Wow. What do you do when the horses are already outta the gate?
What do you do with the CO2 is already into the atmosphere? This is the idea of capturing that 400 parts per million of CO2 out of the atmosphere after it's already, well, up in the error -- oops... I mean -- up in the air.
Here are the winners of the XGames competition on CO2. This $20M competition is to figure out ways to carbon capture and sequester (CCS). Unlike some industrial byproducts, CO2 can have a value (bottling, for example, to give you that happy fizz in your pop).
Here's some info on this big competition in Canada: CBC News discusses competition sponsored by Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and U.S. company NRG.
One of the 9 finalist, Ingenuity Labs, emulates photosynthesis to remove carbon dioxide from smoke stacks and such. They use a photosynthesis-like process to extract the carbon and make several industrial products out of the extract. True, this is a lot like planting a tree, but you have to wait 20 years for the wood, vs the immediate gratification of industrial products.
A very cool concept is by Carbicrete. Take out CO2 from an emissions source (say a smoke stack) and infuse it into concrete where the carbon is happily sequestered and it actually strengthens the concrete. (Note that concrete is a leading industrial source of CO2 emissions.)
While Canada is moving full forward with sustainability initiatives, the US is set to make a major shift in the other direction. Trump's Pruitt pick for the EPA might result in two departments of Energy. (Facts and miss-facts about Pruitt.)
The US has never had an energy policy. Carter was the last to propose one. Obama kinda had one, but without any legislative support, he was force-feeding it through the EPA. No matter who you are, that's not the right way. So the Clean Energy Plan, is about to get the can!...
That means the the job of the CCS might turn out to be far, far bigger in the future, as we try to burn up the last century or so of fossil fuels over the next hundred years.
We here at SustainZine consider "conservative" this way: The bestest, cheapest, cleanest gallon of gas is the one never extracted, never processed and never burned. The bestest, cheapest, cleanest tonne of coal is the one never extracted, never processed, and never burned (scrubbing or no scrubbing).
Friday, January 20, 2017
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Sustainable Long-term good for R&D, Patents and Profits
Here's exerts from the blog over at IPzine, a sister blog spot.
A recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.
Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.
The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.
There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.
[Methodology and results related to patents is discussed here in the IPzine blog. There are lots of assumptions made about the close vote by the board to align compensation with long-term results in conjunction with the subsequent financial performance of these publicly traded firms. Patents were monitored to see how they cited past patents and the citations of the companies patents in the future. This gives a good proxy of the value of the patents and how revolutionary they are (to the firm).]
Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.
There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.
They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)...
Anything else is, well, short-sighted!
References
Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.
A recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.
Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.
The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.
There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.
[Methodology and results related to patents is discussed here in the IPzine blog. There are lots of assumptions made about the close vote by the board to align compensation with long-term results in conjunction with the subsequent financial performance of these publicly traded firms. Patents were monitored to see how they cited past patents and the citations of the companies patents in the future. This gives a good proxy of the value of the patents and how revolutionary they are (to the firm).]
Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.
There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.
They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)...
Anything else is, well, short-sighted!
References
Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.
Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2016). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2629
Monday, December 5, 2016
World Soil Day the down-and-dirty on Ag
When you eat, and as you eat today, give thanks to the soil that made it all possible.
USDA on Soil Day. December 5th.
Today is World Soil Day, and the the truth is in the soil. Neglect the soil long enough and all you have is depleted crops. AND no, it does not come in the usual 6-6-6 fertilizers that concentrate on only 3 components in the fertilizer while neglecting how the soil got depleted in the first place.
It has to do with cycles. Farms were never meant to have all the crops hauled away to the cities, with no mechanism to return the nutrients. We experienced this during dust bowl of the great depression, where top soil had been depleted and the ag practices tilled the land so the remaining topsoil was readily blown away.
We all need to think more about closed-loop ag systems. All crops begin with the nutrients and the soil. We neglect and deplete them at our own demise.
Eat well today, and think about fertile soil and healthy food systems.
Bon Appetite.
USDA on Soil Day. December 5th.
Today is World Soil Day, and the the truth is in the soil. Neglect the soil long enough and all you have is depleted crops. AND no, it does not come in the usual 6-6-6 fertilizers that concentrate on only 3 components in the fertilizer while neglecting how the soil got depleted in the first place.
