When I was a kid, my parents lived a frugal life, so when we got a Betamax player, it caused a sensation. We could watch movies in our home, and all it took was a walk down the street to the neighborhood video store. It was more than I could have ever imagined...
Until the day when Betamax went out of business and video stores no longer carried movies in that format.
The history of innovation has several such stories of competing technologies that eventually produce a winner and a loser, with the loser disappearing into oblivion. Anyone own a steam automobile? A recording cylinder? A Walkman?
From this, we need to learn that we gamble when we get too specific in our goals for the future. As a case in point, we have seen over the last five years a great acceleration of research, advocacy, and innovation around the idea of environmental sustainability. This realm includes topics from energy efficiency to renewable energy to urban agriculture. Although the research and innovation areas require skills and knowledge from varied fields, many of them overlap with several other areas, increasing the impact if one technology or strategy "succeeds".
Right now, we have two converging topics primed to have a "winner" and a "loser": local food and transportation. We have seen the market transformation of hybrid vehicles, and sit on the precipice of a wave of electric vehicle development and implementation. Within 15 to 20 years, the American vehicle fleet could easily consist of over 75% electric vehicles. Combined with developments in renewable energy generation, especially at the community scale, would mean that we have a real chance to eliminate harmful emissions from transportation. At the same time, we have a push for reduced transportation energy in our food system promoting more locally available products. This push seeks in part to reduce the environmental impact of our food system while maintaining health. If vehicle technology improves as predicted, or perhaps undergoes an even greater revolution because of forces we have yet to discover, in twenty years it may not matter whether I eat bananas that come from South America instead of apples from Michigan. Neither will contribute to harming the planet.
Local food advocates have other reasons for their work, so I do not seek to diminish the cause as a whole. For those that use carbon footprint and emissions as THE reason to push for local food, I would re-examine the need to put energy into that position. Even without a major technological shift, an electrified, minimal-carbon vehicle fleet will happen in our lifetimes; with a major shift, we may see something that performs even better. With this as the case, the time has come to forget about local food as a carbon mitigation strategy, and marshal our resources around food waste, nutrient-richness, or another food health issue.
Unless, of course, you're interested in buying some of my old Betamax movies.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Friday Five: November 8, 2013
Much has been, and will be, made about government's role in regulating industry. The largest crutch on which industry relies is people's aversion to regulation "stalling the economy", seconded by the impact that regulation has on jobs. When people sense something is taking away their opportunity, they rally to defend against it. Except, in the case of coal, regulation does not take away jobs, mechanization and depletion take them away.
Here's why Central Appalachia's coal industry is dying
"On top of everything else, Central Appalachia's coal now appears to be running out, as many of the thick, easy-to-mine seams have vanished. The Energy Information Administration estimates that coal production in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia will soon be just half of what it was in 2008, plunging from 234 million tons down to 112 million tons in 2015."
The size and scale of numbers never cease to amaze me, especially when they are part of a headline. If I receive a $100 parking ticket, that amounts to roughly 0.1% of my annual take-home salary. Exxon Mobil faces a fine of 0.02% of their annual profit for negligence associated with a pipeline leak in Arkansas. Funny enough, my parking ticket did not result in the relocation of people, nor the destruction of habitat.
Exxon Mobile faces $2.7 million fine for Arkansas pipeline spill
"Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co faces a fine of nearly $2.7 million for a pipeline spill of thousands of barrels of Canadian crude oil in an Arkansas suburb last spring, the U.S. pipeline safety office said on Wednesday.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) found nine probable violations of safety rules in the rupture of the nearly 70-year old Pegasus pipeline that forced residents to evacuate their homes.
The 95,000 barrel-per-day pipeline has been shut since March 29 after spilling about 5,000 barrels in Mayflower, Arkansas."
Although I recommend reading the entire article because of the sheer luck that sometimes accompanies innovation (also, read anything about the scientist Michael Faraday), I point out the end of the article. We live in a backwards society where those with the brainpower to innovate, and those skilled at making that innovation happen, often - if not always - do not get to participate in the financial profit from that innovation. We need to change that...immediately.
