10 Favs; 10 Years: Falling Up --The Choices We Make May Be Our Own

Letchworth Gorge by J. Stephen Conn, used by permission
.

Back in November 2011 I posted about the need for change in our economy and the way we approach that change. Here is my post "Falling Up -- The Choices We Make May Be Our Own":



When I was 15 years old I was hiking in Letchworth Gorge in upstate New York. (Here is a picture of the gorge, left.) A beautiful place.

Despite the warnings or perhaps because of them -- I was a teenager after all -- I got too close to the edge. And I fell. I fell for what seemed like a long way and a long time, but in reality it was perhaps just a matter of seconds.

Time dragged, however, like a cartoon character falling off a cliff – think of Bugs Bunny falling, eating a carrot, reading War and Peace, and filing his nails. I was remarkably calm, at peace, really. One with the fall, it was a true Buddhist moment.

And then it was over. Somehow there was a branch or root and my arm reached out to grab it – I remember the jerking feeling like a parachute opening…I was safe. I'd fallen but I didn't die. I had a second chance. 

After a few seconds of stunned silence, I climbed back up to the top of the gorge.

That memory has been haunting me lately.  I shared this story in my talk at SXSW last month and again with a group of leaders at a retreat last week.

Why am I reminded of this story now?  Well, as I wrote in an earlier post on this blog, I think our economy is in free-fall and we seriously need to change.  

The latest example of a society in free-fall is the news of a "celebrity marriage" failing after 72 days.  

According to Twitter sources that include some celebrities allegedly close to the situation, the wedding earned the bride $17.9 million.  Really?  $17.9 million for a marriage that lasted 72 days? 

No wonder people like Lawrence Lessig think our society could fall like Rome.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can change the outcome. We can adopt a new game plan. 

But we can't change the world if we aren't first prepared to change within ourselves and live the lives we know we can live, be the people we know we can be, and take the actions we are compelled to take.

The choice is ours, but we must be conscious as we make our choices. We need to stop compromising in our lives, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And we need to deliver lasting value, to innovate, and finally, to inspire and be inspired.

When you're free-falling, you have two choices: keep falling to the bottom or grab the first available branch, scamper back up to the top and create a new path forward. Call it "falling up."

Which do you choose? And what are you waiting for?

Falling Up: The Choices We Make May Be Our Own

Letchworth Gorge by J. Stephen Conn, used by permission.

When I was 15 years old I was hiking in Letchworth Gorge in upstate New York. (Here is a picture of the gorge, left.) A beautiful place.

Despite the warnings or perhaps because of them -- I was a teenager after all -- I got too close to the edge. And I fell. I fell for what seemed like a long way and a long time, but in reality it was perhaps just a matter of seconds.

Time dragged, however, like a cartoon character falling off a cliff – think of Bugs Bunny falling, eating a carrot, reading War and Peace, and filing his nails. I was remarkably calm, at peace, really. One with the fall, it was a true Buddhist moment.

And then it was over. Somehow there was a branch or root and my arm reached out to grab it – I remember the jerking feeling like a parachute opening…I was safe. I'd fallen but I didn't die. I had a second chance. 

After a few seconds of stunned silence, I climbed back up to the top of the gorge.

That memory has been haunting me lately.  I shared this story in my talk at SXSW last month and again with a group of leaders at a retreat last week.

Why am I reminded of this story now?  Well, as I wrote in an earlier post on this blog, I think our economy is in free-fall and we seriously need to change.  

The latest example of a society in free-fall is the news of a "celebrity marriage" failing after 72 days.  

According to Twitter sources that include some celebrities allegedly close to the situation, the wedding earned the bride $17.9 million.  Really?  $17.9 million for a marriage that lasted 72 days? 

No wonder people like Lawrence Lessig think our society could fall like Rome.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can change the outcome. We can adopt a new game plan. 

But we can't change the world if we aren't first prepared to change within ourselves and live the lives we know we can live, be the people we know we can be, and take the actions we are compelled to take.

The choice is ours, but we must be conscious as we make our choices. We need to stop compromising in our lives, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And we need to deliver lasting value, to innovate, and finally, to inspire and be inspired.

When you're free-falling, you have two choices: keep falling to the bottom or grab the first available branch, scamper back up to the top and create a new path forward. Call it "falling up."

Which do you choose? And what are you waiting for?

From The Green Skeptic Archives: Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Should Social Capital Markets Take Over?