It has to do with cycles. Farms were never meant to have all the crops hauled away to the cities, with no mechanism to return the nutrients. We experienced this during dust bowl of the great depression, where top soil had been depleted and the ag practices tilled the land so the remaining topsoil was readily blown away.
We all need to think more about closed-loop ag systems. All crops begin with the nutrients and the soil. We neglect and deplete them at our own demise.
Eat well today, and think about fertile soil and healthy food systems.
Bon Appetite.
Corps report on sustainability, kinda
Good news corporations are reporting on sustainability-related issues, especially those risks associated with operating a business that does not account or consider the areas where they are not sustainable. Operations in the UnSustainable Zone have lots of risks such as, for example, the company may not really be profitable. Cheap coal, is not nearly so cheap when you figure in all the negative externalities: pollution, health, CO2, coal ash...
Check out this WSJ article about the reporting, or lack thereof, of sustainability by large companies. First, 81% of companies report something, but 52% of those reporting used "boilerplate language to flag the risks without articulating management response strategies." That would mean, if I understand it correctly, that only 42% of big firms report meaningful information on sustainability and the risks to the organization. But using Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB, would give the reader/investor meaningful information about the true profitability (economic profit) and the underlying risks. (See wikipedia on SASB or SASB.org.)
I know what you are thinking... These area the same types of risks that Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to address. If the risks are real, and material, then they must be meaningfully assessed and reported. Right?
Check out this WSJ article about the reporting, or lack thereof, of sustainability by large companies. First, 81% of companies report something, but 52% of those reporting used "boilerplate language to flag the risks without articulating management response strategies." That would mean, if I understand it correctly, that only 42% of big firms report meaningful information on sustainability and the risks to the organization. But using Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB, would give the reader/investor meaningful information about the true profitability (economic profit) and the underlying risks. (See wikipedia on SASB or SASB.org.)
I know what you are thinking... These area the same types of risks that Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to address. If the risks are real, and material, then they must be meaningfully assessed and reported. Right?
Top Companies Are Disclosing Sustainability Risks, But Not The Way Investors Want
By
By
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Trump of Sustainability - Paul Bunyan tromps again!
Sustainability efforts take a big hit with the Trump election to president.
Some forces are bigger than he, however.
Congress didn't act on most things sustainable-ish, so much of the Obama efforts have been by executive order and by regulations. The EPA on coal, for example. The right way to regulate emissions in general -- and fossil fuels specifically -- is by a carbon tax (or cap n trade). With a carbon tax, then all subsidies of all kinds can be readily removed and let the markets take care of resource allocation. New power and retirement of existing production takes care of itself.
So now, we can expect the EPA restrictions to be systematically eroded.
But, even if the EPA is removed from the picture, we should never expect to see another coal power plant. NatGas is so much cheaper -- in all the spellings of the word -- and dirt cheap. See our blog post on coal here.
One would hope, however, that Trump would take on bigger and more immediate issues before attacking the Paris agreement on climate change (COP21, and COP22 starting as we speak in Marrakesh). That is taking on a big segment of the US population and the will of the entire world that, up until Paris a year ago, has never agreed on many thing since the Montreal agreement on reducing fluorocarbons (and the recent extension of this in Oct-Nov 2016).
When we saw Virginia coming in all red, and only flipping blue based on metro areas (DC), you knew that Trumps message had really grabbed traction with the blue collar coal miners and such.
Sadly, the idea of putting coal back to work, is a painful lie to the mining community. Coal is never going to come back. Countries like Germany have totally retired the coal power. Even China may not put any more coal power plants to work; they're trying to get the air clean enough for people to breath.
The idea from Hillary was that she would make efforts to transition the "dead and dying back in my little [coal] town". The promise from Trump to put coal miners back to work is sadly a very cruel promise. Wishing it were true, does not make it so.
You have to feel for the miners though.
First we backed out of the Kyoto protocol, now we will back out of Paris. You have to really feel for those countries 200 countries that have been pushing so hard to address the huge footprint we are having on the planet, while the US, the Paul Bunyan of footprints, is putting on his BIG boots to go tromping again.
An added note is the horror story of a team that has been advising Trump on Energy and Environment, aka the agency formerly know as the EPA. This Scientific America article was in Sept 26th.
Some forces are bigger than he, however.