Breakthrough: The accidental discover that revolutionized American energy
"Those responsible for the most important energy breakthrough in nearly a century didn’t fare nearly as well, however. Steinsberger, who had discovered the perfect mix of liquids to extract gas from shale and later saw his methods aped around the country, received a salary of just over $100,000 the year Mitchell was sold. He never received any bonus for his work. Kent Bowker made about $120,000 the year Mitchell Energy was sold, his usual salary. A few months after the merger, Bowker was interviewed by a Devon executive charged with helping decide which Mitchell Energy employees would be retained. As they chatted, the Devon executive fell asleep. Bowker realized he wouldn’t be given a meaningful role in the new company, so he quit. 'It was time to go,' he says."
Along those lines, empowerment - not employment - leads to success. Lost in the argument of capitalism vs. communism when it comes to executive pay and investor profits, is that when people participate in their fruits of their own success, they do more.
Africa's first fair-trade clothing company is a huge deal
"And Liberty seems to be succeeding at his goal of empowering moms. While some 40 percent of kids in Liberia go to school, that number is up to an amazing 98 percent for kids whose moms work for Liberty and Justice. Not only that, but the women show up an hour early to work so they can pray and sing together. Liberty describes his more mature, committed workforce as 'a mistake that worked out pretty well.'"
Innovation comes sometimes when you take away a piece of the puzzle and see how the system works. In this case, what happens when you take the system away altogether?
Swedes develop invisible bike helmet
"Tired of strapping ugly, uncomfortable styrofoam-and-plastic turtle shells to their heads, the pair came up with a pretty revolutionary solution that does manage to give you full head protection without, remarkably, wearing anything on your head."
Happy Friday!
Here's why Central Appalachia's coal industry is dying
"On top of everything else, Central Appalachia's coal now appears to be running out, as many of the thick, easy-to-mine seams have vanished. The Energy Information Administration estimates that coal production in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia will soon be just half of what it was in 2008, plunging from 234 million tons down to 112 million tons in 2015."
The size and scale of numbers never cease to amaze me, especially when they are part of a headline. If I receive a $100 parking ticket, that amounts to roughly 0.1% of my annual take-home salary. Exxon Mobil faces a fine of 0.02% of their annual profit for negligence associated with a pipeline leak in Arkansas. Funny enough, my parking ticket did not result in the relocation of people, nor the destruction of habitat.
Exxon Mobile faces $2.7 million fine for Arkansas pipeline spill
"Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co faces a fine of nearly $2.7 million for a pipeline spill of thousands of barrels of Canadian crude oil in an Arkansas suburb last spring, the U.S. pipeline safety office said on Wednesday.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) found nine probable violations of safety rules in the rupture of the nearly 70-year old Pegasus pipeline that forced residents to evacuate their homes.
The 95,000 barrel-per-day pipeline has been shut since March 29 after spilling about 5,000 barrels in Mayflower, Arkansas."
Although I recommend reading the entire article because of the sheer luck that sometimes accompanies innovation (also, read anything about the scientist Michael Faraday), I point out the end of the article. We live in a backwards society where those with the brainpower to innovate, and those skilled at making that innovation happen, often - if not always - do not get to participate in the financial profit from that innovation. We need to change that...immediately.
Breakthrough: The accidental discover that revolutionized American energy
"Those responsible for the most important energy breakthrough in nearly a century didn’t fare nearly as well, however. Steinsberger, who had discovered the perfect mix of liquids to extract gas from shale and later saw his methods aped around the country, received a salary of just over $100,000 the year Mitchell was sold. He never received any bonus for his work. Kent Bowker made about $120,000 the year Mitchell Energy was sold, his usual salary. A few months after the merger, Bowker was interviewed by a Devon executive charged with helping decide which Mitchell Energy employees would be retained. As they chatted, the Devon executive fell asleep. Bowker realized he wouldn’t be given a meaningful role in the new company, so he quit. 'It was time to go,' he says."
