tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89711089489836661422024-03-14T03:09:06.437+00:00MISSING the BEAREver hear a news story and feel like the reporter has missed the point or blown past an outrageous detail? Missing the Bear: hitting the target when the media misses!Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-9357040337531015362010-03-19T14:58:00.013+00:002010-03-23T16:56:20.838+00:00Vince Cable takes a shot a NEF's 'Prosperity Without Growth' --and completely misses the bearI was horrified at Lib Dem shadow Chancellor Vince Cable’s attitude and behaviour at the Base Show Wednesday. <br /><br />Vince Cable has a pretty good understanding of the imperative to address climate change but he’s shockingly still missing the bear on the interaction between the environment and climate change, and the economic crisis.<br /><br />On Wednesday at the Base Show, Cable took a cheap shot at Tim Jackson and the <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9croissance_%28%C3%A9conomie%29">decroissance</a> or “degrowth” movement, showing he hasn’t got a clue!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ul8SpY4xJ20/S6OSTP1WFII/AAAAAAAAAAw/xiPwbTTDKtI/s1600-h/Cable_1.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 181px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ul8SpY4xJ20/S6OSTP1WFII/AAAAAAAAAAw/xiPwbTTDKtI/s320/Cable_1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5450360833413878914" /></a><br /><br />Talking about the dual problems economic recession and climate change, he said: <br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“Now how do these two problems… interact? In the short term it’s been rather bad news for the environment. If you look at British opinion polls environment certainly climate change has dropped right off most people’s radar screens. They’ve got other things to worry about, they are more preoccupied with how they manage their jobs, about managing their household balance sheets, and a lot of anxiety about the economy dominates. Environmental issues, at least in the short term, have fallen down people’s list of priorities.<br /><br />" And I think probably also, environmentalists who advocated zero growth , well, we’ve got zero growth in fact, we’ve got minus growth and it isn’t very nice. And I think people somehow wised up to this idea that all this puritanical non-consumption of resources we were being told was a good thing is actually really rather painful if you’re one of the people who was losing your job in the process. So recession has played very badly in terms of its environmental impact.<br /><br />"Secondly, on the global scene there’s this lethal, what’s called this 10, 10 problem. 10% unemployment in the United States, 10% growth in China. So far the Chinese and the Americans have coordinated their activities relatively well in this recession but anybody who talks to anybody in American politics will tell you there is enormous tension building up in the system, resentments. The Obama administration has so far managed it well, clamor for action for protectionism, many ways return to atavistic prejudices of the 1930’s as this big new power growing up building a power station every week or every day I think. How do we cope with this?<br /><br />"There’s a very strong resistance to people telling the Americans that they’ve got to calm down and deal with the climate…. <br /><br />[talks about science] <br /><br />"The question now is how we bring together the concerns we have about the economy with the imperative dealing with the issues of climate change. I think they are compatible if the case is properly made… so how do we find a way out of this box.” </span><br /><br /><br />He then goes onto mention (ironically) restructuring British economy away from finance and dependence on London, and the need to concentrate on physical infrastructure projects for transport, new energy systems, a digital infrastructure, renewables infrastructure, etc, and the necessity to create growth. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“At the moment there is no mechanism for financing this because PFI has largely broken down, stock markets are unlikely to generate long term time horizons, private equity 5 year time horizons normally most companies will not embark on all this stuff because of political risk. There needs to be some mechanism that can bring in the enormous value of savings that we know is locked up in pension funds and insurance companies looking for a safe return with these very important needs for long term infrastructure much of which centers on low carbon future and long run environmental much more friendly economy. A lot of political will and a lot of imagination will be required to bring those things together. But I think the conclusion I have is that in both the short term and the long term there is a way in which economic recovery can be very firmly tied into an environmental agenda.”<br /></span><br /><br />During the Q&A I got lucky and was called on, I asked if the lack of financing for infrastructure and green projects couldn’t be resolved very simply by implementing what the Stiglitz Sarkozy report suggests (I didn’t even mention the New Economics Foundation because of his swipe at Jackson) and revaluing the economy, he replied:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“Well I obviously buy into that, to give the government credit they did produce a set of green accounts. They have done this technically but they haven’t made much use of it. It’s just sort of sitting there on our shelves. The technical side of the work has actually been done. It’s not easy-- there’s a lot of things you can’t quantify easily but the idea of getting parallel green accounts with the economy and what it tells you, which is not surprising, is that very often when we think we’re getting better off, we’re actually getting worse off if you factor in the environmental costs.”</span><br /><br />(His equally uninformed answer to my second query, relating to personal carbon budgeting aside,)<br /><br />Yes, Mr. Cable, it would show we are getting worse off. Then we would have something to change and work at wouldn’t we and wouldn’t that change make low-carbon, infrastructure projects more valuable? <br /><br />If he buys into it, why isn’t he getting it?! <br /><br />He has apparently never ever bothered to actually read anything about decroissance or flip through Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth (Jackson who contributed to a study commissioned by parliament) because if he had he would see that the problems he’s talking about can be resolved by changing incentives in the economy in a way that will encourage long term investment and conservation. <br /><br />The potential in a huge rallying campaign behind changing society’s outlook and getting everyone on board to improve not only our long run well-being and ensuring growth of our society (not in terms of GDP growth, but as a people) wouldn’t make people turn against a government. Come one dude! You could solve long-run infrastructure investment, encourage savings, and shift the view of economic markets away from short-run returns in one move (well, likely a series of coordinated moves, but still). Long-run investment is low-carbon economy is “degrowth.”<br /><br />With all the public support Cable has, I’m frightened. <br /><br />And this is the man people want to be the next Chancellor under a hung parliament? CRINGE. I take back everything I ever said about the British public being generally better educated than the American public.<br /><br /><br />Though I won’t fault Cable entirely, the folks at NEF need to realize that the general public is (sadly) swayed by pretty language. Simply joking that ‘yeah, we should’ve thought about the “degrowth” title a little more carefully’ isn’t going to cut it. They’re spending too much time locked up in their tank rethinking the economy, they’ve forgotten that the use of language is as important as using language to begin with. I don't mean to be too hard on NEF, but I'd like to see a little more of the "do" bit in their motto.<br /><br />Update 1: Read Andy Wimbush's (blogmaster at NEF) much more <a href="http://neftriplecrunch.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/vince-cable-confused-about-steady-state/">eloquent response</a> to Cable.<br /><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-42895374840652698192010-02-18T15:53:00.005+00:002010-02-18T15:58:56.200+00:00Framing Clean Tech, China & the US: competition isn’t helpful, but neither is national securityI want to call out Julian Wong (@GreenLeapFwd) on something he said recently that bothered me. He was on the <a href="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/02/08/midmorning1/ ">Mid-Morning Report</a>, Minnesota public radio, on 8 February talking about China’s cleantech revolution: <br /><br />Wong: That’s certainly an angle that my centre, the centre for american progress is pushing, the national security angle. Perhaps it’s just a sign of the times, a sign of the current political situation where we’re in the throws of one of the worst economic recessions ever and what’s present on voters minds are the economic woes and how we get ourselves out of this an create new jobs. <br /><br />He went on to imply, throughout the interview, that the national security, energy security angle was both more useful for understanding China’s cleantech push, but also for making the American public more accepting of China’s cleantech push, rather than seeing it as threatening. He then (ineffectively, and I’ll explain below) went on to draw a parallel between energy security and an improved discourse on cleantech and China. <br /><br />I want to say that I’ve often asked Mr. Wong for comment on articles, he’s been very helpful and responsive to me, for which I am very appreciative and I respect him and his opinion very much, and much of the time he’s spot on. While he is correct that much of the time pundits unhelpfully frame cleantech in a US versus China, realpolitik, zero-sum game kind of way, Wong said that it’s more helpful to frame it in an energy security issue. This doesn’t seem much of a distinction to me however-- we’re still competing over resources.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />The language we use when establishing relationships is very important, as are the cultural values that drive how we do so. By nature, American culture is competitive and because of economic theories like comparative advantage that stem from capitalism’s evolution in the West, competition has become the motivator, the way Americans relate to the world. Without digressing into a discussion of economic revaluation, we need to think about what competition implies: zero sum, real politik, winner take all, survival of the fittest, games, versus; dichotomies inherent in the term are winner and loser, benefits and costs, acquisition and sale, abundance and scarcity, positive and negative. <br /><br />China cannot win the cleantech revolution because that implies that the US will lose: money, jobs, and resources to China. Energy security as a cleantech discourse is not much different in that it implies a certain selfishness, not needing to be dependent upon others and is abrasively independent-- things that are also implied in competition. To me, the word “security” twinges my neck with fear, it smacks of war (on terror) and threat.<br /><br />Mr. Wong and others are correct in asserting that the cleantech revolution needn’t be a competition between China and the US and that it would be beneficial to both parties as well as to the global spread of cleantech that the relationship be more of a partnership, a shared development. The competitive mindset will hold back innovation and best practice in production techniques, will likely slow the overall rate cleantech development and implementation, and may even encourage devolution into petty trade wars. <br /><br />But shared development and partnerships implies dependency-- “national security” implies the opposite. How is it possible that it’s more useful to frame cleantech in China and the US in “national security” rhetoric than competition? <br /><br />The financial crisis and the climate change issue overlap in that they both demand a revaluation of resources, economically and sociologically, of the same nature. A “green new deal” deals with issues of sustainability in lending practices and wealth creation the same way sustainability necessarily implies more efficient use and distribution of scarce resources. Inherent in the sustainability discourse are these notions of efficiency and distribution which in turn imply the necessity for collectivity and cooperation. But national security is very isolating. <br /><br />I’m sorry Mr. Wong, but it appears you’ve missed the bear.