Congress didn't act on most things sustainable-ish, so much of the Obama efforts have been by executive order and by regulations. The EPA on coal, for example. The right way to regulate emissions in general -- and fossil fuels specifically -- is by a carbon tax (or cap n trade). With a carbon tax, then all subsidies of all kinds can be readily removed and let the markets take care of resource allocation. New power and retirement of existing production takes care of itself.
So now, we can expect the EPA restrictions to be systematically eroded.
But, even if the EPA is removed from the picture, we should never expect to see another coal power plant. NatGas is so much cheaper -- in all the spellings of the word -- and dirt cheap. See our blog post on coal here.
One would hope, however, that Trump would take on bigger and more immediate issues before attacking the Paris agreement on climate change (COP21, and COP22 starting as we speak in Marrakesh). That is taking on a big segment of the US population and the will of the entire world that, up until Paris a year ago, has never agreed on many thing since the Montreal agreement on reducing fluorocarbons (and the recent extension of this in Oct-Nov 2016).
When we saw Virginia coming in all red, and only flipping blue based on metro areas (DC), you knew that Trumps message had really grabbed traction with the blue collar coal miners and such.
Sadly, the idea of putting coal back to work, is a painful lie to the mining community. Coal is never going to come back. Countries like Germany have totally retired the coal power. Even China may not put any more coal power plants to work; they're trying to get the air clean enough for people to breath.
The idea from Hillary was that she would make efforts to transition the "dead and dying back in my little [coal] town". The promise from Trump to put coal miners back to work is sadly a very cruel promise. Wishing it were true, does not make it so.
You have to feel for the miners though.
First we backed out of the Kyoto protocol, now we will back out of Paris. You have to really feel for those countries 200 countries that have been pushing so hard to address the huge footprint we are having on the planet, while the US, the Paul Bunyan of footprints, is putting on his BIG boots to go tromping again.
An added note is the horror story of a team that has been advising Trump on Energy and Environment, aka the agency formerly know as the EPA. This Scientific America article was in Sept 26th.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Oh Frack... Ain't no such thang clean oil n gas!
You've heard that there ain't no such thing as "Clean" Coal. Maybe scrubbing some of the sulpher and removing some of the heavly metals. But certainly not clean. And then there's the dirty little secret of Coal Ash!.
But this article sums up the current research related to fracking. Ouch. Evidense keeps mounting about the down-side of oil fracking. This article really sums it up.
Link to the Ecologist article on Fracking.
Of course, our argument here at SustainZine, is focused around the sustainability nature of fossil fuels in general. It's okay, kinda, to use fossil fuels, but only do so when you have a long term plan that is sustainable, and this is the bridge to the future.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace. - The Washington Post
Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace. - The Washington Post:
This is a great article about the "open air" cubicle farm for workers. Or "fish bowl" for employees.
Telecommuting would help this work better. If someone has a real deadline and real work that needs to be done, they could work at home. Try to schedule meetings priority days so people who need to meet can all be on campus on specific days of the week (or month).
Productivity will go up. Huge amounts of savings will occur for everyone, and employees will be a whole lot happier. Wait until we really hit full employment and watch the fish start to migrate to better working conditions. (Economists used to think that 6% was full employment, now 5%. Moving past full employment tends to produce wage inflation as the only available human resources can be obtained by enticing talent from a friendly competitor.)
Teleworking might save the fishbowl, but it seems likely that the fishbowl has cracks.
'via Blog this'
This is a great article about the "open air" cubicle farm for workers. Or "fish bowl" for employees.
Telecommuting would help this work better. If someone has a real deadline and real work that needs to be done, they could work at home. Try to schedule meetings priority days so people who need to meet can all be on campus on specific days of the week (or month).
Productivity will go up. Huge amounts of savings will occur for everyone, and employees will be a whole lot happier. Wait until we really hit full employment and watch the fish start to migrate to better working conditions. (Economists used to think that 6% was full employment, now 5%. Moving past full employment tends to produce wage inflation as the only available human resources can be obtained by enticing talent from a friendly competitor.)
Teleworking might save the fishbowl, but it seems likely that the fishbowl has cracks.
'via Blog this'
Thursday, September 1, 2016
ipZine: The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike
ipZine: The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike:
This posted over at ipZine. ( The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike: )
Even cooler than the Segway, and multiple times as functional.
Give a look at this YikeBike. When you see this bike, you will say Yikes!