Along those lines, empowerment - not employment - leads to success. Lost in the argument of capitalism vs. communism when it comes to executive pay and investor profits, is that when people participate in their fruits of their own success, they do more.
Africa's first fair-trade clothing company is a huge deal
"And Liberty seems to be succeeding at his goal of empowering moms. While some 40 percent of kids in Liberia go to school, that number is up to an amazing 98 percent for kids whose moms work for Liberty and Justice. Not only that, but the women show up an hour early to work so they can pray and sing together. Liberty describes his more mature, committed workforce as 'a mistake that worked out pretty well.'"
Innovation comes sometimes when you take away a piece of the puzzle and see how the system works. In this case, what happens when you take the system away altogether?
Swedes develop invisible bike helmet
"Tired of strapping ugly, uncomfortable styrofoam-and-plastic turtle shells to their heads, the pair came up with a pretty revolutionary solution that does manage to give you full head protection without, remarkably, wearing anything on your head."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Penny wise, kilowatt foolish
Imagine you have been given a task. Over a five year period you are to bring in more clients to your company, and in the early years you will be given more resources to bring in each new client, but as the years go on, you will be expected to bring in more clients with fewer resources. You could look at the requirement of bringing in new customers and go try to get the easiest prospects first, hoping that the momentum from new business will create more new business. On the other hand, you could look at your mission and see that in the later years, you get fewer dollars to spend bringing in each new client, so maybe you should leave easier work for that time and focus first on using the greater per client resources on tougher prospects.
This describes what occurred when ComEd and Ameren, the electric utilities in Illinois, negotiated an agreement with the state's General Assembly in 2007. The state created an energy efficiency portfolio standard (EEPS) that the utilities had to meet, and in return, the state would allow the utilities to create a customer charge that would fund that work. In order to keep the utilities honest, the General Assembly capped the amount the utilities could collect from the customers, but continually ramped up the required energy efficiency. Although no one will admit they got all they wanted out of the deal, the parties agreed and the mandate became law.
Fast forward six years, and ComEd wants to change the rules. The investor-owned utility claims it cannot meet the desired efficiency mandate without more resources. It wants to increase the customer charge for energy efficiency, raising rates, without much of a performance record for delivering on the efficiency. The reason ComEd finds itself in this predicament is that it focused early efforts on large customers, a relatively small group of users that they can reach with little effort. Once they had tapped that pool, they started to focus on smaller (and more numerous) users. This proves difficult and resource intensive. It takes a network of advocates, working in communities across the state, delivering smaller and smaller bundles of efficiency but from a larger pool of users. It appears the utility assumed that mass-media campaigns would bring in the residential and small business customers, while they focused personal efforts on larger users.
It should have been reversed. If the utilities had used the early resources to build networks, incentivize the development of community organizations, and create the infrastructure for efficiency, then they would have been able to build on that in each subsequent year. By focusing their resources on matching incentives to customers that already had an incentive to save (because of their large expenses associated with energy), ComEd and Ameren delivered savings, but not the culture to deliver more savings in the future.
All of this is not, at its core, the fault of ComEd and Ameren, per se. The fault lies in the business model of the investor-owned utility. They make their money based upon high usage...more kilowatt-hours means more revenue. This runs contrary to the concept of energy efficiency, which is why only a state mandate was necessary. Utilities are horrible advocates for energy efficiency because it runs counter to their business model. If we really want efficiency, we need to change the model.
This describes what occurred when ComEd and Ameren, the electric utilities in Illinois, negotiated an agreement with the state's General Assembly in 2007. The state created an energy efficiency portfolio standard (EEPS) that the utilities had to meet, and in return, the state would allow the utilities to create a customer charge that would fund that work. In order to keep the utilities honest, the General Assembly capped the amount the utilities could collect from the customers, but continually ramped up the required energy efficiency. Although no one will admit they got all they wanted out of the deal, the parties agreed and the mandate became law.
