of our existence.

This week offers us a chance to celebrate and honor those who have worked diligently to further our lives while at the same time protecting them. The engineer's code of ethics requires them first to protect the public health and safety of us all. They do this by walking a fine line between conservatively sticking to what works, and cautiously innovating to improve on the limitations of the present. With the exception of Da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, and George Washington, few engineers get the limelight unless something fails. (And let's face it, Washington get the title of engineer because of his contributions to surveying, but no one considers that his greatest contribution to history.)

I learned a centering technique years ago that asked us to take a look at the things in front of us and imagine all the people it took to bring that item to us. Over the course of the days and weeks ahead, I want to challenge you to think of the shamans it took to bring you to each point in your life. Imagine the ingenuity, passion, concern, and dedication it took for a farmer, doctor, teacher, or engineer to make that part of your life possible, then thank them for the sacrifice they made that helped make your life easier.

As shamans, they will not need the appreciation, but they will welcome it nonetheless.

Friday Five: February 17, 2017

I have given up on America leading the world anymore. I will get contentment that when and if we fall in line, it will happen in time to keep my friends, family, and fellow citizens from experiencing harm. As a person of Irish ancestry, I take heart and pride in the Irish - yet again - saving the world. Hopefully this time it works - again.
Ireland Is Set to Become the First Country to Completely Stop Funding Fossil Fuels
"At this stage, the bill still has to be signed into law after review. If it passes, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund would have to drop all investments in fossil fuel companies over the next five years.

This means public money would stop going towards energy juggernauts like Exxon. It would also bar the country from investing in fossil fuel companies in the future."

So I am ok with the Irish savings the world and making the Americans look bad, but the Aussies?!?! What's it going to take to shame us into figuring out how find behind we have fallen?
What the US can learn from Australia's innovative approach to grid transformation planning
Australia leads the world in distributed energy resource adoption. With a national average of 15% rooftop solar PV penetration, Australia’s consumers are more than twice as likely to have rooftop solar as the country with the second highest rooftop solar penetration rate (Belgium, 7%). Australia’s electric power industry is therefore likely to require regulatory and business model transformation much earlier than most other regions of the world. However, Australia is fortunate to have national agencies and trade organizations that were foresighted enough to sponsor a very thorough and deliberate process to make sure the grid adapts to these changes in a manner that is fair, minimizes costs to consumers, allows for more choice and control, and enables deep decarbonization.

Wait...a glimmer of hope? A bipartisan recognition that our economic future rests on the clean energy economy and not the fossil fuel economy? Is this our country? Has someone punked us?
Bipartisan Group of Governors to President Trump: Renewable Energy Is an ‘American Success Story’
"A coalition of eight Republican governors and 12 Democratic governors sent a letter to the White House yesterday, asking Trump to 'strengthen America's energy future' by extending government support for offshore wind, R&D, grid modernization and improved permitting for utility-scale renewables.

They pointed to the hundreds of thousands of jobs created in their states across the country -- from Arkansas to Kansas to California -- as evidence that renewables are providing a direct economic boost."

Unfortunately, this looks more like the America I know. Where in order to maintain the quality of life of one person, we have to sacrifice the lives of others.
From Appalachia To Standing Rock, Water Is Life
"Here in Appalachia, where our streams have been ravaged for decades by coal mining, we were eager for the same basic, common-sense water pollution protections that the rest of the country takes for granted. The Stream Protection Rule had been in the works for eight years, but in wiping it off the books last week using an arcane maneuver that the New York Times described as a 'legislative cudgel that has rarely been used,' Trump and the GOP again chose to side with polluters over people."

Sometimes, quite literally.
Cheap Eats, Cheap Labor: The Hidden Human Costs Of Those Lists
"This view of people of color as sources of 'cheap' labor bleeds into our restaurant culture: Immigrant food is often expected to be cheap, because, implicitly, the labor that produces it is expected to be cheap, because that labor has historically been cheap. And so pulling together a 'cheap eats' list rather than, say, an 'affordable eats' list both invokes that history and reinforces it by prioritizing price at the expense of labor."