Deep SEA. Photo by Mickey Rosenau

[Note: While on hiatus this week, I'm posting selections from The Green Skeptic Archives. This one was originally posted on 23 October 2007.--SEA]

I'm taking up a friendly challenge here.

Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, and I started a blogalog (Did I just coin that term?) between our blogs about the state of philanthropy and environmental change.

It began in response to Lucy's listing of green blogs in the wake of Blog Action Day last Monday, and her noting the lack of discussion of philanthropy on the sites listed (including mine).

My defense stemmed from a concern about philanthropy and its effectiveness as an agent of change in the environmental sphere, which actually was the origin of this blog. I have grown increasingly concerned about the ability of traditional philanthropy to effect lasting change at a pace commensurate with the global challenges we face.

I expressed this concern in my essay for GreenBiz, "Confessions of a Green Skeptic," several years ago about the Earth Charter.

Back then (March 2003), I wrote, "we need to demonstrate how profitable being green can be, and how essential it is to a truly global sustainability. If we can turn the greed motivation to green motivation, effectively turning it on itself, does the means justify the end? Hard to say. But if greed isn't going away anytime soon, we are left with trying to redirect the motivation any way we can. Guilt has worked, but only gets us so far. 'Envy trumps guilt' every time."

This sentiment was influenced by Thomas Friedman's thoughts on the subject expressed in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, that "if conservationists are going to get ahead of the greedy we need to move faster. 'For now, the only way to run as fast as the herd is by riding the herd itself and trying to redirect it,' Friedman writes. 'We need to demonstrate to the herd that being green, being global, and being greedy can go hand in hand.'"

And it was echoed by Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison in their book, The New Economy of Nature, from which I quoted, "the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest."

Things have changed quite a bit since I wrote that essay -- the world has gotten flatter, green has become the new black, Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, and the herd has started to move to greener pastures.

But a lot hasn't changed. In Philanthropy, as Susan Raymond points out in a two-part piece called "Does Philanthropy Scale?," the "vast majority of American nonprofits are small; 60 percent or more...have less than $100,000 in annual revenue." And, Raymond notes, "the average foundation grant to nonprofits is on the order of $25,000."

Raymond also points out that "the number of nonprofits with $10 million or more in revenue has increased by 73 percent in the last decade," and asks, "when $25,000 is the average grant, is philanthropy the answer to organizational growth? Indeed, is it even relevant as a source of capital?"

I'm going to quote one more thing from Raymond's essay: "The evolution of microfinance teaches that, when what had been a philanthropic initiative matures and proves its worth, alternative capital sources step in and redefine the opportunity. Is achieving scale, then, the clue for philanthropy to either evolve or exit? And, if so, do we need to rethink what we mean by 'philanthropy' for large organizations or proven initiatives in social markets?"

I quote Raymond's piece at length because it corroborates some of my own thinking on this subject. She rightly points out that the biggest advantage of philanthropic capital is its "ability to take significant risk, to seed a promising idea and recognize that all promising ideas can be failures."

So risk tolerance or tolerance for failure, playing on the field of ideas and at the edge of problems "where the probabilities of success are unknown, is the key playing field for philanthropy."

For many ideas, perhaps chief among them those addressing environmental issues, it may be time for other types of capital to be brought to bear. I'm particularly interested in what Raymond describes as "a multiplicity of approaches to organizational finance in the nonprofit sector...for self-reliance, sustainability, and (yes) profit" to come to the stage.

This is not far from what Lucy refers to as "tri-sector solutions," such as the B Corporation she has described or the bond purchase strategy Raymond describes in her piece. (In the latter, Raymond explains, "'Donors' took on the role of guarantor rather than funder, and the resources flowed at levels that donations would never have been able to sustain.")

Elsewhere in the web pages of onPhilanthropy, John Bloom of RSF Social Finance, posits that "social finance holds that the purpose of money and finance is to support human initiative and to foster the evolution of new community."

And, Bloom suggests, social finance recognizes "the human and environmental consequences of economic activities...[and] presents a picture of a healthier sustainable future -- and one that leaves behind the industrialist model of philanthropy..."

I will continue this dialogue here on The Green Skeptic, because I think it is an important one, and part of an ongoing, evolving thought process for me that started over four years ago and which led to this blog. Thanks to Lucy for calling me out about it and fostering this dialogue.

Green Jobs, Gore's Gaff & Government Getting Out of the Way: The Green Skeptic on FOX

This morning I talked with Stuart Varney about green jobs, Al Gore's bizarre statement equating climate skeptics with racists, and getting the government out of the way of private sector job creation.