Fast forward six years, and ComEd wants to change the rules. The investor-owned utility claims it cannot meet the desired efficiency mandate without more resources. It wants to increase the customer charge for energy efficiency, raising rates, without much of a performance record for delivering on the efficiency. The reason ComEd finds itself in this predicament is that it focused early efforts on large customers, a relatively small group of users that they can reach with little effort. Once they had tapped that pool, they started to focus on smaller (and more numerous) users. This proves difficult and resource intensive. It takes a network of advocates, working in communities across the state, delivering smaller and smaller bundles of efficiency but from a larger pool of users. It appears the utility assumed that mass-media campaigns would bring in the residential and small business customers, while they focused personal efforts on larger users.
It should have been reversed. If the utilities had used the early resources to build networks, incentivize the development of community organizations, and create the infrastructure for efficiency, then they would have been able to build on that in each subsequent year. By focusing their resources on matching incentives to customers that already had an incentive to save (because of their large expenses associated with energy), ComEd and Ameren delivered savings, but not the culture to deliver more savings in the future.
All of this is not, at its core, the fault of ComEd and Ameren, per se. The fault lies in the business model of the investor-owned utility. They make their money based upon high usage...more kilowatt-hours means more revenue. This runs contrary to the concept of energy efficiency, which is why only a state mandate was necessary. Utilities are horrible advocates for energy efficiency because it runs counter to their business model. If we really want efficiency, we need to change the model.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Flashes: November 6, 2013 Elections and choices
- Voters in Broomfield, CO narrowly rejected a moratorium on fracking in their town (by a margin of 50.51% to 49.49%, while Youngstown and Bowling Green, OH defeated bans against fracking.
- Voters in Boulder, Lafayette, and Fort Collins, CO and Oberlin, OH passed moratorium or bans on fracking by significant margins.
- Voters in Washington state, similarly to those in California last year, turned down a ballot measure that would have required labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO).
- Anyone wishing to buy products without GMO in them need only look for the USDA Organic label. The process for obtaining the label requires that the food product have no GMO in them.
Enjoy the journey!
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Power to the people, for the people, by the people?
A year ago, we went through the most expensive and one of the most contentious elections in recent history. Naturally, a year later, a general political malaise has washed over the land, like the hangover from binge drinking. Nonetheless, for some governors and state/local officials, today marks their election day. Also, since the progressive movement at the early part of last century, these elections have included a number of ballot measures covering issues from school district taxes to legalizing marijuana to allowing/restricting same-sex marriage. This year, the most interesting one for me comes from Colorado where several towns seek to ban fracking in their town.
Fracking, formally known as hydraulic fracturing, requires creating fissures in layers of soft rock, injecting chemicals into the cracks, then pulling out methane that has combined with the rocks. The process requires significant amounts of water, and results in the stranding of wastewater either at the surface or in the old wells. As a result, companies can extract vast amounts of previously non-recoverable natural gas, providing economic boon to a state, and keeping market prices low for energy. The ballot initiative process, where each registered voter can weigh in on the process and clearly define a community's desires, seems the perfect vehicle for a citizenry to weigh these potential outcomes and clearly tell the marketplace what they want.
Groups representing the oil and gas industry are devoting relatively large sums of money to combat these small county/township issues. There is no sense as to whether this nearly 40-to-1 ratio of spending on the issue will determine the outcome, and since it is a small item on the ballot, no polling numbers can give us early insight. At stake is the concept of whether the people living in a community have the right of self-determination over their quality of life. Critics of the measures counter that those who own the mineral rights to the natural gas have the right to extract it, but does that right mean the right to life of the citizens of a town is secondary to that? Colorado Springs has already banned fracking in the short-term, but these initiatives come directly from the citizens.