Happy Friday!

The time has come to do the work to put racism behind us

The prosperity of these United States rests entirely on the genocide of one peoples and the subjugation of another.

This statement reflects history, not opinion, and save a few fringe political organizations, I find little argument with what it says about us. The most common response I see and hear reflecting the current majority of Americans contains some form of the phrase, "So what?" Acknowledging that these atrocity occurred in the past, most people in the present absolve themselves of any responsibility for what took place, and assume that our country can go forward with a pledge to "do no further harm" and that will resolve the issue.

Anyone paying attention should know that the issue remains far from resolved.

If we are to survive as a whole nation, we must agree to face up to our history, accept it, right those wrongs to the greatest extent we can, and then move forward. A hand-waving and sweeping it under the rug will not do, we need a full truth and reconciliation commission tasked with fully detailing the hard truths and quantifying the damaged caused. Only when that happens will we move on.

After the fall of the Third Reich and the end of World War II, Allied occupation facilitated the dismantling of the Nazi Party control of Germany. Around a decade later, Germany began a process it called Vergangenheitsbewältigung (literally "overcoming the problems of the past") by which it acknowledged German responsibility for WWII and the Holocaust, codified education about it in the German curriculum, and created permanent monuments and memorials as warnings for future generations who will have little direct connection to what happened. Germany repeated this process after the 1991 reunification to deal with human rights abuses that occurred in East Germany under the Social Unity Party (SED). This process took over five years and included social systems meant to help the nation heal as the tough work of merging the two economies left East Germans unemployed and West Germans paying high taxes to cover the cost of merging the two halves of the nation.

In a similar way, after the end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, that nation established a truth and reconciliation commission that formalized three main components of the process from with the US could learn:

1. Public airing of the human rights abuses suffered,
2. Full accounting of the consequences of the abuses,
3. Amnesty for those who committed abuses and came forward.

Although all of these processes had their detractors, common wisdom says they provided needed social dialogue during trying periods in a nation's history that might have otherwise caused irreparable harm.

Many get hung up on the "full accounting" part of the process which they interpret as "free money to [name your subgroup]". We cannot reach a state of acceptance if we do not stay open to the fact that previous decades and centuries of actions by the majority not only obstructed the advancement of minority populations, but in some cases intentionally took wealth from them for the inurment of the majority. Without a deliberate, full, and careful accounting of that history, we cannot fully understand the scope of what we currently have created, nor can we adequately fathom the true scope of the impact. That full accounting must happen along side the full airing/accepting of the actions of the past as well as a clean slate for those who have committed the atrocities. Without any one leg of the process, the remaining crumble.

Others more versed in the history will identify all the right people to participate, but in the current climate at a minimum, this truth and reconciliation process needs the participation of

• Financial institutions,
• Both major political parties,
• Law enforcement at all levels,
• Human rights advocacy groups across the entire population

In addition, as was learned during the process in Ireland in the 1990s that led to the political solution that dismantled the IRA, it will require representatives of groups that hold unpopular opinions about racial integration in this country. We have to remain open to all input and testimony, and must recognize everyone who participates. The end result will not 100% satisfy anyone, so we must air it all, and carefully select leadership and commissioners that we trust.

I note without irony that the current administration and the current time and place provide the right backdrop for this. Had President Obama gathered such a commission - especially in 2009 when Democrats controlled two branches of government - the results would have held suspect legitimacy. Given the years of complaints against the GOP for its obstruction of minority voting rights and its dismantling of the social safety nets that affect minority communities directly, a convening by the Trump administration in cooperation with Congress - and with intense scrutiny by the opposition party and communities of color - could pave a better path toward accepting and enacting the recommendations of such a commission. Why might they agree to do something like that? If your electoral success with a population falls somewhere between 5% and 25%, and the size of that population will only increase in the coming years, putting the issue of race behind you holds a key to survival.