Here's the video:




And here's a link in case the player doesn't work in your browser: The Green Skeptic on FOX

Philadelphia Ranks 5th in Brookings' Clean Economy Tally

A report released yesterday, “Sizing the Clean Economy,” which is based on the Brookings-Battelle Clean Economy Database, ranks the Philadelphia metro area 5th among the 100 largest metro areas for overall size of its share of the clean economy in the US.

The database from which these data are derived is a collaborative effort of Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and the Battelle Technology Partnership Program. 

The report ranks the size, growth, and geography of the “clean” economy in the US, which it defines as "economic activity—measured in terms of establishments and the jobs associated with them—that produces goods and services with an environmental benefi t or adds value to such products using skills or technologies that are uniquely applied to those products."

Philadelphia has, according to the study,  54,325 "clean" jobs.

Other points of interest to the region:

• Philadelphia's 54,325 clean economy jobs make up 2.0 percent of all jobs in the region.
• Between 2003 and 2010 Philadelphia added 6,573 clean jobs.
• On average each clean economy job in Philadelphia produces $15,693 in exports.
• Estimated median wage in Philadelphia's clean economy is $43,913; compared to $42,722 for all jobs in Philadelphia.

New York had the most clean jobs at 152,034, followed by Los Angeles (89,592); Chicago (79,388); and the DC metro area (70,828).  The Greater Boston area topped in at 41,825 jobs, landing the 8th spot.

According to the study, "the clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but newer 'cleantech' segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession."

The report points to the recently established energy innovation hubs, such as the Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster for Energy Efficient Buildings (GPIC), as an important factor in continued growth for the sector. 

Among the other recommendations for scaling up the clean econmy, the report's authors suggest, "Ensure adequate finance by moving to address the serious shortage of affordable, risk-tolerant, and larger-scale capital that now impedes the scale-up of numerous clean economy industry segments."

They also recommend the creation of a water sciences innovation center and the establishment of a regional clean economy consortia.

"Metropolitan areas, large and small, are now and will increasingly be the nation’s critical centers of clean
economy talent, innovation, and finance and so its top hubs of commercialization, deployment, and trade," the report concludes. "Regions and metropolitan areas, in short, are not a part of the national clean economy; they are that economy."
 
You can find interactive maps here to dig deeper into the findings.

We Are a Culture in Recline, Not Decline: Cleantech vs. Social Media

“Ultimate Game Chair”

Katie Fehrenbacher had a disturbing post on GigaOm's Earth2Tech this morning:

"Companies that make online games, social networks, and web coupons seem to be able to raise a lot more money in IPOs right now than companies that make energy technology, greener transportation, and biofuels. Zynga’s reported potential $2 billion raise, could deliver Zynga five times Tesla’s combined IPO and follow-on offering.  If Groupon raises at least $750 million, it would bring in more than the IPOs of Amyris, KiOR, Gevo, Enphase Energy, Luca Technologies and Zipcar combined. It’s kind of sad, actually."

Sad?  I'd say it's kinda whacked.

No offenths to the good guys at Zynga and Groupon (and the good VCs who fund them); it's not their fault; they're just giving Americans what they want: distraction and plenty of it.

Some say we are a nation in decline -- I think recline is more like it.

We value distraction and leisure over production and productivity. 

We'd rather throw angry birds at pigs than throw our genius at building a productive new economy based on real, tangible solutions to our energy and environmental problems. 

Rather than produce real food for real people who really need it, we build virtual farms so our virtual friends can help us grow virtual food.

Our penchant for distraction goes back a long time -- and I'm no stranger to it, as those of you who follow my Boston-related sports tweets on Twitter -- but the fact that we value social media and social gaming technologies over potentially game-changing energy and environment technologies is a disturbing trend.

What would our economy look like if we put even half the energy into creating disruption in the energy space that we put into creating distraction for each other?

Okay, I'm off to watch the Red Sox play the Phillies at Citizens Bank Park...


 

The New Sustainable Economy and You

Maybe people really are hungry for a change. Not the hopey-changey stuff of political change, but the real, tangible change represented by rebooting our economy.

My post yesterday reviewing Hugh MacLeod's Evil Plans: Having Fun on the Road to World Domination and Umair Haque's The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a Disruptively Better Business got more hits than Mark Wahlberg in The Fighter.

And that got me thinking about a talk I gave last year at Temple's Fox School of Business and Wharton's Social Impact club.