<br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-83995470776024246622010-02-05T17:14:00.007+00:002010-02-05T18:09:29.917+00:00Missing the Bear: Smart Grid spending in perspective: US & ChinaI like to have my data with a bit of perspective don’t you? (& for now I’ll leave aside the necessary discussion we need to have about this US versus them nonsense.)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/S2xewO9THHI/AAAAAAAABvc/55Ophk_xo1Y/s1600-h/Picture+7.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 227px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/S2xewO9THHI/AAAAAAAABvc/55Ophk_xo1Y/s400/Picture+7.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434823033071279218" /></a><br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />I have no idea if this is the right way to compare smart grid spending. I know very little about energy technology and infrastructure. An important consideration is that China, presumably, has a longer way to go in terms of its infrastructure improvement than the US. <br /><br />Some things I'm not sure of:<br />Is it indeed more expensive to upgrade an old power grid than to build anew?<br />Is it safe to assume that there's more energy infrastructure in place already in an urban area than a rural area? And is it more easily (i.e. less expensive) upgradeable in an urban area than rural area?<br /><br />How about it, out there? I really want to learn so please leave a comment!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ieoenduse.html">Figures for Btu projected consumption</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=2">US kWh consumed 2008</a><br />Note: US electricity consumption down year on year in 2009, <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig21.gif ">3.6%</a>, so I was being generous here.<br /><br /><a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/06/content_12763227.htm">China kWh consumed 2009</a> <br />I used Chinese government figures because presumably, that’s what they are calculating their spending on, so I don’t want to get into a discussion about how Chinese government figures are exaggerated/inflated/false.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t374790.htm">rural figures China</a><br /><br /><a href=" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm">rural figures US</a> (assumes 20% in 2000, generalized to 2008 estimate)<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-68305986580753680672009-11-28T10:55:00.005+00:002009-11-28T11:31:23.173+00:00The Future of Journalism is Cooperative, Duh!Bill Thompson <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8383570.stm">on the BBC</a>:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SxEJKCQDs4I/AAAAAAAABdc/XsG5PjxLI1s/s1600/Picture+1.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 134px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SxEJKCQDs4I/AAAAAAAABdc/XsG5PjxLI1s/s320/Picture+1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5409114695456240514" /></a><br /><br /><br />I had an interesting encounter with an editor from the environment division of a major newspaper at the Cleantech Summit last Monday. I'm taking advice on moving to Asia next year to freelance. But I'm having trouble with the visa bit-- most countries insist on a journalist must have a sponsor from a media organization. And so that's what I'm looking for: a freelance writer agency to sponsor me (by the way, if you know one, please drop me a line). The Editor didn't know one either but what he said next smacked of entrenched "old media."<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />He said something to the effect of, "Think about what you're asking. You're asking someone to sponsor you and you're going to turn around and freelance and write for other people at the same time. No one's going to sponsor you for that." In other words, in order to do what I want to do, I'll have to be hired as a reporter. Getting hired as a reporter now is impossible. From my understanding, very few newspapers and online-only media outlets are making money. And the ones that are, aren't hiring.<br /><br />The quote above is from Bill Thompson, who wrote a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8383570.stm">recent post on BBC</a> about the global internet commons, a public area in which he contends information should continue to be exchanged freely. This is a point the Editor seems to be missing. It's something I've seen work in practice: I'm covering Copenhagen for four online-only media outlets: <a href="http://www.solveclimate.com">solveclimate.com</a>, <a href="http://www.beyondprofit.com">beyondprofit.com</a>, <a href="http://www.simpleearthmedia.com">simpleearthmedia.com</a>, with a piece or two for <a href="http://www.corporate-eye.com">corporate-eye.com</a>. I approached these .com's at the outset that I would be a shared resource. And guess what? Not a single one of them had a problem with it. All each asked was that I didn't re-sell the exact same story to another. In other words, they will all have exclusive rights to what I write, but not to me. Most news organizations today (the Guardian, HuffingtonPost, New York Times) are sourcing straight news from the AP and Reuters, seemingly the only two media organizations left with foreign bureaus. <br /><br />I'm willing to bet that I'll be able to get to Asia, freelance, and get a sponsor who doesn't have a problem with it. And if I don't the reason will be something to do with insurance and liability and not reportage. The trick is finding a media outlet that doesn't think like this newspaper editor and understands the future of journalism is about cooperative, collaboration. That's what the internet has made.<br /><br />Missed the bear Mr. Editor? I think so.<br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-68684037194337266642009-11-20T22:57:00.006+00:002009-11-21T06:29:01.249+00:00Twitter's Coo's miss the bear on the pay modelToday Twitter announced that it will be providing commercial accounts with, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/twitter-commercial-accoun_n_365492.html">"access to analytical tools and ways to gain feedback from their followers."</a><br /><br />Make me a better Tweeter? Really? I'm gonna pay for that? Really?<br /><br />How many social media blogs offer free advice on how to tweet better can I access via Google?<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />As a struggling new media journalist semi-cum social media strategist I am familiar with the frustration and resulting overall sense of impending doom that comes with daily contemplation of the ever elusive pay model. Twitter is new media. Journalism is being transformed in a way such that it's inexorably linked with new media. New media is many things, including and perhaps most importantly free access to information. In that sense both the outcome of journalism's transformation and the way in which Twitter aids journalism-- access and transfer of information--must remain free.<br /><br />Twitter has missed the bear, but only slightly, in its proposed pay model. Commercial accounts are a good idea but in a different sense of the word: those that could afford to pay for them, should. The BBC, for example, the Huffington Post, Wholefoods, restaurants, Starbucks--basically, anybody that's got anything to sell. When I read " commercial accounts" that's what I thought: commercial, not pay for a how to tweet service. I'm sick of picking up 5-10 real estate agent followers, for example, every time I tweet a keyword. Keeping up with my followers list takes time. If Internet marketers want to follow me to glean my buying habits, make them pay for it!<br /><br />But how do we keep this fair for start-ups? Free limited time or private income disclosure or an honour system. Coffee shop honour systems work remarkably well. Most people in there with laptops are either freelancers or start-ups (or students) for whom money is scarce. I've worked enough "9-5"s in coffee shops to know the unwritten code: no stealing and watch some else's stuff when they get up to pee regardless of whether or not you're asked.<br /><br />To recap: make people who can pay, do so and leave Twitter as a free information service for start-ups and citizens. Thus: Twitter employees make money, journalists can track breaking news and inform, and people who live under repressive regimes can still freely access information and transfer information. Everyone wins.<br /><br />Missed the bear Tw' Oos? I think so.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-57600655997935566702009-11-16T15:14:00.003+00:002009-11-16T18:27:47.025+00:00Positivist Thinking about Copenhagen-- how leaders talked themselves out of a deal and why it may not matterA climate deal was possible by Copenhagen. Make no mistake. The way I see it, global leaders talked themselves out of it.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />There are a few reports of world leaders playing down the ability to achieve a deal at Cop15: <br /><br />It started with <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aMs9V_EUxE0Y">John Kerry in July</a>.<br /><br />Then in October and <a href="http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article814778.ece">within a week of each other</a>, Sweden's climate envoy Lars-Erik Liljelund and Yves de Boer both down played the possibility of an agreement.<br /><br />And the flurry of leaders in last two weeks including Hillary Clinton, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?_r=1">Obama, and Asian leaders</a>, who all said that a deal at Copenhagen is now unrealistic. <br /><br />From <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29503.html">Politico.com</a>: “It was unrealistic to expect a full, legally binding international agreement to be reached between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days,” said Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for economic affairs. <br /><br />But neither was <a href="http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2257">Connie Hedegaard</a>, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, <a href="http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2580">"poor nations"</a> or <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32151&Cr=climate+change&Cr1">Ban Ki Moon</a> saying that no deal at Copenhagen is not an option.<br /><br />I'm taking some time for personal improvement and <a href="http://www.go-ginger.com">learning about</a> positive psychology and the power of positive thinking.* What I learned today is that it's equally as negative to say that something can't fail as to say that it probably won't happen. Instead of telling themselves it can't be done, world leaders should have been telling themselves that a deal is inevitable. In that way they wouldn't have put themselves either between a rock and hard place-- putting too much stress on the situation to succeed-- nor acted negatively about the deal and talked themselves out of one. [There is a way in which this negativity is indicative of larger social issues in our society, but I'll refrain from getting preachy and digressing...]