MISSING the BEAR

I want to call out Julian Wong (@GreenLeapFwd) on something he said recently that bothered me. He was on the Mid-Morning Report, Minnesota public radio, on 8 February talking about China’s cleantech revolution:

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.

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I’m sorry Mr. Wong, but it appears you’ve missed the bear.

I 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.)





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.

Some things I'm not sure of:
Is it indeed more expensive to upgrade an old power grid than to build anew?
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?

How about it, out there? I really want to learn so please leave a comment!

Figures for Btu projected consumption

US kWh consumed 2008
Note: US electricity consumption down year on year in 2009, 3.6%, so I was being generous here.

China kWh consumed 2009
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.

rural figures China

rural figures US (assumes 20% in 2000, generalized to 2008 estimate)

In 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.

China recently abandoned 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 report by Climate Group (China’s Clean Revolution volume II). China will even be funding and supplying 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.


Meanwhile (shocker!) the US lags behind: From businessgreen.asia: “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.”

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 reduce 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 give too many carbon credits away to business (complimentary permits 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 tough enough on methane (one requires capture the other makes it optional, where methane is arguably a more malicious gHg than CO2).

Vivek Wadhwa has written about the Brain Gain 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.

The Chinese government clearly “gets” climate change a lot better than its counterparts in most developed countries: it has devoted 40% (Climate Group, Reuters 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.

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 chinadialogue.net, “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 trend in banking and investment 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.

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.

I’ve blogged before 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!

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.

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 scripted better (see Olbermann below).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

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.

Obama’s opening remarks 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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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 active learning and constructivist learning.

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.

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.

Pointless? No, I don’t think so. Sorry @fmanjoo, you’ve missed the bear.

The 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.



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.

In the “Here We Grow” 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.

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 supports 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.

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 considered: 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.

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?

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.

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?

Rob Smart at the HuffPo asks if Whole Foods is "losing it's sustainable lustre?" Losing, how about long gone.
Missing the Bear? I think so.

*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.

This time it's not the media at large that are missing the bear-- it's Meghan McCain. Where is the responsible voice who stands up against a racist leading the young republicans or the girl who poses for an ad against Prop 8?

While the media are either still laughing uproariously or stumped by Palin's resignation (comparing her to Princess Di though, is inexcusable), the same republican faction that elected Audra Shay is gaining ground. Palin is attempting to become a political pundit 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.

So come on Meghan, time for a counter move! Make some noise! Don't let Shay Republicans and Palin decide the future of the Republican party!

[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. Read my earlier post about Ms. McCain.]

Barack Obama is failing miserably on his promises reduce America’s carbon footprint. On Friday, Bloomberg News reported that Senator John Kerry said 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.

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.

But hooray for America for passing the Waxman-Markey bill 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.

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 stripped the US EPA (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 bill promises 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 does not require 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). According to 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 told Yale Environment 360 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.

The bill also establishes an EU like emissions trading system which looks primed to repeat the mistakes the EU system has made. Namely by handing out some carbon permits for free, which according to WWF 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 told Reuters recently. 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 should induce investment 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.

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.

Meghan 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 The View and Bill Maher 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).

So maybe she didn’t do so well on Bill Maher 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.

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.

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 on The View where she regularly wins kudos from both Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, and the conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Hell, Rachel Maddow loves her!

And her mass appeal is where the media is MISSING the BEAR.

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.

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.