The talk was about three things:

1.) The state of our current economy and the opportunity to build a better economic system.
2.) What such change can mean for you (the audience was b-school students).
3.) What social entrepreneurship and social enterprise mean and why it can make a difference.

Ultimately, my talk was about value creation, the kind of value creation Hugh and Umair are talking about.

Here is the slide show from that talk:

Related articles

• Review: Evil Plans and The New Capitalist Manifesto (thegreenskeptic.com)
• A Definition of Social Entrepreneurship (brighthub.com)
• Why We Need Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East (inc.com)
• Is Social Entrepreneurship sustainable? (e27.sg)
• "Social business could play a big role in the Middle East and North Africa" and related posts (povertynewsblog.blogspot.com)

Is Water the Next Carbon? from Harvard Business Review

Andrew Winston and Will Sarni ask Is Water the Next Carbon? in last week's Harvard Business Review blog.  Here's how they opened their post:

We all take water for granted. Even though water is critical for human life, ecosystems and as a major process or product input for industry, it's a resource that very few of us think actively about managing. And of all environmental issues, it's the least debatable; when there's no more water in a region, you don't need scientists to tell you.

Companies need to develop strategies for managing this important resource as water stress becomes the norm in many regions of the world. As a starting point, some organizations are now conducting "water footprints" to figure out where in the value chain their businesses are vulnerable.

Doesn't this sound familiar? Haven't we been down this road before with energy and carbon emissions? It's very easy to describe water as 'the next carbon', and many have, but it's not really the same.

It's worth reading both for what the authors point out as the differences between carbon and water, and for the opportunities inherent in the increasing constraints on this most valuable resource.

Related articles

• Is Water the Next Carbon? (blogs.hbr.org)
• Innovation in Managing Water (blogs.hbr.org)
• What is the Carbon Disclosure Project? (triplepundit.com)
• Carbon capture project leaking into their land, couple says. (theglobeandmail.com)

Will an Electric Car Save You Money? The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

Earlier today I helped Stuart Varney on FOX Business answer a question from a viewer about the cost to charge an electric car versus a gasoline-powered engine. 

The bottom line is, electric vehicles will be cheaper than gas.

Here is a video:



If the viewer doesn't play in your browser, here is a link: Green Skeptic on FOX Business.

Volatility Alert: Crude Is Rising, But Not Because Of Demand

Business Insider had an interesting post yesterday: "Just in time for Christmas, On Wednesday, Dec. 22, U.S. gasoline prices hit an average $3 a gallon for the first time in more than two years, according to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report. Meanwhile, U.S. stocks and oil also climbed to the highest levels since 2008."

In the piece, Dian Chu speculates that "if the stars are aligned, that is, global economy [is] really picking up steam with two consecutive months of good U.S. jobs numbers, inflation concerns and QE could form a perfect storm for crude to hit $110 to $115 a barrel late March or April next year, after a few retracements, and if it breaks above $100. At that level, gasoline at the pump could hit $3.70-$3.80 a gallon range."

Read it here:

Related articles

• Crude oil & gasoline - escalator up and elevator down (investmentpostcards.com)
• Gasoline Tops $3 a Gallon for First Time at Christmas (dailyfinance.com)
• Gas prices jump again, but will high fuel costs last? (moneyville.ca)
• OPEC Oil Ministers Bless $100 Oil (247wallst.com)

Clean Energy Trends 2010: Hope Springs Eternal

Green shoots are starting to poke up out of the ground in my yard, a sure sign that Spring is on its way.

Hope springs eternal for the cleantech sector as well, according to the folks who bring us the Clean Energy Trends annual report, despite the downturn in the overall economy and failure at Copenhagen.

The 2010 report was issued today by Clean Edge Inc., a research and publishing firm devoted to the cleantech sector.

In 2009, according to the report, "combined global revenue for the three major clean-energy sectors – solar photovoltaics (PV), wind power, and biofuels – grew by 11.4 percent over 2008, reaching $139.1 billion."

These three sectors are expected to reach $325.9 billion by 2019, according to Clean Energy Trends 2010.

Venture investing in the sector declined, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and quoted in the report, but as a percentage of overall venture funding the sector share increased from 11.4 percent in 2008 to 12.5 percent in 2009.

Readers of The Green Skeptic will be particularly interested on the report's take on China.

China was just a minor player five years ago and now leads the race for cleantech dominance. However, according to Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder, the principal authors of the report, despite the country's surge, it is "too early to declare China the de facto winner."