Industry officials contend that if the citizens of these towns vote down fracking, they will be turning down millions of dollars in revenue and basically saying they do not want the benefits that oil and gas exploration can bring a community. Maybe these officials should look a little more inward and take such a vote as a sign that the citizens of the community do not want the damage to their city that an industrial practice like fracking brings. Especially in a state where recent super-floods displaced mining wastewater across the state, perhaps industry could spend more time and money making their practices completely safe, and less time trying to tell the people what they want.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Who owns innovation?
As a kid, one of my favorite Schoolhouse Rock episodes was Mother Necessity. Through the typically catchy tunes of SR, we learned about Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse and the Wright brothers. Creative thinkers, hard workers, lucky opportunists, or some combination of all three. These stories have inspired young people across generations to tinker, invent, and innovate.
What makes these stories so interesting and inspiring is the "in their garage", "anyone with cleverness and a good work ethic can do it" feel to them. These people saw a need, pursued it, failed at it dozens if not hundreds of times, then finally succeeded and changed how we live our life. For those who want to change the world for the better, what better inspiration could there be.
The other interesting part about them, to me at least, is the captured history of what they did in the patents they obtained for their work. Among just the four I have listed they have 1,108 patents (although, to be honest, Edison has 1,093 of those...but the Wright's have what I think is one of the coolest). Their writings and sketches to prove the level of innovation persist in their original hand, providing both proof and record. The patents they obtained provided them temporary monopoly to develop their inventions into marketable products, giving them the opportunity to succeed or fail. They also forced competitors to find other ways to solve the same problems, or risk a lengthy legal challenge.
The way our modern patent system works does not promote this brand of innovation.
As Nathanael Johnson (@SavorTooth) notes in his recent article about agricultural innovation, quoting the ideas of Richard Jefferson an advocate for patent reform, our modern system does not focus on rewarding the individual,
Allow individuals to be the only patent holders.
By forbidding corporations from directly holding the patents, it would give the innovator more leverage. This would not forbid a corporation from gaining wealth from a patent. It would mean that they would have to enter into an agreement in which the innovator had strong leverage because the company could not sever ties without losing access to the patent. Also, it would shift the focus of corporations from accessing and holding patents to hiring talent and finding the most efficient means to deliver on the innovations those talented individuals create.
America showed the world how to give people the freedom to invent and succeed from that invention. We can return to a time when it was the individual with the incentive and the reward...if necessity truly is the mother of invention, then now is a time to invent a better way.
What makes these stories so interesting and inspiring is the "in their garage", "anyone with cleverness and a good work ethic can do it" feel to them. These people saw a need, pursued it, failed at it dozens if not hundreds of times, then finally succeeded and changed how we live our life. For those who want to change the world for the better, what better inspiration could there be.
The other interesting part about them, to me at least, is the captured history of what they did in the patents they obtained for their work. Among just the four I have listed they have 1,108 patents (although, to be honest, Edison has 1,093 of those...but the Wright's have what I think is one of the coolest). Their writings and sketches to prove the level of innovation persist in their original hand, providing both proof and record. The patents they obtained provided them temporary monopoly to develop their inventions into marketable products, giving them the opportunity to succeed or fail. They also forced competitors to find other ways to solve the same problems, or risk a lengthy legal challenge.
The way our modern patent system works does not promote this brand of innovation.
As Nathanael Johnson (@SavorTooth) notes in his recent article about agricultural innovation, quoting the ideas of Richard Jefferson an advocate for patent reform, our modern system does not focus on rewarding the individual,
"Instead, we have a small group of companies in rich countries, with a stranglehold on patents, designing all the solutions to fit their own business models. This system works primarily to bring in money for these companies, to maintain their privilege, and to exclude competition."I do not suggest that corporate interests in and of themselves are harmful, but the control and manipulation of patents by corporations goes against the intent of rewarding innovators with the chance to improve their invention. New innovation cannot find the air and fuel they need to take off when entities with large cash reserves have the access to legal means to quash any attempts. Also, by increasing the complexity of the patent process through amassing and holding multiple patents, corporations increase the cost of entry into the fray. The next Edison, Bell, or Wright has little alternative than to work for a large organization willing to bankroll them through the process. Many times, once these innovators have produced for the company, they are laid off and can no longer benefit from the innovation they created. We need a simple, and elegant change to the system to promote innovation and focus more of the rewards on the innovator...