<br /><br />But before I drive us too far into the desperation: let's examine the extent to which we need Copenhagen: <br /><br />Businesses have begun to realize that lowering their carbon footprints not only leads to energy efficiency and a healthy planet but healthier profit margins as well. <a href="http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091109/businesses-tap-social-networking-site-strategize-away-carbon-emissions">Last month</a> I spoke with Martin Chilcott, the CEO of <a href="http://www.2degreesnetwork.com">2degreesnetwork.com</a> about how he sees businesses acceptance of climate change and sustainable business practices. He said, "We’re seeing revolution the way fund managers, investors, and owners are viewing sustainability....Green is now about managing risk better and customer value better." In other words, from the financiers to the boards to the shareholders, businesses are feeling the pressure. Chilcott explained, "If companies aren't managing this well, they aren’t managing risk and customer value well and you probably want to shift investment." <br /><br />Businesses are properly motivated for green. They don't need governments to tell them to do it anymore, they aren't waiting. From BusinessGreen.com's <a href="http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2253239/businesses-really-copenhagen">James Murray today</a>:<br /><br />"But even if Copenhagen were to fail, there are still plenty of reasons for businesses to invest in low carbon technologies and practices. Energy costs and energy insecurity will rise with or without Copenhagen, while policymakers across the world will continue to work to boost low carbon industries, regardless of any international treaty. The UK's Climate Act and the EU's renewable energy directive, for example, will not be repealed if the Copenhagen talks end in failure and recriminations."<br /><br />And a US climate bill, no matter how wimpy, is inevitable as well. <br /><br />Beyond that there is enough social pressure to respond to climate change: witness the <a href="http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091022/little-climate-campaign-could-10-10-sparks-debate-parliament">10:10 debate in the UK's parliament</a>, the <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaKoch_iEos8&ei=8pYBS4P0BqOd4gbdyujODA&usg=AFQjCNGXgq0wXy5eu8W4uoaClamM8oabVg&sig2=b9YrOkzIFmg5pZFl3x5i1A">Maldives cabinet meeting under water</a>, to name a few. According to Dan Vockins at 10:10, the campaign is poised to expand internationally starting with the Cop15 festivities. I've repeatedly pointed out on this blog that if any region in the world gets climate change, it's Asia. I've also argued that China needs to step up and lead, and present the world with a new economic model. I've spoken with various economists who agree. And as Bryony Worthington of <a href="http://www.sandbag.org.uk">Sandbag</a> told me about developing countries carbon emissions, "they will probably do it anyway just to embarrass them [the West]... When China says it’s going to do something, it generally does it.” <br /><br />The point I'm getting at: whether or not Cop15 is more than just talk and a "political agreement" is reached, might not matter anyway. People are ready and so are businesses. We are in luck even, that climate change negotiations were preceded by an economic crisis that has allowed us, as a society, to think differently about value and business practice.<br /><br />In positivist terms: we are moving forward, fully and completely, with or without the Americans and an agreement at Cop15. Deep breath: now, doesn't that feel better?<br /><br />Not that that doesn't mean that we shouldn't watch Cop15 like a pack of hungry wolves. I'll be reporting from there for <a href="http://www.solveclimate.com">solveclimate.com</a>, <a href="http://simpleearthmedia.com/">Simple Earth Media</a>, and <a href="http://www.beyondprofit.com">Intellecap Media</a>. Watch this space!<br /><br /><br /><br />*More fully: I believe in a combination of allowing "life" to show us a way but taking proactive steps to get us the rest of the way.<br /><br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-6548290965758644002009-11-10T16:04:00.003+00:002009-11-10T16:43:53.281+00:00Saudi Arabia makes "green" changes? By whose definition is nuclear, green?<span style="font-style: italic;">The Monocle</span> reports in its November edition that Saudi Arabia has 66.5 years of oil left. Their answer: go nuclear. From <span style="font-style: italic;">the Monocle</span> November issue:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"You know the world is changing when Saudi Arabia, the number one exporter<br /> of oil and gas, is toying with the idea of building its first civilian<br /> nuclear power plant."</span><br /> (<a href="http://www.monocle.com/Magazine/volume-3/Issue-28/">issue 28 (2009)</a>, p 74)<br /><br />Let me get this straight: the "world is changing"?! The world will be changing when Saudi invests in purely renewable energy technologies. Going nuclear isn't changing the world, it's running home to what's close and familiar. <br /><br />Monday evening I attended London's Green Drinks 20th Anniversary where I'm pleased to say that I've had my opinion on nuclear power in developed countries reversed (thanks to a big ginger-haired fellow and an energy infrastructure geek, where I mean geek in the most affectionate way possible). I now understand that in order to achieve emissions reductions necessary to hold the world at a 2 degree Celsius average global temperature rise that developed countries need to utilize nuclear. But Saudi isn't a "developed" country, <a href="http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/non_annex_i/items/2833.php">it's not even</a> an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change#Annex_I_countries">Annex 1</a> country. It has got more leeway than that and because it has that extra time should devote itself to finishing the development process clean and green. <br /><br />"World changing"? Sorry <span style="font-style:italic;">Monocle</span>, you've missed the bear.<br /><br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-84190815574464478712009-11-05T08:54:00.004+00:002009-11-05T09:21:04.891+00:00b2b Social Network Misses the Bear: understanding the green tech futureIn a recent interview I did with a social networking site for b2b greening strategies, the CEO of the company said the company’s expansion depends on US demand for green energy (and the demand for US businesses to provide green technology). This b2b social networking site is particularly useful because one of its functions is to act as an enabler between businesses, creating a competition free space so that businesses can collectively and cooperatively find green solutions. But the CEO's missed the bear: It won’t be US green tech companies that will lead the world in green technology, they will be Chinese. If there’s any market that ready for green, clean business adjustment it’s China. He’s also betting on traditional growth and consumption models.<br /><br />China recently <a href="http://www.businessgreen.asia/business-green/news/2252330/china-drops-chinese-policy-wind">abandoned</a> it’s “buy Chinese” policy for wind turbines. In an era of increasing protectionism it seems odd that China would do this especially as it has been the target of protectionist policies itself lately. But it makes sense when we consider that China has the global market cornered in light weight wind turbines, according to a <a href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/news_and_events/chinas_clean_revolution_ii/">report</a> by Climate Group (China’s Clean Revolution volume II). China will even be <a href="http://www.businessgreen.asia/business-green/news/2252264/china-supply-turbines-funding">funding and supplying</a> a wind turbine farm in Texas, to its advantage: 1700 net jobs created and 30% $1.5 billion financing is from US stimulus money. And while China is still heavily dependent upon fossil fuels for production, according to the Climate Group, its continued iterations of 5 year plans have placed a robust legal and regulatory infrastructure at the base of future green development. <br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Meanwhile (shocker!) the US lags behind: From <a href="http://www.businessgreen.asia/business-green/news/2252264/china-supply-turbines-funding">businessgreen.asia</a>: “Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that without a robust climate bill the US was in danger of being eclipsed in the burgeoning market for clean technologies by Chinese and European firms - fears that already appear to be being borne out.” <br /><br />Somehow I doubt the US’s climate bill will be robust enough to give US businesses the impetus they need to beat or match China in green energy R&D, if for no other reason than whatever version of the climate bill passes the US is only seeking to <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/side-side-the-senate-climate-bill-vs-the-house-bill">reduce</a> gHg emissions by either 17% or 20% by 2020 (8.5% of which is negated on account of economic recession-- here’s a question: why not go further?!), well behind most industrialized countries (17% by the way is also behind China). Both the Senate and House bills <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/side-side-the-senate-climate-bill-vs-the-house-bill">give too many</a> carbon credits away to business (<a href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/10/26/senate-climate-bill-may-go-easy-on-business/ ">complimentary permits</a> will keep the price too low) and do little to nothing about agriculture subsidies that keep us eating unsustainably (how you ask? corn subsidies = corn syrup for starters). Neither bill is <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/side-side-the-senate-climate-bill-vs-the-house-bill">tough enough</a> on methane (one requires capture the other makes it optional, where methane is arguably a more malicious gHg than CO2).<br /><br />Vivek Wadhwa has written about the <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/17/beware-the-reverse-brain-drain-to-india-and-china/ ">Brain Gain</a> phenomenon beginning to occur in Asia: if we consider universities as the R&D base of the world, then this is going to bottom out. His recent studies of US Chinese (and Indian) graduates find that these students are more likely to go home to what they see as more sustainable economic futures and a more supportive family life style.<br /><br />The Chinese government clearly “gets” climate change a lot better than its counterparts in most developed countries: it has devoted 40% (<a href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/news_and_events/chinas_clean_revolution_ii/">Climate Group</a>, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE58N0TV20090924">Reuters</a> says 34%) of its stimulus package to green projects. The US, by comparison, 12% (hate to think what that looks like if you put it in per capita measure). Despite the fact that they haven’t explicitly made emissions reductions commitments, their commitment to green tech R&D, efficient cars, and greening their energy shows that they are in a race to the bottom (lowest emissions) and they’re playing to win.<br /><br />Anybody who has studied development knows that top down models work as long as the private sector is on board too. So is it? Sort of: According to Tang Hao in a commentary on <a href="http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3306-Corporate-values-green-governance">chinadialogue.net</a>, “China’s local government officials are evaluated by their economic successes – and so powerful companies are often treated leniently. From the point of view of many firms, law enforcement is the exception rather than the rule; any official who does otherwise will be seen as a trouble-maker.” Hao explains that it is a misconception that multinational firms are attracted to China only because of cheap of labour: it’s their lax environmental law as well. But business will reform because the government says so, and there is a <a href="http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2020">trend in banking and investment</a> towards green business. If it’s true that pollution is the result of bad business practice, then China is ripe for the kind of corporate cultural transformation that this b2b social networking site can offer.