"No one country or region will lead in all energy sectors," the authors reported on a conference call this morning. "China also faces significant challenges dealing with air and water pollution, and entrepreneurship is difficult there."

This last point contradicts MIT political scientist and China expert Ed Steinfeld's assertion that China is "one of the most entrepreneurial places on earth," which appeared in a Business Week article last Friday. (The article cited China's rate of self-employment far exceeds that in the U.S.—51.2 percent to 7.2 percent.)

Nevertheless, as Pernick said in an interview after today's conference call, "The challenge for China is can you build cleantech on the back of polluted air and waters?"

Their sense is that China is working on this issue simultaneously with the cleantech build-out. "And they are taking the opportunity to leapfrog where they can," Pernick said.

Key findings of the Clean Energy Trends report include:

• The global production and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel reached $44.9 billion in 2009 and is projected to grow to $112.5 billion by 2019. In 2009, the biofuel market consisted of more than 23.6 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel production worldwide.
• Wind power (new installation capital costs) is projected to expand from $63.5 billion in 2009 to $114.5 billion in 2019. Last year’s global wind power installations reached a record 37,500 MW. China, the first-time global leader in new installations, accounted for more than a third of new installations, with 13,000 MW
• Solar PV will grow from a $30.7 billion industry in 2009 to $98.9 billion by 2019. New installations reached almost 6 GW worldwide in 2009, a nearly sixfold increase from five years earlier. But because of rapidly declining solar PV prices, industry revenue in 2009 fell about 20 percent, from $38.5 billion in 2008.
• The global solar PV and wind power industries together currently account for a total of more than 830,000 jobs worldwide. By 2019, global industry growth will push the total to more than 3.3 million jobs.

The report also includes an IPO Watch List tracks clean-technology companies that have recently filed for IPOs, including Codexis, Fallbrook Technologies, Solyndra, and Tesla Motors, as well as other likely candidates, such as Silver Spring Networks.

Finally, the authors identify 5 key trends for the coming years:

• Carbon as a Feedstock (They cite the Khosla-backed Calera and its captured-carbon cement, which may see investment from Peabody Coal)
• Steep PV Price Drops Redefine the Solar Industry (Companies to watch include FSLR, Sharp, SunPower, Trina Solar, and MEMC Electronic Materials)
• Biomass Utilities and District Heating (Adage Biopower, District Energy St. Paul, First Energy, Viessman, and Xcel are among their comapnies and projects to watch)
• Clean-Tech Megaprojects (Masdar City has delayed its construction targets; China has apparently abandoned plans for Dongtan, a new eco-city near Shangai; although hope is on rise for two solar megaprojects in China from FSLR and eSolar);
• High Speed Rail (China leading the way again; Central Japan Railway has two maglev joint ventures in the US)

Once again, the Clean Edge guys have provided a good overview of the state of cleantech trends. This is valuable information for investors and entrepreneurs in the sector.

For more information about the Clean Energy Trends 2010 report or the other research conducted by Clean Edge, go to http://www.cleanedge.com./

(Disclosure: I hold long positions in FSLR. This post is for informational purposes only and is neither intended to be investment advice nor an offer, or the solicitation of any offer, to buy or sell any securities.)

China Tops US in New Wind Installation

In the latest indicator that China will be eating our lunch on cleantech and renewable energy, the country has now taken the lead in new wind energy installed in 2009, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.

China's 13,000 megawatts added last year led the pack. The US was second with 9,922 MW, followed by Spain at 2,459 MW, Germany at 1,917 MW and India at 1,271 MW. (See chart here)

The US held on to the top spot in cumulative wind energy capacity with 35,159 MW, or 22 percent of the world’s wind energy capacity. (See chart here.)

Germany is No. 2 in total installed capacity at 25,177 MW, or 16.3 percent; China is gaining at 25,104 MW, or 15.9 percent. Spain (19,149 MW) and India (10,926 MW) also make the top five.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we better get our act together or all start learning Mandarin.

Source: Environmental Leader

On Cramer vs. Stewart, Corporate Leadership, CNBC, and a Pivotal Moment

I'll admit that I find Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, entertaining. Cramer is entertaining in the same way as those old "Crazy Eddie" ads: "He's IN-sane!"

Cramer's enthusiasm and showmanship is fun to watch and his crazy antics are amusing -- throwing pies at CEOs on his Wall of Shame, punching buttons like a carnival barker to generate hoots, hollers, and recorded noises and phrases.

But as Jon Stewart said in his skewerview of the frenetic host, Cramer is a snake oil salesman.