Allow individuals to be the only patent holders.
By forbidding corporations from directly holding the patents, it would give the innovator more leverage. This would not forbid a corporation from gaining wealth from a patent. It would mean that they would have to enter into an agreement in which the innovator had strong leverage because the company could not sever ties without losing access to the patent. Also, it would shift the focus of corporations from accessing and holding patents to hiring talent and finding the most efficient means to deliver on the innovations those talented individuals create.
America showed the world how to give people the freedom to invent and succeed from that invention. We can return to a time when it was the individual with the incentive and the reward...if necessity truly is the mother of invention, then now is a time to invent a better way.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Friday Five: November 1, 2013
We have woven our systems and economies so much that we do not always see the potential for impact on our lives from issues in other parts of the country, much less the world. In all the squabbling over the Keystone XL pipeline, those of us in the Midwest, and specifically Chicago, saw the issue as important but having impacts elsewhere. Now, it has become obvious that people living not more than ten miles from my house will have their lives directly affected, and that it could move its way toward my home unless it is handled.The Kochs' dirty secret is out in Chicago
"There are many reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline will clearly exacerbate the problem of climate pollution…but one that is often overlooked (at our peril) is the problem of petroleum coke (aka “petcoke”). Petcoke is a refining byproduct of tar sands oil, and when burned is substantially dirtier than coal and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas pollution."
In an interesting take on the Keystone XL debate, there is some question as to where and when environmentalists should place their efforts to get policy intervention. If greenhouse gas emissions are ones primary consideration, then there is some evidence that Keystone should not be the issue, and maybe efforts in other areas will have more impact. It is also interesting to see the skepticism that we should levy against any advocacy organization when they speak about the immediacy and the seriousness of an issue.
The Keystone fight a huge environmentalist mistake
"That plan is far from certain. But Keystone won’t affect the outcome much one way or the other. If Obama pulls off the EPA plan, then the U.S. can hit its emissions target even if it builds the pipeline. If he doesn’t, it won’t hit the target, even if it kills the pipeline."
I has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps it would have been best to send Chinese planners a copy of newspaper reports from London in 1873 (or 1800, or 1880, or 1952...) before they decided to make their energy infrastructure so dependent on coal. If anyone thinks that coal is a solution for any energy issue going forward, one need only look at the images in the article.
Shanghai to forbid coal burning as China decides to monitor smog's effects
"The plan’s release comes on the heels of an especially crippling spell of smoggy days in northern China that caused schools, roads, and airports to close with visibility dropping to as little as 50 yards in some area. The PM2.5 index reached 1,000 in some parts of the northeastern capital city of Harbin, far above the 300 which is considered hazardous and the WHO-recommended daily level of no more than 20."
In the absence of national political movement to establish a truly free market in energy, one of the world's largest economies has teamed with other regional governments to take the lead. Just as we used to hear about "California emissions" when purchasing cars 30 years ago, hopefully this will catch on and work its way across the country so that we determine an accurate cost of emissions, and make sure that the cost is applied to the market so consumers have all the information they need when purchasing.
3 states, province sign West Coast climate pact
"The three states and one province won't necessarily use the same approach to putting a price on carbon. There are several options. California last year launched a cap-and-trade system, in which the state sets a declining annual limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies buy and sell permits to emit those gases, with the number of permits shrinking slowly over time. British Columbia, in contrast, uses a simple "carbon tax" of $30 Canadian ($28.73 U.S.) per ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is included in fuel prices and is used to offset other provincial taxes. Washington and Oregon have yet to choose either system. The legislatures of both states considered cap-and-trade bills in 2009 but didn't adopt them because of concerns about the potential economic impact."