Whatever the outcome politically, socially we need this work done. We thought we had solved it in Reconstruction, and then again in the 30s with the growth of wealth in Harlem and Bronzeville, and then again after the 1960s, and then again after the 1990s, and then again in 2008...but in each case we failed. Blinding ourselves to the past and hoping for the best in the future has proven a horrible strategy for addressing race in this country. Only by identifying the facts, accounting for the consequences, and offering amnesty do we establish a path by which we can realize the full promise of America.

Without truth and reconciliation, we doom ourselves to a future without the America our founders envisioned.

Friday Five: February 10, 2017

Recently, the House of Representatives has decided that the nation no longer needs environmental regulations at the federal level to protect human health. I would happily pay for all of them to live on the Southeast side of Chicago for a year before they take one more vote to jeopardize my fellow Americans.
After Petcoke, Community Confronts More Dangerous Pollutant: Manganese
"Bautista had bad news: Air pollution monitors installed at one of the nearby bulk storage sites during the petcoke battle had detected potentially dangerous levels of manganese, a metal used to produce steel and found in other minerals in combination with iron. The data were collected by the EPA in 2014-15 from monitors set up at KCBX Terminals."

The insane part about all of this? Our allies/competitors already have begun the transition to a clean-energy economy and have succeeded so well that they actually need to "pump the breaks" a bit.
Why auctions? Germany to cut renewables growth in half
Germany currently has a target of 2.5 GW of new onshore wind capacity annually, along with 6.5 GW in total (not annually) offshore by 2020. Last year, Germany added 818 MW (0.818 GW) at sea, bringing the total up to 4.1 GW. According to the German Offshore Wind Foundation, another 1.4 GW could be completed in 2017 alone, bringing Germany very close to its target for 2020 three years in advance.

Also, many of our policy makers live in a 20th century mindset about how the economy works. We have shown that not only do we no longer need increased energy consumption to deliver increased growth, but that we can deliver clean energy on par cost-wise with health-damaging sources.
The ‘New Normal’ in America: Renewables Boom, Emissions Plunge and Consumers Save More Than Ever
"This year’s fifth edition report builds on last year’s Factbook findings that show the U.S. economy grew by 10 percent since 2007, while energy consumption fell by 2.4 percent. 'In other words, energy productivity continues to improve as less and less energy is needed to fuel growth,' the authors wrote.

At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions are plummeting. Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions hit a 25-year low in 2016, down 12 percent from their peak in 2007 and 11.6 percent below 2005 levels. That puts the U.S. nearly halfway toward its Paris Agreement pledge to reduce national emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025."

When discussing the reality of the risks associated with the continued use of fossil fuels, I like asking the audience who they think has taken a leadership role in addressing climate change. Few if any get the answer, so I tell them, "That bastion of liberal tree hugging: the US military." 
Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military
"The Defense Department has been planning for climate change for more than a decade, often in the face of roadblocks set up by climate science skeptics in Congress. In 2014 and again last year, Republicans in the House of Representatives added language to Defense Department spending bills prohibiting funds from being spent to plan or prepare for climate change. Terrorism is the greater threat, the authors of those prohibitions declared, and federal funding should be steered towards snuffing out ISIS instead. Both times, the restrictions were nullified by the Senate. It is too early to say whether efforts to bar defense spending on climate change will be tried again."

Other nations have taken a leadership role, some large corporations (such as Google and Amazon) have taken a leadership role, our military has taken a leadership role...so fulfilling Churchill's prophecy that we can count on Americans to do the right thing after they have tried every other option, conservative statespeople have decided that reducing carbon has become a national obligation.
'A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax
"In an interview, Mr. Baker said that the plan followed classic conservative principles of free-market solutions and small government. He suggested that even former President Ronald Reagan would have blessed the plan: 'I’m not at all sure the Gipper wouldn’t have been very happy with this.' He said he had no idea how the proposal would be received by the current White House or Congress."

Happy Friday!

#WOW: It's the (renewable) economy, stupid!