To the extent that he taught folks how to think about investing, that was a good thing. And in his defense, Cramer often warned retail investors to do their homework, to only buy stock in companies they understand and whose products they use, and to be diversified.

That a majority of his viewers didn't take his advice and just bought when he punched the "Buy, buy buy" button or sold at "Sell, sell, sell," it's probably their own damned fault.

But it's the larger picture that really bothers me. CNBC's business model seemed to be based on the cult of the CEO, wealth-worship, and a hubris of growth. They forsook journalism for entertainment.

And this was clear from Cramer's response to Stewart's taunts on the subject: "CEOs lied to me." To which Stewart quipped something like "What happened to Journalism 101?" You don't take their word for it; you investigate further.

I stopped watching CNBC late last summer. I couldn't take it anymore. The smarmy hosts of Squawk Box every morning were two-headed beasts, simultaneously crying "The sky is falling," while licking the loafers of the parade of CEOs and other executives who were the proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing.

As it turns out, most of the CEOs were lying or at least not being entirely truthful -- or worse, they were really clueless themselves.

Our collective rage was unleashed by Jon Stewart on the nonplussed Jim Cramer. Cramer was our scapegoat and his mea culpa and pleas of I'll try to do better seemed genuine. I didn't see his show the day after the Stewart interview, but that would have been an opportunity for him to apologize to his viewers and begin to make amends. I understand that it was just more of the same.

It's too bad, because I really think we're at a pivotal moment. We have an opportunity to shift the way companies are run, journalism is practiced, and business is pursued. We should seize this opportunity to fire the bums and create a new standard of trust and transparency for CEOs, the journalists who cover them, and the consumers who buy their stock, products, or watch their programs.

Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity and all that rage expressed by Jon Stewart will have been just another play for ratings. (Which I'm sure it was in part.)

A sustainable economy will require a new kind of CEO and a new relationship between companies and the media that writes about them. It will also require that we as consumers and viewers take more responsibility for doing our homework and maintaining a healthy skepticism.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cramer vs Not Cramer (guardian.co.uk)
• Stewart Can't Land Knockout Punch On Meek Cramer [Feuds] (gawker.com)
• Who Won the Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer Smackdown? (tunedin.blogs.time.com)
• Cramer's 'Back to Business as Usual' [Scandal] (gawker.com)
• Gibbs on Stewart's interview: "I enjoyed it thoroughly" (dailykos.com)
• This Is Not A Game (snarkmarket.com)
• Jon Stewart Neuters Jim Cramer on Live Television (jossip.com)
• Dan Solin: Cramer Will Be Off the Air in 60 Days: Bless You Jon Stewart (huffingtonpost.com)

An Obama Stimulus, Not A Futurama Stimulus

The stimulus package that passed in the House -- without a single GOP vote -- yesterday is not as forward thinking as it appears, despite what Nancy Pelosi said in a news conference.

"This is a bill about the future," Pelosi said. "It is a bill that will guarantee that we will create jobs, that there will be good paying green jobs that will transform our infrastructure, transform our energy and how we use it and our dependence on foreign oil."

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council's tally, outlined in the daily green, the StimPack accounts for:

* $3.4 billion for states for clean energy projects
* A grants program for technologies covered by the renewable energy tax incentives
* $6.2 billion for weatherization of low income homes
* $3.5 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (supports clean energy projects primarily at the city and county levels)
* $2 billion for clean energy research & development
* $6 billion for increasing energy efficiency in federal buildings
* $12 billion for transit
* $2 billion for ready-to-go drinking water infrastructure projects
* $6 billion for ready-to-go sanitation infrastructure projects.

But the Bill doesn't go far enough, according to some critics, in support of public transportation, including light and high speed rail. Others, however, do point out that transit is one of the larger ticket items in the green portion of the package.

The Sierra Club praised the House Bill, noting that clean energy spending is at $100 billion. But "the bill isn't all green," according to other critics, and the Senate is apparently putting $4.6 billion for coal and $50 billion for the nuclear industry.

Of course, that depends upon your shade of green. Among the coal provisions outlined in a news release and a committee statement issued by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. are:

*$2 billion for "near-zero emissions" power plants designed to capture and sequester CO2
*$1 billion for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power Initiative, and
*$1.6 billion for carbon capture at industrial plants.

I'd like to see some investment in such R&D for coal, as it remains the most plentiful resource we've got domestically and comprises such a high percentage of our energy needs today. If we can figure out how to clean it, capture and store it or just reduce its impact, I'm all for it.