<br /><br />Beyond China, looking at the US domestic market, the b2b social network CEO has also missed the bear on demand and consumption. A key to moving green forward is revaluing the economy and refocusing growth away from demand and consumption. It’s not possible that the US will demand increasing amounts of energy, at least if all goes well. Green energy is meant to be efficient and in terms of absolute demand should decrease. As it becomes more efficient the US should demand less energy, consume less not more. What would increase is welfare as the US goes green, but the capacity to do this and the future market drivers for clean green tech will be in Asia.<br /><br />I’ve <a href="http://missingthebear.blogspot.com/2009/09/china-lead-climate-change-obama-un.html">blogged before</a> about China needing to step up and lead the world on climate change. Whatever agreement is reached at Copenhagen, by the time it needs to be implemented the Chinese will be the dominant world economy. Betting your company’s future on the UK and US green tech industries, Mr. CEO? Think you’ve missed the bear. Hire some Mandarin speakers and computer programmers, quick!<br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-25943992114606985842009-10-18T11:31:00.005+01:002009-10-18T11:55:19.596+01:00Labour about to be eaten by the Bear on green job creationMissing the Bear on green jobs: <br /><br />Labour’s <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/882ef648-a86c-a054-19fa-dd54994f439a.pdf">conference pamphlet</a> (via <a href="http://twitter.com/thedancingflea">@thedancingflea</a>) talks about reviving the British economic future using green jobs but offers conflicting policy in two breaths. <br /><br />“Many of our major cities and urban centres display a rich diversity of cultures. This strength can create tensions unless we manage the impact carefully. Increased diversity requires us to respect and honour difference while maintaining cohesion and the solidarity that underpins universal services and a healthy society. Migration remains an important driver of economic success. Our history is of a nation built on openness-- to trade, ideas, and talent-- and our future must be too.”(The Choice for Britain, 17)<br /><br />Yes migration has done and it does, but Labour doesn't seem to quite grasp how. How, for example, does social cohesion feed diversity-- isn’t it an anathema? Several pages later Labour shows that it’s missed the bear:<br /><br />“We believe a tough but flexible system, rather than an arbitrary quota or cap, is better for British business and the British economy.”(28)<br /><br />Really? How is it that Labour expects to “see a significant rise in professional and high-skill jobs over the next decade” and realize returns from “rising demand from the middle-class in China and India, and increased demand for personalized goods and services in the UK.” (26) How is it that Labour expects that Britain will see economic returns from green innovation if its immigration policy blocks those with new ideas from migrating or even being educated there?<br /><br />IPR and innovation guru <a href="http://twitter.com/vwadhwa">Vivek Wadhwa</a> writes in a <a href="http://american.com/archive/2009/protectionism-vs-the-innovation-nation ">new piece</a>, “It is necessary to accept that R&D will migrate to areas of higher growth in order to tap into the new brains in those labor markets, and to gain better knowledge of those markets as well as tap into cultural and economic ties.” For this reason, he explains, it’s vital that developed countries (his article specifically sites the US, but the same can be easily applied to the UK and EU) allow freedom of movement between China and India, and the US in order to encourage the development of innovative ideas from business. <br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />The points based system Labour has come up with is <a href="http://linkchinese.net/news/2009/03/21/migrant-tax/ ">staunchly protectionist</a> (also read <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/26/lady-scotland-housekeeper-undocumented-workers ">here</a> and <a href="http://www.employmentlawforum.co.uk/index.php?/News/government-tightens-immigration-rules-to-protect-uk-workers.html ">here</a>). In one breath Labour has admitted that in order to grow the British economy in the future it needs an infusion of brain power from outside its borders, and in the next said that that brain power is only welcome if it conforms to British culture. New ideas won’t be bourne from conforming to British culture. Isn’t that the whole point of soliciting new ideas in the first place-- to discover something that doesn’t conform? <br /><br />The problem Wadhwa explains (in <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/17/beware-the-reverse-brain-drain-to-india-and-china/ ">another</a> new piece), “Only 7% of Chinese students, 9% of European students, and 25% of Indian students believe that the best days of the U.S. economy lie ahead. Conversely, 74% of Chinese students and 86% of Indian students believe that the best days for their home country’s economy lie ahead.”<br /><br />In other words, the place to be for innovation and opportunity to add to and learn from new research is about to shift away from the US and UK’s universities. The US and the UK can either fight it, as they are doing, with tighter immigration policies (though kudoos to the EU for making visa policy extra accessible to Chinese), they are effectively nailing shut their own economic coffins. According to the <a href="http://www.amcham-china.org.cn/amcham/show/content.php?Id=362 ">American Chamber of Commerce in China</a>, US visa policies have had severely negative effects on Chinese-American business relations: <br /><br />“In our 2001 survey on the business environment in China, 39 percent commented that U.S. visa policies had a slightly negative or strongly negative impact on their business. In our 2004 survey, those suffering a negative effect went up to 70 percent. Asked if travel to the U.S. is substantially more difficult than to other countries, 55 percent responded that it is and 50 percent said they now send people to other countries for business meetings that would previously have been held in the United States.”<br /><br />Unfortunately for the US and UK, China is <a href="http://www.climatechangecapital.com/news-and-events/ccc-in-the-news/the-china-greentech-report-2009-.aspx">already poised</a> to <a href="http://www.thebioenergysite.com/news/4002/china-launches-first-bioenergy-research-hub ">lead</a> the way <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/10/china-clean-energy ">renewables</a>. India’s got plenty to offer in terms of social entrepreneurial innovations. But the British points systems and recent restrictions on US visas are keeping students out. Students who might share ideas, stay and teach for a few years, interact as postgrad students with undergrads, and feed more innovation in Western economies. The US and the UK are starting from behind already and doesn’t look like they are doing much to catch up.<br /><br />Labour claims that it’s concerned about another “lost generation” of British workers, but it’s policies will lose that generation for Britain. And it isn’t just the visas: Labour’s policy on renewables has been all talk and no swagger. Lest we forget Vestas. And more could be done to sway the public, especially the rural public, towards wind power. <br /><br />Labour hasn’t just missed the bear, they’ve mistaken it for a fox in green dress, asked it to dance, and are about to be eaten by it.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-83149678073100727812009-09-25T10:17:00.005+01:002009-09-25T18:05:40.356+01:00China, not the US, Must Lead the World on Climate ChangeObama’s on to something: No, actually, it isn’t America’s job to lead. <br /><br />Bill <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/obama-united-nations-climate-speech-lacked-details-bill-mckibben.php?dcitc=th_rss">McKibben</a> at 350.org, David <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/24/climate-change-obama-un-g20">Waskow</a> at <span style="font-style:italic;">the Guardian</span>, Matthew <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/obama-united-nations-climate-speech-lacked-details-bill-mckibben.php?dcitc=th_rss">McDermott</a> at Treehugger.com, indeed a broad swath of the green media are Missing the Bear by criticizing Obama for “failing to step up and lead” at Climate Week at the UN. (Lord Stern, to his credit, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/23/climate-change-copenhagen-china-india">has it right</a>.) As an economic empire in sunset and politically limited in its domestic sphere with what it can do about climate change, Obama’s step away from leadership is (surprising from an American President) right and proper.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />He said:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“But make no mistake: this cannot be solely America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought - in word and deed - a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/obama-un-speech-text_n_296017.html">Full text from HuffPo</a><br /><br />He also said:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change has already wrought - and travel a path of clean development - will not work.”</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/obama-un-speech-text_n_296017.html">Full text from HuffPo</a><br /><br />The “fast-growing carbon emitters” to which Obama is referring are China and India (and Brazil and South Africa). Helping the poorest nations that will suffer first and most quickly from climate change is a duty that will fall not only to “developed” countries but also to China as it innovates clean technology. Obama isn’t considering China like a developing country here, he’s calling China developed.<br /><br />The pre-circulated draft text <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/us/politics/23obama.text.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 ">(from the NYT)</a> supports this: <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations – especially the poorest and most vulnerable – on a path to sustainable growth. These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution.”</span><br /><br />Though this passage wasn’t used as such and any reference to China as a developed country was not made in the speech Obama actually gave at the UN, he knows what he’s on about. <a href="http://engforum.pravda.ru/archive/index.php/t-189051.html ">China will surpass</a> the US as the global economic powerhouse by 2035. India will as well, by 2045.* <br /><br />China is already <a href="http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/40424">leading the way</a> on green technology according to a <a href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/Chinas_Clean_Revolution.pdf">report</a> by the Climate Group. President Hu Jintao has <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/22/climate-change-china-us-united-nations">vowed</a> that China will generate 15% of it’s power from renewable energy by 2020 and will plant a forest “the size of Norway.” Nicholas Stern recently <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/are-chinas-person-emissions-really-so-low">said that</a> China’s current carbon footprint is probably higher than estimated: the economically more productive provinces already have carbon footprints higher than France and Britain.