As we enter a time of uncertainty in the economy, due to the many unknowns about how national policy might affect the different industries in the country, it might help to have a bit of a sense as to where the renewable energy/clean energy economy sit relative to other aspects of the economy.

To provide a baseline for comparison, according to the BLS, approximately 2,000,000 people work in the fossil fuel industry with almost half of those employed at gas stations.

DOE estimates that 2,500,000 work in renewable energy, nuclear, or energy efficiency, which they break down into 600,000 in renewable/nuclear, and 1,900,000 in energy efficiency.

The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that there actually are 769,000 people employed in renewable energy in the US.

The Solar Energy Foundation census identifies 260,077 jobs in the solar industry alone (the largest employer of renewable energy).

Noting that the gas station employees will still have work regardless as to whether vehicles receive their energy from fossil fuel or renewable needs, the 1,200,000 people in fossil fuels compare with 800,000 in renewable energy supply with another 1,000,000 to 1,900,000 in energy efficiency. (Those gas station jobs may get slashed dramatically if we move to a driverless vehicle economy, but that's far enough down the road to not worry about just yet.)

If the goal of national policy is to protect and expand jobs, then renewable energy and energy efficiency provides the stronger, more enticing part of the economy to support. It might help to remind your congresspeople and state representatives about that.

I always hated hot potato

When I attended college, I worked hard in the classroom and held several jobs to support myself. Blessed as I was to have parents who willingly gave me the chance to attend the university of my choosing as long as I worked hard and got the grades, I wanted to do everything I could to pay for my non-school living expenses. As I now watch my children go through college, I marvel at how times have changed and costs have shifted around. I spent most of my non-school/room-and-board money on long distance phone bills to friends and long-distance relationships. I could easily rack up a $100 to $200 bill in a month. I spent a ton of time in the computer lab working on projects and papers, which I could have done in my dorm room if I had the $2,500 to $4,000 to buy a personal computer to perform basic word processing and spreadsheet functions (with a $400 program) as well as manage some basic encyclopedia functions from a $300 encyclopedia program. Not long after, when I started my first job, I had to buy a camera for about $100, and then film for it at about $0.10 an exposure, then an additional $0.15 to $0.20 per exposure to process the prints - all without a guarantee of success. For a cool $400, I could get a new portable CD player and then each CD for about $1 per song (except for the time I joined the CD of the month club...which as it turns out, was not so much of a deal, but at the time I thought it was amazing!). Totaling that all up, I would spend anywhere from about $4,000 to $5,000 up front and $200 to $300 a month...

....for what I can now get through my smartphone for $900 up front and about $50 a month.

Even without adjusting for inflation (that $4,000 would be $7,500 today and the $200 a month more like $370 in today's dollars), I get all the same value and service - and then some - for far less. And the kicker....someone makes a boatload of money doing it. In fact, the company that does it has one of the largest piles of cash reserves of any company in the world. So someone lowered my costs, added more value, and created a profit for themselves. This exemplifies capitalism delivering value to consumers, and as time goes on, the people possessing these technologies will have less and less risk associated with their decline in value. Switching to a new version, or improved service, will cost less and open markets to more and more people. We have started to see this trend seep into parts of the economy like transportation (with ride-share services and driverless electric vehicles) that could drive the per-mile cost of personal transportation down to levels once thought unreachable.

Contrast that with a different side of the economy: real estate. In 1990, you could buy a nice home in a neighborhood with good schools for around $100,000. Nowadays, that climbs well over $150,000, and for some of the best school districts, upwards of $500,000. Making money in real estate requires high demand, low supply and ultimately, convincing someone that what they buy will get more valuable over time. Ultimately, however, someone will get left holding something that has less value than the day they bought it.

This is the "hot potato" economy.

We see this in the purchase of stocks as well, and although the players have joined that market knowing the risks with a willingness to "play the game", the results impact the lives of pensioners and 401k holders whose end-of-life quality depends on not holding a worthless portfolio when the time comes to cash out. Similarly, we see this same type of economy affecting education. The cost of a quality education that will provide opportunities for our children to provide for their future has risen dramatically in the past four decades, and yet, the value of that education has not kept up, leaving a whole generation holding the bag. When we figure out how to fix it, and ultimately settle on a more European style "free education for all" model, those who finish right before that time will be caught holding the "hot potato", and will pay for it for no reason other than bad luck of the timing of their birth.