Because once a consumer sees the true cost of carbon-based fuels in combustion, they will quickly move to more cost effective solutions. Solar energy has now joined those ranks, and looks to only get more and more cost effective over the coming years.
Solar rebound beating dot-com recovery as demand surges
"Analysts have become more optimistic about solar shares in recent months. The average rating for SunPower, the biggest U.S. supplier of polysilicon-based solar panels, is 3.5, up from 2.4 in December and the highest in more than two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A 5 rating indicates investors should purchase the shares, and 1 means they should sell.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., the only Chinese solar manufacturer to report a profit in the second quarter, has an average rating of 3.7, up from 2.3 in May, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Its shares have more than tripled this year."
Happy Friday!
"There are many reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline will clearly exacerbate the problem of climate pollution…but one that is often overlooked (at our peril) is the problem of petroleum coke (aka “petcoke”). Petcoke is a refining byproduct of tar sands oil, and when burned is substantially dirtier than coal and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas pollution."
In an interesting take on the Keystone XL debate, there is some question as to where and when environmentalists should place their efforts to get policy intervention. If greenhouse gas emissions are ones primary consideration, then there is some evidence that Keystone should not be the issue, and maybe efforts in other areas will have more impact. It is also interesting to see the skepticism that we should levy against any advocacy organization when they speak about the immediacy and the seriousness of an issue.
The Keystone fight a huge environmentalist mistake
"That plan is far from certain. But Keystone won’t affect the outcome much one way or the other. If Obama pulls off the EPA plan, then the U.S. can hit its emissions target even if it builds the pipeline. If he doesn’t, it won’t hit the target, even if it kills the pipeline."
I has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps it would have been best to send Chinese planners a copy of newspaper reports from London in 1873 (or 1800, or 1880, or 1952...) before they decided to make their energy infrastructure so dependent on coal. If anyone thinks that coal is a solution for any energy issue going forward, one need only look at the images in the article.
Shanghai to forbid coal burning as China decides to monitor smog's effects
"The plan’s release comes on the heels of an especially crippling spell of smoggy days in northern China that caused schools, roads, and airports to close with visibility dropping to as little as 50 yards in some area. The PM2.5 index reached 1,000 in some parts of the northeastern capital city of Harbin, far above the 300 which is considered hazardous and the WHO-recommended daily level of no more than 20."
In the absence of national political movement to establish a truly free market in energy, one of the world's largest economies has teamed with other regional governments to take the lead. Just as we used to hear about "California emissions" when purchasing cars 30 years ago, hopefully this will catch on and work its way across the country so that we determine an accurate cost of emissions, and make sure that the cost is applied to the market so consumers have all the information they need when purchasing.
3 states, province sign West Coast climate pact
"The three states and one province won't necessarily use the same approach to putting a price on carbon. There are several options. California last year launched a cap-and-trade system, in which the state sets a declining annual limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies buy and sell permits to emit those gases, with the number of permits shrinking slowly over time. British Columbia, in contrast, uses a simple "carbon tax" of $30 Canadian ($28.73 U.S.) per ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is included in fuel prices and is used to offset other provincial taxes. Washington and Oregon have yet to choose either system. The legislatures of both states considered cap-and-trade bills in 2009 but didn't adopt them because of concerns about the potential economic impact."
Because once a consumer sees the true cost of carbon-based fuels in combustion, they will quickly move to more cost effective solutions. Solar energy has now joined those ranks, and looks to only get more and more cost effective over the coming years.
Solar rebound beating dot-com recovery as demand surges
"Analysts have become more optimistic about solar shares in recent months. The average rating for SunPower, the biggest U.S. supplier of polysilicon-based solar panels, is 3.5, up from 2.4 in December and the highest in more than two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A 5 rating indicates investors should purchase the shares, and 1 means they should sell.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., the only Chinese solar manufacturer to report a profit in the second quarter, has an average rating of 3.7, up from 2.3 in May, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Its shares have more than tripled this year."
Happy Friday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)