<br /><br />Rest assured if there is any country that “gets” climate change, it’s China. And any criticism leveled at China for not making exact commitments in the run up to Copenhagen is highly unfounded, as is any leveled at “uncooperative” India. (India is more likely being sly like a fox.) Both countries will need green technology intellectual property rights and trade negotiations to go their way. China and India have the wherewithal to dominate the global economy in the near future. This will happen. The question is how quickly-- this is what’s at risk in the Copenhagen negotiations. <br /><br />What Obama has done is acknowledge the role the next economic superpowers will play on the world stage and the waning of American superspower. China <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/world/africa/22namibia.html">already</a> wields a great deal of soft power and is poised to wield a great deal more in the future. Like other global economic powers it has begun to guarantee its future food security by <a href="http://worldcolouredglasses.blogspot.com/2009/07/reslicing-african-cake-emerging-markets.html">buying up</a> land in Africa. Reforming the global financial system <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-42615920090922?sp=true">will be impossible</a> without China, especially because global growth will be determined by consumption and savings in China and India (leaving the issue of growth as a strategy aside here). But China (likewise India) has a lot of soft power to gain by developing as cleanly as possible, soft power it will be able to wield in the future with both the old developed world (Europe and the US) and with the developing world. The period in which it will set the example is now until 2050 at the latest, when both economies will overtake the US as the global economic leader.<br /><br />The upshots are these: The developing world can be pressed to cooperate on climate change based on the extent to which emerging markets cooperate. China and India have a real chance to set an example for developing countries to grow clean and green. And later, spread economic benefits through green tech proliferation. <br /><br />China can hold the US to account for cutting its carbon intensity: The US is currently <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/03/2675983.htm?site=local ">bogged down</a> in the domestic politics of climate change. It’s doubtful legislation for adequate emissions cuts will pass the Senate. John Kerry <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMs9V_EUxE0Y">said</a> this summer that it’s doubtful any Cop15 agreement will be ratified by the Senate. Healthcare is easily perceived by both the public and the administration as a more pressing concern than climate change and odds are that ballsy climate change legislation is where the administration will sacrifice in favor of its health care plans. China can wield soft power in the future to pressure the US do what it should about climate change. Mentioning China the way the Obama administration did in the pre-circulated draft may indicate that the Obama administration is counting on this external pressure later to take a second run at stronger domestic climate change legislation and even make certain the Cop15 agreement is passed.<br /><br />For the future, the US isn’t the country that needs to lead the world on climate change. The West should stop looking to the US to lead and acknowledge, as Obama has done, that for a green clean future it’s up to China and India to show the way. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Update, 17.58pm 24 Sep, 2009:</span> as it turns out I may not be very far off the mark on China's ability to help the Obama administration exert pressure on the Senate to pass climate legislation. I just read <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/23/are-chinese-emissions-pledges-a-game-changer-for-senate-action-president-hu-un-speech/">this article</a> on Climateprogress.org. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"The bottom line, though, is that it is getting harder and harder for Senators to hide behind China as a reason for US inaction. Quite the reverse. It is increasingly clear that absent passage of the clean energy and climate bill, we have little chance of competing with China and, at the same time, we are pretty much the last hold out for serious global action. If we get a bill, we will get an international deal."<br /></span><br /><br />*Granted this estimate is from Goldman Sachs in 2007, pre-financial meltdown, but it’s reasonable to expect that all the crisis has done is put off Chinese and Indian global economic dominance by a few years.<br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-34919209883281362472009-09-12T18:14:00.008+01:002009-09-13T17:45:55.255+01:00Obama Enfranchises Kids and @fmanjoo Misses the Bear<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjrrnfYEI/AAAAAAAABZo/rr17-EpxIl8/s1600-h/Picture+16.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 58px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjrrnfYEI/AAAAAAAABZo/rr17-EpxIl8/s320/Picture+16.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380644519406428226" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjrQbFMMI/AAAAAAAABZg/qm305WUOeQw/s1600-h/Picture+15.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 58px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjrQbFMMI/AAAAAAAABZg/qm305WUOeQw/s320/Picture+15.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380644512106623170" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjqyO3wbI/AAAAAAAABZY/a_Wy90n9brc/s1600-h/Picture+14.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 46px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjqyO3wbI/AAAAAAAABZY/a_Wy90n9brc/s320/Picture+14.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380644504002347442" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjqhMO-uI/AAAAAAAABZQ/_DJPnXB2IwQ/s1600-h/Picture+13.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 102px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SqvjqhMO-uI/AAAAAAAABZQ/_DJPnXB2IwQ/s320/Picture+13.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380644499427883746" /></a><br /><br />Last Monday I had twe-bate with Farhad Manjoo. Manjoo called Obama’s address to students “pointless” and “not worth” the political fight. Both of these notions, I tried to explain (very hard in 140 characters or less per rebut) are absolutely wrong-- by speaking directly to kids, Obama is involving them in making their own education decisions. <br /><br />Enfranchising children in their own education is important, even if “token” because it reminds them that they are active participants in their own lives. The right responded in a way that could only be observed to be hysterical (in multiple form) and encouraged parents to keep their children at home on the day of the speech. Rush Limbaugh lamented that Obama’s speech was “robbing the kids of their right to be losers.” “Pointless” Mr. Manjoo? Making the right look like fools couldn’t have been <span style="font-style:italic;">scripted</span> better (see Olbermann below). <br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32746692#32746692|0|224347" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div><br /><br />I can’t remember ever wanting to go to school. I recall wondering why I had to. I wasn’t bored at school, but I wasn’t particularly engaged either. I didn’t hate it and I definitely didn’t like it. <br /><br />Obama’s opening <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZ6GrzWkw0">remarks</a> are important, “At the end of the day we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, the best schools in the world-- but none of it will make a difference unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities.”<br /><br />My parents weren’t involved in my education. They both worked full time retail hours and assumed as a relatively intelligent kid, I was fine. They laid out my responsibilities to me: do your homework, do the best you can. After school I went to a care program. I was lazy with my school work and I did well but not the best I could have. I grew up in a relatively well-off suburb of Chicago, so I went to good schools and if it hadn’t been for the teachers I wouldn’t have done as well as I did. My parents could have been more interested but so could I. <br /><br />But what about parents who can’t be more interested because they work multiple jobs and can’t afford after school care as a substitute? Or parents who are unable to get involved with their kids’ school because they face a language barrier? Both of these scenarios are equally likely in the US today with increasing numbers of first generation Latin American immigrants and a decreasing middle class.<br /><br />I could have used some reminding along the lines of Obama’s comments on student responsibility, “I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself every single one of you has something that you’re at, every single one of you has something to offer and you have a responsibility to yourself to figure out what that is.... but you might not know it until you write that English paper... complete that science project.”<br /><br />I’m no education expert but simply googling the terms “children active own learning” yields serious search results that all support the idea that kids (human beings in general) learn best when they are actively involved in their own learning process. This means not only relating topics to themselves, but learning by doing. These approaches are called <a href="http://www.curriculumonline.ie/en/Primary_School_Curriculum/Social,_Personal_and_Health_Education_SPHE_/Social,_Personal_and_Health_Education_SPHE_Teacher_Guidelines/Approaches_and_methodologies/The_key_features_of_active_learning/ ">active learning</a> and <a href="http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning.html ">constructivist learning</a>.<br /><br />How often are kids reminded that they are active participants in their own lives, their own education? It’s pretty cool that the President bothered to address kids at all-- let alone go so far as to enfranchise them. Enfranchise? It’s the choice thing: the President recognized kids as active participants in their own lives as opposed to responsibility-less minors to be governed by school, local, state, and federal regulations. <br /><br />It may be a token acknowledgment but it’s an acknowledgment nonetheless that confers upon kids a responsibility and places an outcome in their hands. It means a lot more coming from the President than some hired-cheesy-greased-back-hair motivational speaker no one has ever heard of (let alone paying attention to in a school assembly). Thus, kids are actively engaged in the learning process slightly more than they were before.<br /><br />Pointless? No, I don’t think so. Sorry @fmanjoo, you’ve missed the bear.<br /><br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-61581891755021322852009-09-08T00:46:00.004+01:002009-09-08T00:59:55.252+01:00Whole Foods Market: neither healthy nor supporting a sustainable economic futureThe HuffPo has reported today that Whole Foods has released a new film about food awareness. This seems odd to me, when Whole Foods doesn’t seem to understand in business practice the concepts it purportedly represents. And it’s more than just the healthcare row: it’s health and communities. I know, I used to work there.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />I’m not disputing the nutritional facts in the film-- yes, I believe that artificial sweeteners are carcinogens and likely cause obesity by changing the way the hypothalamus functions. Yes, I know all about the importance of combining certain foods: like dairy with legumes and greens for optimal nutrient uptake. But for a company that claims to be a bastion of employer provided healthcare and raise awareness of healthy eating in poorer communities, Mr. Mackey has missed the bear.