If we want to fight for an economy that delivers justly to all consumers, we need to focus our efforts on rooting out these "hot potato"-based parts of the system and end the speculative practices that sort winners from losers in areas associated with basic needs. We cannot allow luck, timing, savvy, or - at the most extreme - ruthlessness determine the financial fortunes of people when it comes to shelter, education, or health. We have already figured this out when it comes to food, access to information, entertainment, and transportation, and we know what the result looks like. If we do not solve it, we will find ourselves dealing with "bubbles" over and over again: tech bubbles, housing bubbles, carbon bubbles, etc. that ruin the financial health and ultimately the physical health of whole segments of the population. To end this, we need to start with a promise to stop thinking of life as something on which to speculate, stop treating our fellow people across the globe as marks on which to prey for financial gain, and stop rewarding those who find the greater fool...

to leave stuck with the hot potato.

Friday Five: February 3, 2017

A program with little public fanfare just reached its goal three years early. Much like the "moon shot" from which it got its name, SunShot sought to do what critics at the time said could not happen. We need to remember constantly that aspirational goals give us focus, and that when we put faith in the combination of collective action through government, human ingenuity, and individual tenacity we can do anything as a species.
SunShot $1 per Watt Solar Cost Goal: Mission Accomplished, Years Ahead of Schedule
"The SunShot initiative hoped to reduce the total costs of PV solar energy systems by about 75 percent so that they were cost-competitive with other forms of energy without subsidies before 2020. Chu said that SunShot would work to bring down the cost of solar -- by focusing on four main pillars:

• Technologies for solar cells and arrays
• Power electronics to optimize the performance of the installation
• Improvements in solar manufacturing processes
• Installation, design and permitting for solar energy systems"

Cook County government has quietly raised the stakes in promoting and advancing clean energy technologies. This most recent public-private partnership holds tremendous hope for success as we find ways to bring economic development to blighted areas while opening access to clean energy to communities that traditionally could not afford it.
Cook County Laying Blueprint for New Age of Community Solar Projects
"As part of the project, Cook County has been developing a handful of solar demonstration sites on rooftops and vacant parcels of land. Although the Energy Department funding does not cover full implementation of solar units, it allows the county to analyze the design and technical and financial feasibility of larger-scale, community solar projects."

These reminders of success through appropriate government leadership stand in contrast to the actions currently taking place at the federal level. The coal industry cannot survive economically, and will not make a recovery. Government intervention did nothing to cause this, but that will not prevent ideologues from using "saving coal" to sanction environmental damage. This succeeds because no one with power will speak for those powerless that suffer the consequences of these actions.
Why Congress just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams
"Killing this regulation won’t really help Trump fulfill his goal of reversing the coal industry’s decline; that decline has more to do with cheap natural gas than anything else. Instead, Republicans are mostly focusing on this rule because they can. Because the stream protection rule wasn’t finished until very late in 2016, it’s much, much easier to kill than most of the other Obama-era rules around coal pollution. It was an easy target, so long as the GOP acted fast."

Those who recognize the consequences of actions by government or powerful business interests have an obligation to stand up to those who would abuse their power. The public actions of the past couple of weeks can inspire, but must lead to other actions that have tangible outcomes.
From Protests Past, Lessons in What Works
"Marches are useful for the anti-Trump movement because numbers are one of its advantages. But marches have their shortcomings. “Marches and parades are, in effect, symbolic gestures,” said Retired Colonel Robert Helvey, a scholar and teacher of strategic nonviolence. They can recruit and inspire. But they are infrequent, special events. And they are too sweeping to achieve the series of specific locally won victories the movement needs. And for the anti-Trump demonstrations, they have been mostly in the wrong places."

