CREATIVE CAPITALISM
Speech delivered at the World Economic Forum, January 24, 2008, in Davos, Switzerland
Thirty years, twenty years, ten years ago, my focus was totally on how the magic of software could change the world. I believed that breakthroughs in technology could solve the key problems. And they do – increasingly – for billions of people. But breakthroughs change lives only where people can afford to buy them – only where there is economic demand, and economic demand is not the same as economic need.
There are billions of people who need the great inventions of the computer age, and many more basic needs as well. But they have no way of expressing their needs in ways that matter to markets. So they go without.
If we are going to have a serious chance of changing their lives, we will need another level of innovation. Not just technology innovation – we need system innovation.
[To read the full text, click here]
those changes need to occur? Environmental capitalism will affect the way we travel, the way we generate and use energy, the way we produce food and use water, it will affect the way we do business and the way we have fun, ultimately it will effect every aspect of our lives - but how?
Printer-friendly version
Email this page
Printer friendly version
Comments
Environmental Capitalism - real or yet another concept?
July 08 is a turning point, but not for the economy (which has a turning point every 5 minutes), but as confirmation that environmental issues have become mainstream as far as our politicians are concerned. It is an important first step insofar as our society is no longer trying to turn a blind eye to the various indications that man made activity is impacting our environment in ways that are harmful or at best unpredictable. Some of the issues have surfaced and are attracting open discussion.
Carbon trading is a useful starting tool to engage business in particpating in environmentally friendly practices which may lead to reductions in pollution and waste, and the creation of new industries marketing products for a cleaner environment. It would be a mistake to attach more importance to it than just that, already it is being presented as a financial opportunity rather than as a path to remediation.
Now that we have reached square 1, it is to be hoped that before long we also accept that as we are dicussing these issues we are degrading our environment at a faster rate than we are able to apply solutions for restoration. Lets hope it won't take decades to start making the hard decisions and to start applying the right remedies to reverse this trend.
Andrew A.
Kill the Car or Kill Us
Despite all the glossy rhetoric of our Prime Minister and Penny Wong, nothing, excluding lip service, has been done so far, to attack the looming menace of Global Warming.
There are many powerful economic interests wanting to maintain the status quo:
Car Manufactures, Oil Companies, the Carbon industry.
All of them want to implement a carbon trading system in which those with enough cash will be able to continue polluting and the rest of us will have to curtail consumption.
The pusillanimous does not make history Mr Rudd. We could already be imposing bans on the usage of private cars on peak hours. This measure not only would reduce carbon emissions dramatically but also it would clear the way for a more effective public transport.
The Federal Government could impose a ban from seven to ten in the mornings on private cars and at the same time expand public transport services, which would have almost empty roads to deliver passengers. Is it so hard to implement. It is certainly not.
Why is the Federal Government so inert on policies that can be easily implemented and policed and that will certainly have an enormous impact on emissions immediately?
Even George Bush in the US of A, running a astronomical deficit, due to his attack on Iraq, managed to triple the investment in public transport.
We, instead, having one of the greatest surpluses on record, have decided to keep it in a future fund.
We must invest that money now to optimize the public transport system and at the same time start reducing dramatically the use of our private cars, which are substantially responsible for the relentless increases in carbon emissions all over the world.
Any policy aiming at reducing the usage of internal combustion cars have been fiercely resisted. We know that a fully operational electric car, the EV1, was fully developed by GM in 2000 and that after Bush arriving at the White house, GM got them back from the customers and destroy them.
The Electric Car or EV1 was able to run at 110 miles per hour, for 90 miles, with an acceleration superior to the combustion engine car.
For those who don't believe it I invite them to purchase from Amazon the DVD: "who killed the electric car" in which all the evidence is provided.
This is an historical time Mr Rudd. There is no room for empty rhetoric to pacify the population. As being a Labour Party leader I still have hope regarding your genuine commitment to stop an unfolding environmental catastrophe. History will judge you.
Helping Traditional Power Producers to Go Green
One variation on the carbon permits proposed by the Ross Garnaut report would be to give base load power generators preferential ability to buy shares in alternative energy companies. Through a "carrot and stick" approach, traditional power companies could be persuaded to look upon alternative energy companies as sources of continuing and growing revenue rather than as competitors that are trying to eat into their market share and profits.
Rather than the punitive application of emission permits, traditional power producers should be offered offsets to invest in the expansion of "micro generation" alternative energy production and/or research and development in these areas rather than persisting with so-called "clean coal" and centralised power distribution.
Why Micro generation?
Energy losses from Power station to end consumer can range up to 78% - primarily through heat and transmission losses. However, generation of power at the very point of consumption would save transmission costs and turn any heat produced into a useable resource rather than being wasted as is currently the practice.
Through an enhanced emissions trading scheme, centralised base load coal powered generators or gas companies would find it advantageous to actively invest in micro generation systems such as solar or (the very promising) ceramic fuel cells. Daytime electricity needs could be supplemented through solar cells on roofs while night time loads could be supplemented through combined heat and power units such as solid oxide fuel cells. Any power generated that is excess to the needs of the consumer would be sold back to the grid.
The added advantage of this distributed generating capacity would relate to security. By relying on one or two sources of centralised power generation we continue to risk the viability of the whole community should these power plants suffer catastrophic failure or attack. By developing and maintaining a viable and extensive micro generation network we would significantly reduce the impact on our communities of any interruption of the base load electricity supply.
Australia is currently lagging behind Europe (especially Germany) in the promotion of alternative energies. The market will be huge in this area and Australia needs to get up to speed and become a front runner.
The decline and extinction of the conventional wasteful centralised power generation system is inevitable - it is just a matter of how long? By making active support for and investment in alternative energy industries a "win-win" situation for traditional power generators they are likely to actually become the champions of change rather than seeking to block and stifle such progress.