And, as for nuclear, I still maintain it needs to be part of the mix.

Another source of criticism of the House Bill may be remedied in the emerging Senate version, which would adjust the alternative minimum tax (ATM), thereby holding down many middle-class Americans' income taxes for 2009.

President Obama's administration has said it would ultimately accept an ATM provision, which may go a long way towards giving the Senate Bill legs. Compromise and consensus may be the key to the Obama presidency.

But with so many other programs stuffed into this StimPack, including many traditional Dem favorites, it's hard to see the future: so much in here looks like the past.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama acts on fuel efficiency, global warming (money.cnn.com)
• America's Untapped Energy Resource: Boosting Efficiency (time.com)
• Avoiding The Cliff Ahead (barrier-busting.com)
• News flash: Nobody gives a damn about global warming (venturebeat.com)
• House panel approves green-tech portions of 'stimulus' bill (news.cnet.com)
• Stimulus plan falls a few shades short of 'green,' critics say (thestar.com)
• For a Long-Term Stimulus, Invest in Green Energy (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)
• Obama So Far Stimulating Decades-Old Arguments [Culture Wars] (gawker.com)
• Poll: Stimulus Backed By 66 Percent Of Americans (huffingtonpost.com)

On Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan and Its Discontents

Image by christhedunn via FlickrPrez-elect Obama has wasted no time pulling together a fascinating group of people to be a part of his team, from both sides of the aisle and from a myriad of perspectives.

What's impressive about the guy is his love for SmartJocks: brilliant people who played sports. (Almost always a winning combination in my book.)

Equally impressive is how he's been able to jump right into the mix on the economy and bring this diverse group together to hash out a plan to get the country back on track. Or so one hopes.

The danger lies in what David Brooks rightly identified in this morning's New York Times as "Obama's audacious self-confidence."

But audacious self-confidence can easily slide into hubris, and I think Mr. Obama may be in for a reality check. (Remember when the Clintons got to the White House only to discover it wasn't Little Rock.)

Members of his party are questioning such a large tax cut in the stimulus package. And Republicans are concerned about some of the larger spending components, such as $200 billion to states targeted at expanding the federal share of Medicaid. In other words, business as usual in Washington.

Given all this, it will be interesting to see how the dialogue unfolds over the next couple of months. Will tax cuts and increased government spending turn out to be a winning combination? It hasn't thus far, but who knows; Mr. Obama may yet have the Midas touch.

More troubling is that the stimulus package also appears to be more of the same: bailouts, building, and a whole lotta hope. Of course there is a modicum of new initiatives thrown in, such as broadband projects, a new power grid, and new scientific research, as well as an intriguing business tax package.

The good news, from the new green economy perspective, is that Mr. Obama still seems committed to alternative energy and energy efficiency. He proposes to "double the production of alternative energy within three years" and "modernize 75 percent of federal buildings and improve energy efficiency in 2 million homes."

The former is wildly ambitious, given how difficult it is to get energy-related projects off the ground and the latter doesn't seem to be exploiting the opportunity efficiency affords. In other words, it may not be ambitious enough.

And while many roads and bridges are in need of repair, it strikes me that this is Mr. Obama's way of pandering to state governments in order to secure their votes for the plan.

Don't get me wrong, much of this work needs to be done, and those projects certainly keep some people in work for extended periods. (I live in Pennsylvania, birthplace of the endless DOT project.)

I tend to agree with my blogging and StockTwits pal Gregor Macdonald that there are larger gains to be had from investments in light- and commuter rail in many of America's metropolitan areas.

However, I also understand that we are a people and a culture defined by our cars. It took 50 years to make us this way; and it may take another 50 -- and astronomical oil prices -- to change us.

Another blogging buddy, Shari Shapiro over at Green Building Law Blog, makes a very good point about "putting the first dollar of tax payer money into the most cost-effective initiative, to ensure those initiatives that have the greatest cost-benefit calculus get funded first and most robustly."

Shari's conclusion, with which I agree, is that "energy efficiency efforts work with the rule of the first dollar." The Obama stimulus may not be as heavily weighted towards efficiency as we'd like to see -- and that may be a failure of imagination about how to engage the states.

Finally, as Brooks points out in the Times, while "there is wide support for fiscal stimulus...there is no historical experience to tell us how to do it, and there is no agreement on how to make it work."

In the end, I hope Mr. Obama isn't setting himself up for failure by trying to bring a compromise to the table before the table has been set or by biting off more than he can chew before dinner is served.