For example, when 200,000 customers either canceled their account or deleted the Uber app from their phone, it hit the company and its CEO in a way that forced a response. In the age of government at the national and state level that sees little to no need for government intervention in business activities, boycotts such as these hold the real key to power. We must use this power to move business toward accepting reasonable, codified limitations on the marketplace. This will be easier that one might think since a consistent, reasonable marketplace is what businesses most desire.
Uber C.E.O. to Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism
"Uber was under attack — unfairly, many staff members believed — after people accused the company of seeking to profit from giving rides to airport customers in New York during weekend protests against President Trump’s immigration order.

But there was another matter disturbing the employees: Mr. Kalanick himself. He had joined Mr. Trump’s economic advisory council in December. After the immigration order against refugees and seven Muslim-majority countries, many staff members wondered why Mr. Kalanick was still willing to advise the president."

Happy Friday!

#WOW (Way Out Wednesday): 100% Renewable

List of entities/municipalities/countries powered by 100% renewable energy:

Google (2017)
“We are convinced this is good for business, this is not about greenwashing. This is about locking in prices for us in the long term. Increasingly, renewable energy is the lowest cost option,” said Marc Oman, EU energy lead at Google. “Our founders are convinced climate change is a real, immediate threat, so we have to do our part.”

Microsoft (2014)
"We do so by procuring renewable electricity, both directly through power purchase agreements and through the purchase of renewable energy certificates and offsets. We’re exploring future opportunities to increase our purchase of renewable electricity and support the construction of new renewable electricity projects near our data centers and facilities."


Costa Rica (in short bursts)"While the achievement is undoubtedly impressive, and something that should definitely be celebrated as proof that a range of renewable energy sources can lessen a country’s reliance on fossil fuels, it’s important to note that Costa Rica’s success is largely due to its size."

US Cities & States (achieved and on the way)Greensburg, KS (2013)Burlington, VT (2014)Aspen, CO (2015)
Palo Alto, CA (2013 w/REC, 2017 direct)Georgetown, TX (due 2017)East Hampton, NY (due 2020)Grand Rapids, MI (due 2020)San Jose, CA (due 2022)San Francisco, CA (due 2030)Rochester, MN (due 2031)
Salt Lake City, UT (due 2032)San Diego, CA (due 2035)
Hawaii (RPS due 2045)

Notable World Cities, States, & Countries (achieved and on the way)
Iceland (achieved 99% 2013)
Malmo, Sweden (due 2020)
Scotland (due 2020 [electricity only])
Copenhagen, Denmark (due 2025)
Munich, Germany (due 2025)
Sydney, Australia (due 2030)
Fiji (due 2030)
Fukushima Prefecture, Japan (due 2040)
Denmark (due 2050)
Frankfurt, Germany (due 2050)

Notable Companies (on the way)
Apple (due "soon", 93% in 2015)
InfoSys (due 2018)
Bank of America (due 2020)
Coca-Cola (due 2020)
Goldman Sachs (due 2020)
IKEA (due 2020)
ING (due 2020)
Philips (due 2020)
UBS (due 2020)
AstraZeneca (due 2025)
Bloomberg (due 2025)
Unilever (due 2030)
Adobe (due 2035)
GM (due 2050)
Johnson & Johnson (2050)

The world needs more participation trophies

When I was eight and just starting out as a young athlete, I played on a baseball team coached by a dentist. After our games, we would go by the local ice cream shop and he would buy us each a cone...double scoop if anyone caught a fly ball. That was the dream: catching a fly ball and being the hero who got us double scoops.

By seventh grade, with even more refinement in skill and separation of the good athletes from the bad, at the end of basketball season our coach presented each of us with a faux newspaper where the headline contained some accomplishment of each player from the year. (To this day, I still remember mine.) Additionally, one practice each year, usually after a game in which we got clobbered, after warmups, he would sit us down and talk a little about each of us in front of the team. It was outwardly a bit embarrassing, but inwardly, it gave me perspective and calm. Invariably, we would win the next game.