It is reminisce of the old High Wheeler bikes with the monster wheel in front, and no gears (1-speed). But with a twist.
The question to ask is this new bike a true invention? Is it innovation? Or is it both?
It won the Time Magazine's intention of the year in 2009. Finalist in Nobel's Prize for Sustainability.
Part of that question might be answered by how many patents the technology harbors.
The main international PCT patent (2008-2009) has been filed in about 8 countries and does not appear to be issued yet. There are other interesting patent technologies integrated into the design. Here's the main patent WO2010007516A1 from the EPO.
It seems like a great alternative to the idea of our usual approach to jump into our SUV and drive a few streets to work or for a latte -- 180 pound person being transported by a 2,000 vehicle using a 300-400 horse power motor.
This idea seems to solve several problems with the bike as a mode of transportation, some problems that we never really knew we had.
When you look at the product, you will wonder where the motor and the batteries hide.
How does it keep from falling over in 3 different directions?
What is a "farthing" and how can it possibly be considered a great selling point? Even if you call it a "mini-farthing". Do we really need a secondary axis, orthogonal to the primary axis?
Can you take your YikeBike on your man bike (Harley) without being called out for having a "girlie-man bike"?
Where can you get a YikeBike? Apparently, they have free international shipping.
YikeBike comes with "the freedom to park wherever I DAMN please!"
Will people say, "Wow", "Cool" and "hip", or will they say:
"Yikes!"???
Translation to English: The Carbon Fiber Model C weighs 25 lbs. goes about 14 mph max with a range of 12 miles. The model V weighs 30lbs (or 34 for the 3-wheeled V version).
Colour means Color in English and pictures pretty much speak for themselves without translation. Bet they even drive on the wrong side of the road?!
'via Blog this'
This posted over at ipZine. ( The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike: )
Even cooler than the Segway, and multiple times as functional.
Give a look at this YikeBike. When you see this bike, you will say Yikes!
It is reminisce of the old High Wheeler bikes with the monster wheel in front, and no gears (1-speed). But with a twist.
The question to ask is this new bike a true invention? Is it innovation? Or is it both?
It won the Time Magazine's intention of the year in 2009. Finalist in Nobel's Prize for Sustainability.
Part of that question might be answered by how many patents the technology harbors.
The main international PCT patent (2008-2009) has been filed in about 8 countries and does not appear to be issued yet. There are other interesting patent technologies integrated into the design. Here's the main patent WO2010007516A1 from the EPO.
It seems like a great alternative to the idea of our usual approach to jump into our SUV and drive a few streets to work or for a latte -- 180 pound person being transported by a 2,000 vehicle using a 300-400 horse power motor.
This idea seems to solve several problems with the bike as a mode of transportation, some problems that we never really knew we had.
When you look at the product, you will wonder where the motor and the batteries hide.
How does it keep from falling over in 3 different directions?
What is a "farthing" and how can it possibly be considered a great selling point? Even if you call it a "mini-farthing". Do we really need a secondary axis, orthogonal to the primary axis?
Can you take your YikeBike on your man bike (Harley) without being called out for having a "girlie-man bike"?
Where can you get a YikeBike? Apparently, they have free international shipping.
YikeBike comes with "the freedom to park wherever I DAMN please!"
Will people say, "Wow", "Cool" and "hip", or will they say:
"Yikes!"???
Translation to English: The Carbon Fiber Model C weighs 25 lbs. goes about 14 mph max with a range of 12 miles. The model V weighs 30lbs (or 34 for the 3-wheeled V version).
Colour means Color in English and pictures pretty much speak for themselves without translation. Bet they even drive on the wrong side of the road?!
Monday, August 8, 2016
2015 Earth fails another annual physical. Ugly Temp Rise!:-(
BAMS State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):
State of the Climate: Earth fails another annual physical. Or, maybe better stated, human activity resulted in another horrible annual reading of Earths temps. Beyond time to move Earth from a Private room to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
Unfortunately, 2015 blasted past all records set in 2014. The El Nino effect help somewhat, and looks like it will assist somewhat with 2016 setting even more records. Although el Nino is a natural occurrence, the effects can be removed statistically; plus, it should have less of an effect on 2016 which is on pace to shoot past the monthly and annual records of 2015.
Ouch!
The word used to describe the report was "Grim".
