30
We are running out of so many things, besides oil and fossil fuels — almost all of our natural resources are up for grabs — and grab at them we are doing, fast!
I read this article in the NY Times yesterday called “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.”
It’s a scary article illuminating how our insatiable desires for things we want leads to unchecked excess. Although scary in its own right — just in this case of meat farming — it was more terrifying to me in how it is a metaphor for practically every natural resource we have, and almost identical to the challenge we have around fossil fuels and energy. Of course energy is tied up in almost everything we enjoy as it accounts for practically every single facet of our standard of living.
The article got me thinking about whether we as humans have enough willpower to stop something that is going to lead to crisis in say 10, 20, or 50 years. I think I’m going to take a straw man with the position that the answer is no. Think about it. We barely can keep up our commitment to lose 5 pounds. We can barely do things that will directly, immediately improve our health, for example. It’s hard for us to keep our promises to our loved-ones, today and tomorrow. How can we possibly do something that will affect the planet more than a year, let alone a decade out. I just don’t think we can do it. In fact, maybe there are only two ways we can do it:
- laws
- technological breakthroughs
Maybe — but only maybe — if a law is passed, we’ll barely or grudgingly follow it. But why would a leader pass a law that almost nobody would like. I don’t think it can happen, unless that leader is such a leader they can take people where they think they don’t even want to go, but should. We don’t have too many of those anymore
Breakthroughs — maybe, if something is made cheaper, then we’ll follow that, and that will make our new “best interest.” But it can’t just be cheaper because of taxes, it has to be actually better and cheaper. You can’t dissuade people from doing things they want with cash, but you can give them a technological breakthrough that’s better for them and actually change their habits. Many technological breakthroughs also set people back, so it’s not given that all advance is for the good — much of it is not. It’s just that innovation CAN be a solution to challenges like these.
Since I have no skill or desire to make laws, I sit around thinking all the time of how technological innovation can solve big problems. When it can, it’s very exciting. But even when it can, it’s very hard to pull off, because it also takes an economic miracle to make it stick. But for all the difficulty despite the odds of success, it’s amazing what an impact a great breakthrough can have, and thus it’s worth losing sleep over.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
“Maybe there are only two ways we can do it:
1. laws
2. technological breakthroughs”
I totally agree with you that innovation is the way out of this mess. We’ve been NOT solving the problems for political expediency – for the last 35 years when we had our first wake-up call that something was amiss.
I believe we need not only technology innovation, but also business model innovation. Which is why I wrote my third book on this topic: the “21st Century Energy Initiative”, started my energy blog (www.energy2025.com) a few years back and launched NXergy – a renewable energy technology accelerator. We need to DO something about it: Bring seriously-improved technologies to market.
Mark
PS: Check out the value of business model innovations: http://www.energy2025.com/BW_Innovation.jpg
I hit your blog in a back-handed manner (really, is there any other way) in a search for information on you, actually. Regardless, my experience as an architect, builder, inventor, entrepreneur and now manufacturer of a product specifically designed to meet energy and building “code” (law) provides me an interesting slant on your proposal that the “way” is to mandate and/or “create” solutions.
The problem is not the creation of a law, it is the enforcement of the law. Take my product for instance… I developed a solution targeting a common and widespread construction flaw that is, in fact, required to meet energy codes and an increasing number of building codes. These “standards” for construction are the collective conclusions of thousands of hours of research and years of practical knowledge. Building codes represent a minimum performance for construction recommended for public safety. Energy codes represent the same minimum criteria for a building to deliver reasonable energy performance. Combined, these codes are our “construction law”.
The flaw in the ointment is “consistent” enforcement. I will not attempt to qualify my experiences with examples but I will try to summarize the downfall of the system.
Every building official, energy consultant, architect, contractor and knowledgeable end user will build his, or her, own personal project with the most energy efficient products available. Most often, they’re building well above “minimum” energy code standards, because it just makes sense. But when it comes to the “competitive” market, there is a different criterion. It is the “I don’t pay the energy bill… the end user does” syndrome. Without consistent code enforcement, even the good builders must lower their standards to remain competitive. I have been told many times that “I would like to use your product, but the extra cost would put me at a disadvantage”. Our product saves energy and will pay for itself in our samples in under 4 years reducing the 8% to 10% heat loss experienced in stuctures without our product. And, when analyzing our products cost percentage of a typical mortgage payment, saves money from day 1. If our existing energy codes (laws) were just enforced routinely and all new construction were properly insulated to meet those standards, we, as a nation, would immediately begin to save billions of dollars in wasted energy as well as promote billions of dollars in new “breakthrough technologies”. That is the american spirit.
At the risk of editorializing beyond my area of expertise, this is the same corporate “show a profit for the next quarter spreadsheet” attitude that has put us in our national financial predicament. It is certainly not that our decision makers are incapable. They are simply unaccountable.
Our product is EnergyEdge, visit http://www.EnergyEdgeForm.com for our products story… we save energy and resources, we just make sense.
Bill, your TED talk on a solar device from several years ago showed up on TED.com. What company/website has more information about that device?
Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice post.
Whats in it for me?
I have been selling ideas and technology for 30 years and the cycle is always the same. Whats in it for me. Me personally.
I have had environmental agencies turn off the eco features of a copier (it uses 30% less toner) because they like the black prints as opposed to the washed out prints.
Back to my point. What in it for me. Not the world, not my neighbor, ME
What gets measured gets done. This is a great truth, it is more impactfull when it is reported and public. If me gets measured and reported the masses will change. If it is also profitable I am there.
I guess the bottom line is to produce a technology that is profitable to use and puts money back into everyones pocket, is measurable and made public Your TED talk is a GREAT idea and is the start of change. I hope you get it off the ground. Measure and report.
In an article in the Wall Street Journal dated September 15, 2009, the company Aptera, located in Vista CA, was singled out as wanting to borrow $75 million from a Department of Energy loan program. The reason given for wanting this loan is to “speed development of fuel-efficient cars.”
The backers of this company include people and companies who have given large amounts of money to the Democratic Party. Now the company’s quest for this money is being boosted by a group who want to see this local company do well.
Further down in the article it mentions that Aptera doesn’t need this money to start production, they simply want the millions in taxpayer money to expand beyond California faster.
$8 billion dollars of taxpayer money through this “loan program” has already been given to three companies: Ford Motor Company, Nissan Motor Company and Tesla Motors.
Taxpayers should not be required to fund growth of any company. This is the function of a free marketplace, where market forces can determine success or failure, where lessons can be learned. If this company is allowed to access taxpayer money, lessons learned through marketplace acceptance may never come to fruition, ie. developments and improvements made at the advice and insistence of the marketplace purchasers.
Free market place a vital role in development and expansion of products and by circumvention of this valuable step, lessons are not learned.
Please support the free market by not allowing nor encouraging this company or any other company to receive taxpayer dollars at anytime.
Sincerely,
Mikki Cabrera