At the time, I did not know why these coaches did what they did. When I reached the age where I could coach my kids and their friends, I came to realize that they used these tools as age-appropriate ways to develop a sense of belonging, identity, and resilience. Nowadays, people just call them...

Participation trophies.

These unjustly vilified hallmarks of a "soft generation" have received a bad rap over the last couple of decades (exemplified most recently by the rant of Louisville's women's coach Jeff Walz). Those of us molded by the children and grandchildren of the Great Depression hear all about Vince Lombardi, Woody Hayes, Paul "Bear" Bryant, and others whose life mantras get summed up by "win at all costs". This ethos stems justly from living at a time when scarce resources meant that survival required winners and losers, survival of the fittest, and all that. This philosophy found root in every aspect of our lives. Sports provided the natural, but not only setting. We had to have "the best grades", "the most friends", "the best clothes", and so on. And later in life, we were told, that is how the world will operate. You either win or you lose, and if you lose, you will not survive. Life has only a small number of winners, and they get the rewards. The rest of us lose. As Alec Baldwin so eloquently delivers in Glengarry Glen Ross, "first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone want to see second prize? Second prize's a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired."

The truth I have learned over my years of working, coaching kids, and generally living life comes down to this: the world lied to us. Although a situation here and there presents an opportunity for winners and losers, they do not dominate life. What I see more often floats between a need for total cooperation and a delicate balance of competition and interwoven-ness. Restaurants provide some good examples: they definitely compete for customers, but no restaurant wants to have the only spot on a strip. People go out to eat more often when a strip or community has a variety of options. There is still a need to work smart on thin profit margins, but restaurants do not want a lack of competition...just a manageable amount of competition. Within the restaurant, wait staff need to hustle and work to keep things moving and (regrettably) get the bulk of their pay from keeping their customers happy. This can lead to a cutthroat atmosphere, but in large part, these workers recognize that if they do not work together and the restaurant gets a bad reputation, they will have no one to fight over.

Examples like this abound. Natural disaster occurs? Everyone pitches in to help everyone, not some randomly chosen winners. A community member gets cancer? Everyone pools resources, holds a fundraiser, cooks meals, drives them to treatments. We do not seek out these opportunities to embolden ourselves (psychopaths excepted), but rather to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of another.

Also, I have found that another old axiom actually inspires our efforts more so than "win at all costs"...

"An honest day's work for an honest day's pay"...aka, a paycheck. The ultimate participation trophy.

Just like the ice cream cone, if you show up and give all you can, you get the reward. If you go above and beyond, you might even find a little bonus, but all in all, honest work for an honest boss gets you an honest day's pay. When we go home to our family and friends, our value comes not in how much we have won, but in how much time we give, and how truly there we are.

I have also learned that those who cannot give up the "win at all costs" mentality can cause some of the greatest pain. People who must "win the deal" at the cost of another: misanthropes who prey on the elderly or uneducated, market manipulators who play the game for the game's sake instead of identifying how best to place capital for the improvement of life, psychopaths who pollute the environment in order to minimize their costs and maximize profits. This same mentality finds its home in the kids who constantly and mercilessly attack the weakest link in their opponents, coaches who manipulate league rules to win instead of developing the talent of their players, or young people coached to break the rules so often with the thought that the refs will not call everything and the other team is likely to respond and get an equal number of penalties.

We can teach our children to give everything they have, develop their skills to the best of their abilities, and play the game to win....you owe yourself and your competitor to do that. But defining the result by winning and losing, by a score, but an outcome that invariably allows only half of the participants to share in the result, does not have to drive our thinking. We should drive our children to constantly improve themselves, to take risks, and to find satisfaction in giving maximum effort.

In short, we need them to find joy in the participation trophy regardless of who wins.

#WOW (Way Out Wednesday): It Takes a Village

I owe a colleague of mine credit for this one, but it's amazing in concept:

ReGenVillage
A completely off-grid experiment planned to launch this summer in Northern Europe seeks to combine the best elements of smart planning, smart design, and urban agriculture into a thriving, self-sufficient community. In their words,

There are five principles behind the ReGen Villages: “Energy positive homes. Door-step high-yield organic food production. Mixed renewable energy and storage. Water and waste recycling. Empowerment of local communities.”