"Ugly", would be descriptive too.
Of the 50 or so metrics used, only Antarctica showed a few positive signs, mixed with some serious negatives. Highlights include:
"The report, led by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, is based on contributions from more than 450 scientists from 62 countries around the world and reflects tens of thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets (highlights, full report (link is external)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice and in space."
Lots of good places to go view more details about any and all discussions, statistics and assertions.
You choose the word: Ugly? Grim? @#$@#$@ ???
'via Blog this'
State of the Climate: Earth fails another annual physical. Or, maybe better stated, human activity resulted in another horrible annual reading of Earths temps. Beyond time to move Earth from a Private room to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
Unfortunately, 2015 blasted past all records set in 2014. The El Nino effect help somewhat, and looks like it will assist somewhat with 2016 setting even more records. Although el Nino is a natural occurrence, the effects can be removed statistically; plus, it should have less of an effect on 2016 which is on pace to shoot past the monthly and annual records of 2015.
Ouch!
The word used to describe the report was "Grim".
"Ugly", would be descriptive too.
Of the 50 or so metrics used, only Antarctica showed a few positive signs, mixed with some serious negatives. Highlights include:
- Greenhouse gases hit records, passing the 400ppm of CO2, to blast past all modern records.
- Surface temps set records by a mile, breaking the record set in 2014.
- Sea surface temps set a record, breaking the record set in 2014. (Part of the El Nino effect as it pertains to the Pacific.)
- Globally, upper ocean heat content exceeded the record set in 2014, "reflecting the continuing accumulation of thermal energy in the upper layer of the oceans. Oceans absorb over 90 percent of Earth’s excess heat from global warming." Which brings us to thermal expansion, as water heats it expands. If average depths of oceans are 2 miles, that thermal expansion eventually adds up as temps permeate throughout the oceans.
- Global Seal Levels highest on record. (Especially precises since the use of satellites over the last 20 years.)
- Extremes in water cycles and precipitation.
- And extreme weather. Thousands of people dies from heat in India/Pakistan, for example.
- In North America we don't realize what an ugly year 2015 was for cyclones because it was very tame for hurricanes. "There were 101 tropical cyclones across all ocean basins in 2015, well above the 1981–2010 average of 82 storms. The eastern/central Pacific had 26 named storms, the most since 1992."
"The report, led by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, is based on contributions from more than 450 scientists from 62 countries around the world and reflects tens of thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets (highlights, full report (link is external)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice and in space."
Lots of good places to go view more details about any and all discussions, statistics and assertions.
You choose the word: Ugly? Grim? @#$@#$@ ???
'via Blog this'
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess - WSJ
Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess - WSJ:
Bjorn Lomborg may have been best know for his massive tomb of a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg (2007) in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World "may be the best source for reviewing the facts about quality of life, global
warming, and the optimal approaches for addressing the issues." (Hall, Taylor, Zapalski, & Hall, 2009, p. 5)
Apparently he has since gone off to consult for oil & gas interest. That's not all bad, but it does mean that he may not be unbiased as seemed to be the case during his Skeptical days.
Bjorn talks about, essentially, the bang for the buck ($US, in this case). The current Obama plan doesn't do much to move the global warming needle, especially given the costs. On the one hand, Obama will say that we have to start somewhere. In this case, and in several others, Bjorn simply says that this won't do much good. A smart guy like that should suggest better alternatives.
We, at SBPlan, argue that there are two monster places to start. AND neither requires the special help of government, really. Both are energy efficiency (EE) focused. Two EE business models that SBP especially likes are related to telecommuting using remote work centers and a pay-forward model
of promoting energy efficiency in all buildings – residential, commercial and
government. Since both of these initiatives save money, they offer a special win-win-win of sustainability (Employees, Employers and Environment, in this case).
Bjorn Lomborg may have been best know for his massive tomb of a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg (2007) in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World "may be the best source for reviewing the facts about quality of life, global
warming, and the optimal approaches for addressing the issues." (Hall, Taylor, Zapalski, & Hall, 2009, p. 5)
Apparently he has since gone off to consult for oil & gas interest. That's not all bad, but it does mean that he may not be unbiased as seemed to be the case during his Skeptical days.