<br /><br />In the “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/here-we-grow-new-film-to_n_278671.html ">Here We Grow</a>” film it sounds like Whole Foods is saying “eat organic” or it’s not healthy. Unless Whole Foods is prepared to lower the price of it’s organic produce (not likely) below market then poorer communities won’t be able to afford it. <br /><br />Instead of talking about organic, let’s talk local. A lot of farmers where I call “home” (central Wisc) aren’t organically certified because they can’t meet the input costs but they use sustainable practices and no chemicals and would otherwise be called organic. Michael Pollan <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/michael-pollan-denounces-_n_272176.html ">supports</a> Whole Foods, saying that it’s often right about food-- but for every local farmer and regional product that they carry they import just as much, whether it’s Guavas from Brazil in some Boston stores, or gourmet cheese from France. <br /><br />The way the green-economic revolution is being marketed (and Whole Foods is as much to blame as anyone else) buying local prices may end up exceeding “conventional” prices. How is it healthier to price consumers out of the market? Whole Foods markets over-consumption because it’s a luxury retailer, it has therefore done very little to re-value the economy. Even less when local businesses are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-smart/is-whole-foods-losing-its_b_266804.html">considered</a>: Whole Foods dominates it’s niche market. Driving local business out of business and therefore fundamentally changing local economic circuits is not promoting a green-economy. <br /><br />And just because something is organic (or fair trade for that matter) doesn’t mean it’s healthy. I used to love to eat in the Whole Foods deli, but I made sure that I checked the nutrition labels because a lot of their deli and bakery products have absurd amounts of fat (13-20 in some muffins, 10+ in some soups) and sugar! Just because it’s organic raw cane sugar doesn’t mean that it’s made with twice as much sugar as there needs to be. The same goes for brown rice syrup (an ingredient in some product lines that Whole Foods carries). Whole Foods a bastion of healthy eating? Nope, don’t think so. I mean, props for cooking with actual fresh ingredients, but let’s leave out the excessive cream, huh?<br /><br />And now to health care: yes, Whole Foods should be considered at the top of employer provided healthcare for full-time employees. And definitely brownie points for rolling over health care allowances annually and letting employees choose how to spend it. But, Whole Foods is one of those companies that doesn’t provide any benefits for part-time employees. The labour market in recent years has trended to employ fewer full-time workers so that businesses can weasel out of providing health care. The decline in unions, overall, has lead to a decline in employer provided benefits-- this is one of the things that has lead to the healthcare mess we’re in now. Whole Foods bans union participation amongst it’s employees. If Mackey really believed in employer provided health care he support union membership, allowing unions to regain lost ground on labour rights.<br /><br />In his WSJ piece* he writes that government should no longer legislate what insurance companies must cover-- do I really need to explain why that’s a bad idea. If you let insurance companies decide what to cover, they won’t cover expensive diseases. Moreover, they may decide to link cancer to obesity, and if a patient weighs more than a certain threshold deemed “healthy” then their cancer might not be covered. Since Whole Foods foods aren’t always “healthy,” that seems a little bass-ackward, no? <br /><br />Rob Smart at the <span style="font-style:italic;">HuffPo</span> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-smart/is-whole-foods-losing-its_b_266804.html">asks</a> if Whole Foods is "losing it's sustainable lustre?" Losing, how about long gone.<br />Missing the Bear? I think so.<br /><br />*I agree with some of the other things (i.e. transparency) that he says in the op-ed, but others (taxes and torts) I have no opinion because I don't know enough about them.<br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-55559331156857886452009-08-26T04:03:00.007+01:002009-08-26T04:18:44.416+01:00Journalism is now inherently controversialJournalism is now a dangerous and controversial activity. This is from my twitter feed today. I wanted to preserve it for posterity. And it's self explanatory:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SpSn0heCO0I/AAAAAAAABXw/ad1aoodfJZU/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 79px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SpSn0heCO0I/AAAAAAAABXw/ad1aoodfJZU/s400/Picture+1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374104776139225922" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SpSn7j02ufI/AAAAAAAABX4/T-Tx01QKxvc/s1600-h/Picture+2.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 69px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__x3zmwaZCEE/SpSn7j02ufI/AAAAAAAABX4/T-Tx01QKxvc/s400/Picture+2.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374104897030896114" /></a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://report.globalintegrity.org/">Global Integrity</a> is journalism and research organization.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-31586985643384492222009-08-11T23:40:00.007+01:002009-08-12T00:47:50.215+01:00Food Security Freak Out-- Newsnight Misses the BearLast night BBC's <span style="font-style:italic;">NewsNight</span> reviewed DEFRA's new <a href="http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2009/food-0810.htm">report on food security</a>. The report says, in a nutshell, global food production will have to increase by 70% and become local and sustainable. I blogged <a href="http://worldcolouredglasses.blogspot.com/2009/07/reslicing-african-cake-emerging-markets.html">on this topic</a> last month on my other blog, <a href="http://worldcolouredglasses.blogspot.com">World Coloured Glasses</a>. NewsNight missed the bear and instead of providing a useful and educated discussion let panic and uninformed comment prevail.<br /><br />A few highlights:<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Peter Kendall, director of the <a href="http://www.nfuonline.com/">NFU</a> (National Farmer's Union) said that countries that are selling their land to foreign interests do so by choice. No they don't. (Big surprise Kirsty missed this one) Developing country governments stripped bare for revenue by SAP's and limited in maneuverability by a global economic infrastructure that favours wealthy countries with high bond ratings don't have a choice. And you can bet the people of those countries aren't making the choice to sell that land. Their future food security isn't being looked after.<br /><br />Phillipe LeGrain (don't even get me started) actually got away with saying we should buy more food from abroad, "I think we should have a free choice to buy British pork or Brazilian pork or pork from other countries, the point is we ought to have a choice." Yes, because free market economics has proven effective as of late. Government regulation? Absolutely unnecessary, just look at the financial crisis.<br /><br />LeGrain went on, "Britain is a rich and densely populated country which means that land is very expensive... it means that farmers have an incentive to economize on land, to farm ever more intensively... and that leads to problems whether it's animal welfare or food safety problems." And a moment later, "I think we could import everything we need from Brazil." Kirsty, completely missing the bear moves to Kendall, "And now you're being asked to farm with less." (Rip hair from head, groan, roll eyes). <br /><br />Hold up. First, we've glossed over the bit about land being more expensive because "Britain is a rich country." The British government could have protected agricultural land if it wanted to, if it didn't pander to global agribusiness. Second, farmers have to farm "ever more intensively" is a load of bullpuckey-- you can farm sustainably and sufficiently and make a living with the proper business and economic incentive structure and farming knowledge. If you don't believe me, go ask the Grass Point Farm cooperative in rural Wisconsin (I'm sure there are equivalent cooperative in the UK), or indigenous farming communities in Latin America, Asia, and Africa that have been farming sustainably for generations. Over time, it has been empirically proven crop yield decreases with intensive farming practices because you strip soil fertility. So no, British farmers aren't being asked to "do more with less," they are being asked to farm sustainably with carbon neutral techniques. <br /><br />Maybe <span style="font-style:italic;">NewsNight</span> could have used the segment time for a useful explorative discussion of sustainable farming techniques, <a href="http://www.slowfood.org.uk/Cms/Page/home">the Slowfood</a> movement, and economic revaluation that would allow for such systemic change. Instead fear mongering-- protect your food, fetch the pitchforks, trade protectionism, subsidize agrobusiness to buy up (more) land in developing countries. I was waiting for a population control pundit to pop up and start talking about birth rates in Africa and sterilization...err... I mean family planning policy from the 1960's and 70's.<br /><br />Missed the Bear <span style="font-style:italic;">NewsNight</span>? Yes, yes I think so.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-73158292883943727192009-07-22T07:07:00.001+01:002009-08-03T17:32:10.829+01:00Whatever happened to re-valuing the global economy?According to <a href="http://bit.ly/vGiUv">Stewart Brand</a> by 2050 80 percent of the world’s population will dwell in urban areas. By 2015 the developing world will have eight of ten of the biggest cities per capita. These cities will develop three times faster than cities in developed countries and on average will be nine times bigger. Urban areas consume massive amounts of resources. What’s missing from the climate change discourse is this: we cannot continue to consume the way that we have, in the West or as a species. And the trouble is the West is the paradigm. The Western model is what people in the developing world still aspire to. G8 leaders have declared that the answer to global recession is to hope that <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13701737">Chinese</a> and Indian consumers <a href="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13900125">pick up the slack in global demand</a> by consuming more. Is this sound economic policy?<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Consider: global <a href="http://inspiredeconomist.com/2008/10/29/the-steady-state-economy-a-new-economic-architecture/">economic</a> growth is measured in terms of consumption (consumer demand and retail sales, especially for the model: Western economies) and moves in lock step with carbon emissions. Climate change experts from scientists, to economists, to politicians <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contraction-Convergence-Solution-Schumacher-Briefing/dp/1870098943/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248243937&sr=8-1">say that</a> Western countries cannot continue to consume at the level that they have, that developing countries will have to pursue a different path to development that not only involves cleaner emissions but a different, ultimately lower consumption pattern. But global economic recovery is still talked about in terms of new car sales, retail earnings, new homes built. New, new, new, buy, buy, buy. Is your brain doing that thing where it feels fuzzy in the middle? Mine is.<br /><br />This week there are several stories that tap into the miss-match in green economic recovery logic: First, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106697286">a new study finds</a> that warmer years see less economic progress in developing countries. Second, there is the revelation that <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/buying-green-ruin-credit.php">credit markets are anti-green</a>. Sustainable consumer behavior (say paying a cobbler to fix your favorite pair of shoes rather than buying a new one or a whole bunch of charges at a thrift store) is seen as a “warning sign” to credit card companies of declining card holder revenue. Third, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become <a href="http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/2009/06/no-more-ethical-businesses/">sustainabawashed</a> (yes, I’ve just made up this word). For the most part, according to CSR expert <a href="http://www.apesphere.com/">Andrew Newton</a>, the concept “has become shorthand way of saying a company’s ethical behavior is only useful if it preserves or enhances the company’s bottom line (paraphrase).” He is quoted in an <a href="http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/2009/06/no-more-ethical-businesses/">article</a> on <span style="font-style:italic;">the Corporate Eye</span> explaining that the true spirit of CSR doesn’t go beyond charitable donations and that most companies could do more if they were willing to take a cut in profit.