They went all out on the renderings as well:

I will be keeping tabs on this as it - hopefully - moves forward.

Rethinking Scarcity

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat"  - John Smith

Few things have defined America so consistently as the Puritan work ethic so easily summarized in the Bible by Paul and famously by John Smith in the quote above. For the better part of human existence, this simple aphorism sprung forth from necessity. The provision of food, shelter, and health all required intense amounts of labor spread across every community. Our individual worth rested in how much and how hard we worked to support ourselves and the community.

Until now....

Starting with the Industrial Revolution, passing through the Green Revolution (agriculture, not environment), and culminating in the Digital Revolution, the amount of work required to deliver a minimum quality of life has dropped so precipitously that on average, we barely need to work to secure our basic needs. Add to this the increasing urbanization of the population and few of us even have the opportunity to experience "self-sufficiency" where we grow our own food, build our own housing, and share a family physician who lives down the road. The numbers bear this out:

The US food supply system wastes 40% of what it produces.
US housing stock has a housing unit for every 2.3 people.
US water supplies currently meet the domestic need of 355 billion gallons a day at under 1 cent a gallon.

However, we cling to the generations of scarcity that influence everything from interpersonal relationships to government policy. The fear that we will return to real need and want on a grand scale continues to drive us individually and collectively. We have known only the mantras of "picking yourself up by the bootstraps" and "worthless welfare queens" and "work hard, play hard" for so long that we seem incapable of understanding anything else.

And yet, we will have to.

The truth is, we will have to come to terms with an economy whereby "work" as we know it no longer exists. (Derek Thompson in the Atlantic provided a more detailed examination of the concept in his piece A World Without Work). In order to begin coping with this, we must change our views as a society and a world on three main issues:

1.  The definition of what it means to provide value
In a world where we have the ability to provide sustenance at nearly no cost, can we ethically require citizens to "work long and hard" just to participate in the basic level of quality of life. Can a person providing social services for ten hours a week qualify as a "full participant"? Examining this will require looking at ideas like guaranteed minimum income, the consumer economy, universal healthcare, and the relationship between business and community.

2.  How we view "the other" in a world without scarcity
Whether we want to admit it or not, racism, sexism, agism...these all stem from our desire to protect the "meager" resources we have for our own survival. How do we view the right to migration, open borders, and racial equality in a world without want? Conversations around this topic will include openness to reparations for past inequity, investment in quality public education, voting rights, and codifying the basic definition of human dignity.

3.  Environmental threats to resources availability
One wildcard in all of this comes from the stresses we have placed on our environment to get to this point. Although we have a country (and even a world) capable of feeding, sheltering, and sustaining ourselves, some of our choices on this path have damaged our air, water, and soil. Some others have threatened species within our food, air, and water cycles necessary for our survival. In order to maintain and improve our ability to support the world population effectively, we must rethink and reframe our relationship with, as Pope Francis calls it, "our common home".

Addressing the three issues will require drastic social change and hard conversations. The vastness of the effort will invite incrementalism, however we have seen that play out over the past forty years and have seen little result on a scale large enough to succeed. Over the coming years - or until such a time as it is no longer necessary - I will devote my writing, working, and advocacy to the three challenges: defining work and value, improving interpersonal relationships, and mitigating environmental threats.  I know I will disagree with many on individual points within each area, but I sense no disagreement on the value of the outcome. We have the means to create a truly equal world where "work" as we know it gives way to "value". Some will welcome the chance to farm, others to build, and others to heal, but these choices will not flow from necessity but from personal choice. Others will pursue the arts, or the law, or human support. And on a scale more massive that we have seen before, people of all incomes and points of origin will focus most of their time on the pursuit of "leisure".

I look forward to thoughtful and sometimes heated discussions, and welcome any and all feedback along the way.