Bjorn talks about, essentially, the bang for the buck ($US, in this case). The current Obama plan doesn't do much to move the global warming needle, especially given the costs. On the one hand, Obama will say that we have to start somewhere. In this case, and in several others, Bjorn simply says that this won't do much good. A smart guy like that should suggest better alternatives.
We, at SBPlan, argue that there are two monster places to start. AND neither requires the special help of government, really. Both are energy efficiency (EE) focused. Two EE business models that SBP especially likes are related to telecommuting using remote work centers and a pay-forward model
of promoting energy efficiency in all buildings – residential, commercial and
government. Since both of these initiatives save money, they offer a special win-win-win of sustainability (Employees, Employers and Environment, in this case).
I'm a little disappointing that Bjorn has been simply complaining about the expense and the likely lack of success from various government initiatives, not offering up his own recommendations. It's easy to complain and stop progress, but I give no respect to someone who does not offer up better alternatives. In the case of our non-sustainable practices of energy, the olde business as usual (BAU) model is a failed business model; it is only a matter of time for this living beyond our means model of existence will come crashing down.
Bjorn offers up more research, presumably to make renewables more affordable. And touts the Fracking-NatGas revolutions as a massive windfall for reducing our pollution and greenhouse gases away from coal. NatGas is both good and bad; it shifts us away from really dirty energy associated with coal. Yeah!:-) But it reduced the costs and availability of all oil, gas and coal such that we may have tagged on another 50 years worth of fossil fuels to global economies before we really start to run low(er) and basic economics starts to really solves our addiction to fossil fuels.
If you read Bjorn's Skeptical Environmentalist, you will find that he totally believes that there is global warming and that man is a big (?major?) contributor. When you read this book you will agree, even before including the 10 record hot years since he published in 2007. What he does say, forcefully then, and now, is that we need to focus on the efforts that will result the move benefits. Huge government spending on reducing CO2, especially in developing countries, may have little, none, or even negative results.
Bjorn ended up in a big tiff over the 2007 book Skeptical Environmentalist. If it was an opinion piece then it would be okay to take the liberties that he did with interpreting the results; but as a scientific book, he had gone way to far. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) in Bjorn's home country, charged him with academic dishonesty in the book. This ruling went against Bjorn. On appeal the charge of scientific dishonesty was sent back for a do-over, where it stalled out.
Bjorg's follow Skeptical Environmentalist book(s) have titles that start with "Cool it!", concentrating on what to do that will likely have the most (short-term) benefits.
Bjorg, don't just complain in op-eds about Obama and the other 200 countries who signed the Paris greenhouse deal this April (agreed to in Dec 2015). The average person reading this op-ed would think that we all should do nothing and wait for Bill Gates Foundation to find a cure. Give people real suggestions for actions. Or, are you simply trying to sell your books and consulting?
References
'via Blog this'
If you read Bjorn's Skeptical Environmentalist, you will find that he totally believes that there is global warming and that man is a big (?major?) contributor. When you read this book you will agree, even before including the 10 record hot years since he published in 2007. What he does say, forcefully then, and now, is that we need to focus on the efforts that will result the move benefits. Huge government spending on reducing CO2, especially in developing countries, may have little, none, or even negative results.
Bjorn ended up in a big tiff over the 2007 book Skeptical Environmentalist. If it was an opinion piece then it would be okay to take the liberties that he did with interpreting the results; but as a scientific book, he had gone way to far. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) in Bjorn's home country, charged him with academic dishonesty in the book. This ruling went against Bjorn. On appeal the charge of scientific dishonesty was sent back for a do-over, where it stalled out.
Bjorg's follow Skeptical Environmentalist book(s) have titles that start with "Cool it!", concentrating on what to do that will likely have the most (short-term) benefits.
Bjorg, don't just complain in op-eds about Obama and the other 200 countries who signed the Paris greenhouse deal this April (agreed to in Dec 2015). The average person reading this op-ed would think that we all should do nothing and wait for Bill Gates Foundation to find a cure. Give people real suggestions for actions. Or, are you simply trying to sell your books and consulting?
References
Hall, E., Taylor, S., Zapalski, C., & Hall, T.
(2009). Sustainability in education: Green in the facilities, but not in the
classrooms. Proceedings of the Society for Advancement of Management,
USA.
(2009). Sustainability in education: Green in the facilities, but not in the
classrooms. Proceedings of the Society for Advancement of Management,
USA.
Lomborg, Bjorn. (2007). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)