<br /><br />Taking a cut in profit—like taking a cut in growth? China <a href="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13692907">regularly sees annual GDP growth</a> of around 10% (conservatively) give or take. That’s a lot of growth. There is also tacit understanding that these <a href="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13692907">numbers are doctored</a>. And thus the essence of the problem: developed countries for the last decade or so average around 1-2% annual economic growth, so China’s doctored average of 10% looks really huge and they want it to. The UN estimates that for African economies need to grow by an average annualize rate of 6% per year in order to maximize aid effectiveness. But how much of that growth is sufficient but not necessary? We are used to huge percentages 6-13% of GDP growth, and China isn’t even “developed” yet. How much growth is enough? Could we get used to smaller numbers if economic growth was valued properly like <a href="http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_contactdetail.aspx?page=877&folder=142&cid=8">Andrew Simms</a>, <a href="http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html">Aubrey Meyer</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Pettifor">Ann Pettifor</a>, <a href="http://frontlineclub.com/events/2009/04/insight-with-colin-challen-mp--climate-change-a-perfect-storm.html">Colin Challen</a>, et al. suggest? <br /><br />This economic revaluation should be part of the green recovery discourse. But so far most of what I’ve seen is green(washed) marketing, call it marketing and materializing climate change. For profit. The governments don’t get it, nobody involved in pre-Copenhagen negotiations is talking about it (at least not openly), and the economists are still talking about economic recovery in terms of retail sales and consumer demand. The mainstream press isn’t making any noise, having once again Missed the Bear. As the second world moves into the first, developing countries develop, they must do so on a better paradigm than the Western one. And Westerners will have to learn to consume differently. <br /><br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-9783374848740596142009-07-16T21:16:00.000+01:002009-07-16T22:12:53.868+01:00Meghan McCain on Sarah Palin???This time it's not the media at large that are missing the bear-- it's Meghan McCain. Where is the responsible voice who <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-10/do-not-elect-a-racist/">stands up against a racist leading the young republicans</a> or the girl who <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-19/why-i-posed-against-prop-8/?cid=bsa:moreauthor3">poses for an ad against Prop 8</a>?<br /><br />While the media are either still laughing uproariously or stumped by Palin's resignation (<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-05/sarah-palin-and-princess-di/">comparing her to Princess Di</a> though, is inexcusable), the same republican faction that <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-15/inside-the-young-gops-civil-war/?cid=bs:featured4">elected Audra Shay</a> is gaining ground. Palin is attempting to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html">become a political pundit</a> and seems to be positioning herself for something. My best guess is that she's making a bid to replace Michael Steele. Steele clearly hasn't done much for Republican party unity since his leadership of the GOP began. Palin clearly has support amongst the Republican everywomen, but has had too many mishaps to survive another electoral run for public service.<br /><br />So <span style="font-style:italic;">come on</span> Meghan, time for a counter move! Make some noise! Don't let Shay Republicans and Palin decide the future of the Republican party!<br /><br />[I know, I can't believe I've just written this either-- left of the American left as I am. What can I say for myself? I just like smart, ballsey (ballsy?) women. <a href="http://missingthebear.blogspot.com/2009/06/watch-carefully-as-megan-mccain-single.html">Read</a> my earlier post about Ms. McCain.]Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-5344364681611048342009-07-04T20:11:00.000+01:002009-07-21T20:46:39.849+01:00Pardon me Sir, but you've missed the bear (again). The Waxman-Markey bill, the US Senate, and the Copenhagen Climate SummitBarack Obama is failing miserably on his promises reduce America’s carbon footprint. On Friday, <span style="font-style:italic;">Bloomberg News</span> reported that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aMs9V_EUxE0Y">Senator John Kerry said </a>that the Senate will likely pass a Climate Change Bill that “puts America on track” to reducing carbon emissions but will likely fail to ratify an international Climate Change treaty. In other words, Copenhagen has been compromised. <br /><br />Kerry’s admission that the US probably can’t ratify any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen compromises the summit in three ways: it reduces the ability of any country to negotiate for future emissions reductions that are high enough to be effective to prevent run-away climate change, it preemptively reduces the level of carbon emissions reductions that any country will commit to, it undermines any effort at making fast-growing emerging markets promise to improve carbon efficiency at a high enough level, and it reduces the responsibility of participating states to abide by any treaty agreed at Copenhagen. Without the world’s largest carbon emitter completely on board, there is no hope.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />But hooray for America <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jun/26/us-obama-climate-monbiot">for passing the Waxman-Markey bill</a> which legislates 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 on a 2005 baseline! Show the world the way forward, show the world how important it is to reduce carbon emissions and come to an agreement at Copenhagen to prevent runaway climate change! Way to go! Even though the UK has legislated a 34% and the EU a 20% reduction by 2020, both from a 1990 baseline. Despite the difference in baseline, the US is still the largest carbon emitter in either 1990 or 2005. Nice effort America. Way to lead Mr. President. <br /><br />Kerry’s statement makes the passage of a toothless Climate Change bill, the Waxman-Markey Bill, by the US House of Representatives last week that much worse. The bill <a href="http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2163">stripped the US EPA</a> (Environmental Protection Agency) of it’s ability to regulate coal power thereby not preventing coal-fired power stations from being built in the future. The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jun/26/us-obama-climate-monbiot">bill promises</a> not to examine the environmental impacts of biofuels (which on net do not emit less carbon than fossil fuels when you take into account the production process; I won’t even mention price distortions biofuels cause in global commodities markets). The bill <a href="http://www.agnetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=323573">does not require</a> the agriculture industry (including meat industry) to assess it's carbon emissions; instead it includes provisions that allow for big agriculture to make windfall profits from carbon offsets and drive out small family farthers (sustainable agriculture, I think not). <a href="http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2163">According to</a> the US director of Greenpeace Phil Radford, “The Renewable Energy Standard requires less new clean energy than we would have without this bill passing.” He also cited scientific evidence that US carbon emissions would have to be reduced 20-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to prevent “catastrophic climate impacts.” The Waxman-Markey bill only provides for a 4-7% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. Proponents of the bill like Joseph Romm from the conservative think tank Center for American Progress <a href="http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2163">told <span style="font-style:italic;">Yale Environment 360 </span></a>that the Waxman-Markey bill is compatible with preventing a 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures; last week scientists in the UK declared that 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is guaranteed.<br /><br />The bill <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54E4EZ20090515?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0">also establishes an EU like emissions trading system</a> which looks primed to repeat the mistakes the EU system has made. Namely by handing out some carbon permits for free, which <a href="http://assets.panda.org/downloads/point_carbon_wwf_windfall_profits_mar08_final_report_1.pdf">according to WWF</a> allowed for 6-15 billion Euros in windfall profits in the UK and 14-34 billion Euros in Germany, “providing a free allocation… does reduce the incentives provided by the scheme to invest in low emissions generation technology.” Issuing free permits coupled with over-issue of permits means that carbon per tonne is ridiculously underpriced in the EU ETS scheme. Free permits means the market price for carbon is distorted, the Carbon Trust’s chief economist Michael Grubb <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54E4EZ20090515?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0">told <span style="font-style:italic;">Reuters</span> recently</a>. Granted, free permits in the US scheme will be “regulated” by state agencies such that any increase in the price of energy is felt by energy companies rather than consumers. This method <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/earth2Tech/idUS48749101720090629">should induce investment</a> in efficient technology, but will simultaneously fail to induce consumers to use less energy. It isn’t enough that technologies become more efficient, people will have to learn to consume differently, to consume less in order to prevent runaway climate change. <br /><br />It was the president's responsibility to lead on Climate Change, not just the US but the international community as well. His ability to lead at Copenhagen is now compromised. Sorry sir, but you've Missed the Bear, again.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-49306871719072729912009-06-29T16:31:00.000+01:002009-07-22T07:45:14.474+01:00Almost there: Climate (errr.. Enviro- , Eco- ) Refugees (err... migrants?)<span style="font-style:italic;">The Economist</span> almost gets it: "Eco-migrants will be paperless paupers, whose multiple woes are hard to disentangle." An <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925906">article</a> in this week’s <span style="font-style:italic;">Economist</span> discusses the black hole future climate refugees are likely to face in the next decades. <br /><br />The article focuses on the legal implications and terminology that will or won’t (probably won’t) be applied to climate refugees. <span style="font-style:italic;">The Economist </span>favours climate-change migrants, eco-migrants, and environmental refugees. Climate Refugees is my favorite term—though Eco-Refugees is equally as pleasing. However, to even use the designation “refugee” implies vast international legal consequences including (but not limited to) the right to shelter, education, and health provision. The designation that most states prefer is “displaced person” because it confers fewer legal rights upon the individual. The UNHCR has always been reluctant to grant the full refugee designation—just ask the Iraqis living in East Amman, Jordan. <br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Most states prefer to designate “migrants” as “displaced.” Developing countries will be the front line recipients of climate refugees and their already strained (or non-existent thanks to SAPs) social welfare systems will be overwhelmed. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/21/climate-change-natural-disasters">Oxfam has said</a> that the number of people affected by increasingly severe natural disasters like hurricanes, monsoons, and the like will increase by 54% in the coming decades and have already doubled since 1980. The <a href="http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/policy_and_research/policy_documents/policy_brief.pdf">IOM estimates</a> that the Sertao region of Brazil, for example, has already seen an outflow of 60 million people and Africa 10 million due to climate change. A CARE expert The Economist spoke with wondered “how anybody can now distinguish between forced and voluntary migration.” As climate refugees multiply we may no longer be able to.<br /><br />Why? A fisherman in a coastal African town migrates because fish stocks have been depleted by Western demand and failing ecology such that he no longer has a livelihood with which to support his family. He <span style="font-style:italic;">chooses</span> to migrate to France. Couldn't he have <span style="font-style:italic;">chosen</span> to take up a new trade and stay in Africa? Is the lack of ability to provide for one’s family (in absence of armed militias) a <span style="font-style:italic;">force</span> of migration? And if it is, how many states will be willing to pony up the cash or migrant worker visas to provide for these people? How are they different, therefore, from impoverished migrant workers seeking a better life in a developed country?<br /><br />Wait, wait, wait… who’s mentioned developed countries taking in climate-change migrants? Nobody. The governments and the media have missed the bear. <br /><br />While it is appropriate policy for developed countries to fund climate change mitigation between <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925906">$40 billion</a> (Ethiopia’s PM Zenawi’s suggestion) to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/26/gordon-brown-climate-adaptation-cost">$100 billion</a> (a sum according to Gordon Brown), not a single* developed country has made a comprehensive attempt to accept climate-change migrants. Why not? That would involve developed countries taking comprehensive responsibility for climate-change. The developing world accounts for only 3.2% of global carbon emissions, according to the IPCC. It’s foolish for developed countries to think that they can avoid accepting some climate-change refugees (migrants, whatever…) especially since large ethnic migrant communities are already established developed countries and developing countries are heavily dependent upon remittances from those communities. The Bangladeshis in the UK, the Senegalese in France, and the Somalis all over the place are examples that come to mind.<br /><br />Another way in which governments and the media have missed the bear is failing to equate the need for infrastructure and long term investment in the developing world with $40-100 billion to fund climate mitigation. But the UK government has also <a href="http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Transport/916382/Scientists-demand-national-infrastructure-overhaul/">failed to understand</a> that its own efforts to reduce carbon emissions will fail unless it invests heavily in infrastructure. As refugees are driven away from home, they will most likely flock to the nearest large city. Slums or squatter cities are likely to increase in size as well, but these are already legal black holes. It is critical that governments find a way to enfranchise this housing and provide sanitation and water. Infrastructure privatization has too many strict regulatory and monitoring requirements to be effective. Infrastructure needs to be made an explicit priority behind climate-change mitigation aid. And developed country governments need to seriously consider taking responsibility for their carbon emissions by changing their immigration policies to allow climate refugees visas (perhaps with consideration of large ethnic communities already present).<br /><br />*New Zealand has an agreement with the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu—for the uninitiated this is where the .tv domain comes from. (see Andrew Simms, Ecological Debt)<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-84172743685872293032009-06-23T00:36:00.001+01:002009-07-22T07:46:10.275+01:00Watch carefully as Meghan McCain single-handedly revives the Republican PartyMeghan McCain's progressive-conservative politics may just revive the republican party. Clearly she isn’t just the flavour of the month—the girl has staying power. It makes sense that <span style="font-style:italic;">The View</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">Bill Maher</span> would book her as she is controversial, stirring up the Republican Party. I’ve been watching her for a few months now with both amusement and admiration. Amusement because after eight years of W. melted mess that is the Republican Party is satisfying in the way dark chocolate syrupy covered icecream is on a hot mid-western afternoon in August. Admiration and chagrin because—hell, I like her (for the uninitiated, I’m left of the American left). <br /><br />So maybe she didn’t do so well <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB43uoD4R6Q">on Bill Maher</a> the other night—she did get a rightly deserved slap down but not for being republican, for being unprepared. But instead of being satisfied, I want her to learn from this experience and step up. Perish the thought the republicans make a come back but there is something undeniably sympathetic about Meghan McCain.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Meghan McCain is the quintessential lipstick feminist generation Y-er. The girl has balls! She’s been embraced by feminists on both the right and the left—she’s progressive enough for a republican to appear warm and fuzzy to centrists and liberals but simple spoken and morality driven enough to appeal to the right as well. How so? When asked about her feelings on abortion instead rattling off talking points about how many low-income, unwed mothers have abortions she paused and looked thoughtful and answered with her own experience with the issue: empathy for a friend in that situation. <br /><br />After the legacy of international and domestic manipulation left by the Bush administration people are looking for political messages that resonate on a personal level—witness Barack Obama’s message of hope. The level of her mass appeal is best evident in her recurring appearances <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr74jn3ZpxA&feature=related">on The View</a> where she regularly wins kudos from both Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, and the conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Hell, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yjWys7RAvU">Rachel Maddow</a> loves her!<br /><br />And her mass appeal is where the media is MISSING the BEAR. <br /><br />Meghan McCain doesn’t have the experience to run for a major political office just yet. And she may not have that experience in even four or eight years time. But it doesn’t matter—she doesn’t have to run for political office. She just has to continue to challenge the Republicans to wander out of their stupefying eight year hangover and win followers as she does it. Those Republicans with the national longevity to lead the party only have to take up the line she's cast. <br /><br />Centrists and some democrats are already becoming frustrated with Obama and that has the potential to escalate if the economy doesn’t recover soon (disclaimer: Obama can’t be blamed for the economy failing to recover quickly because by nature economies take uncertain amounts of time to recover as a lot of economics is perceptions and lagged stimulus effects). Watch Meghan McCain rally and rebuild the Republican Party. I will be; and four years from now don't say I didn't warn you.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-47809955656460912622009-06-16T16:41:00.000+01:002009-07-22T07:46:48.001+01:00E.On at the Guardian Climate Summit : Greenwashing or Transparency?<a href="http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Coal-in-a-hole">Independent and alternative media</a> in the UK have boisterously criticized the <span style="font-style:italic;">Guardian</span> newspaper for allowing E.On to sponsor their Climate Change Summit again this year. The <span style="font-style:italic;">Guardian </span>has long had a reputation for being the most environmentally conscious and conspicuous mainstream newspaper in the UK. I attended the Summit this year. I listened to E.On’s Dr. Paul Golby try to explain away lobbying the British government to build a new coal fired power station at Kingsnorth and attempting to negotiate with the British government for an escape clause to 100% CCS by 2025. And then came the Q&A from an audience half filled with activists working for environmental non-profits. <br /><br />The question is did E.On get away with greenwash? Not inside the Summit, no. None of the other delegates were going to let it. <br /><span class="fullpost"><br />The <span style="font-style:italic;">Guardian’s</span> Jo Confino addressed E.On’s sponsorship of the Summit in his closing remarks. He explained that the Guardian did consider what it knows (what the world knows) about E.On’s understanding of its role in climate change. Confino explained that E.On may not be doing things that are fantastic for the climate right now, but it’s trying to change. By inviting E.On to the table, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Guardian</span> believes, it is helping to foster debate and “more debate is good debate.” <br /><br />E.On’s participation in the Summit does two things: First it provides a platform from which E.On can run its climate friendly policies by the environmental community. If E.On truly wishes to gain the environmentally friendly reputation it wants, then doing everything that it can to put itself into the way of environmental activists and letting those activists vet its policy is a smart business move. Second, sending representatives and exposing itself to a Q&A puts E.On in an exposed position where the company literally has its thinking checked by the environmental community. <br /><br />Confino said that the <span style="font-style:italic;">Guardian</span> wouldn’t allow a Malaysian palm oil company to sponsor the Summit. Assuming that’s true, then it's safe to assume that E.On’s future participation in the the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatesummit">Guardian’s Climate Change Summit</a> is contingent upon its continued efforts to “green” its business. It is worth recognizing E.On for having good intentions. Not many companies would put themselves in that position. <br /><br />In any conflict it's too easy to paint the other side with a bad-guy brush instead of embracing them. <a href="http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2009/04/guardian-hypocrisy.html">If the indymedia is any indicator, environmentalists are keen to shove E.On into a corner instead of engaging with them.</a> The <span style="font-style:italic;">Guardian</span> is right on—E.On is attempting to be transparent by letting environmentalists have go at them, face to face. As Confino himself pointed out at the start of the Summit, the recession has been good for green transparency—emission reduction requires huge capital investment now in order to save later. In this way the recession has, to a certain extent, flushed out the committed from the greenwashers. E.On is clearly committed to cleaning up its act. Its thinking may be in error at the moment but at least it's participating in the public debate. Environmentalists have a responsibility to keep E.On there.<br /></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971108948983666142.post-65234013616362634732009-05-14T00:21:00.000+01:002009-05-14T00:22:55.796+01:00Coming Soon to this Site!<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Missing the bear: because the media often don't get it!<br /></span></span>Annhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125164519745648710noreply@blogger.com0