Perhaps Mr. Obama has the magic to make this work, but I, like Brooks and others, remain skeptical.

"By this time next year," Brooks concluded his editorial this morning, "he'll either be a great president or a broken one."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Speech: Stimulus Does Not Motivate
• Bill Scher: Missing From Obama's Speech: Business Tax Cuts
• Transcript: Obama seeks unified fight against economic woes
• Obama Speech: January 8, 2009 (Video + Transcript)
• President-Elect Discusses American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan
• Senate Democrats Criticize Obama Tax Plan
• Senate Allies Fault Obama on Stimulus
• David Brooks Hated By Everyone, "Dissapointed" in Self, Candidates

On Why Throwing More Money at GM and the Other Big 3 US Automakers is a Bad Idea

The big three U.S. automakers are circling their wagoneers and SUVs and hovering over the bailout trough. And Democrats want to reward their labor votes by letting the big three feed off the TARP.

Even President-elect Obama, speaking on CBS News 60 Minutes last night, said we can't let the big three fail. At least he offered conditions.

"We need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check," Obama told Steve Kroft. He wants an answer to the question "what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? -- so that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere, as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere."

I don't think a sustainable U.S. auto industry includes GM. They've been failing for years, and their hubris, along with some bad negotiations with the UAW, have gotten them into this mess.

Bailing them out now will just postpone the inevitable. These dinosaurs are going to die -- in fact, they are already dead.

Other industries have gone through the restructuring offered by bankruptcy and emerged, why can't the auto industry? It's a viable alternative.

Why should we trust losers like GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, who told an industry trade publication that he won't offer to resign should he successfully scarf up some of the TRAP, er, TARP funds.

He won't resign? What part of failure doesn't he understand? They should make General Motors (GM) and Wagoner an example and let them go bankrupt.

GM has had a failure of imagination (except for self-interest) for more than half a century, ever since they destroyed the light rail and trolley car industry in the 40s and 50s.

Alfred P. Sloan, then GM president seized a great opportunity, "We've got 90 percent of the market out there that we can somehow turn into automobile users. If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars. And if we don't, then General Motors' sales are just going to remain level."

The documentary film film "Taken for a Ride" (1996) tells the story of that sordid affair in GM's history.

GM has never cared about us -- ever -- why should we care about them?

Oh, sure, I hear the whining about all the downstream jobs that may be affected by the failure of the big three -- one of which, Chrysler, is a privately held company. But, I've got news for you: the automakers don't give a shite about those downstream suppliers and parts manufacturers. This is about keeping business as usual going for as long as they can.

Mark my words, Wagoner and his cronies will take the money and run, just like they did when the Clinton administration created the taxpayer-funded $7 billion "Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles" to help jumpstart fuel efficient technologies capable of 80 mpg.

That effort was scrapped for the more profitable lines of SUVs GM and others cranked out when oil was cheap. (The government's own PNGV website devoted to that project is no longer live.)

And then there was the EV1, the subject of the documentary film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" According to the film and its sources, GM made a tremendous effort to erode demand for their own product and then killed it. Literally. GM allegedly took back every EV1 and disposed of them, a few ended up in museums, but almost all were found to have been crushed.

Wagoner, told Motor Trend magazine in 2006 that the worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn't affect profitability, but it did affect image."

Now GM has the Chevy Volt, FlexFuel SUVs, and are working on other hybrid technologies. They are making progress, but kicking and screaming the entire way.

Volt has so many issues they will be lucky to get any on the road by the end of this decade, and its projected price will be out of the range of most Americans.

And with <$60 per barrel oil, I've seen more than one GM dealer pimping their backlog of SUVs again, with good terms.

They haven't learned and never will. They can't. Because the problems of GM have to do with 30 years of management mistakes that now has them having to grow for the sake of growing. That is not a winning strategy.

As Wagoner himself told Business Week in 2003, "We have a huge fixed-cost base. It's 30 years of downsizing and 30 years of increased health-care costs. It puts a premium on us running this business to generate cash. Our goal is to grow. We don't care who we take it from."

We don't care who we take it from. Now, that's a winning outlook and proof positive that we'll be throwing bad money after more bad money by investing in the future of GM.

It's time to let them go bankrupt and let the smart survive. And let's invest the money in a better car company made for the new green economy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• GM unveils Volt electric car
• If Detroit Falls, Foreign Makers Could Be Buffer
• GM, Ford post losses as crisis deepens
• General Motors' green drive could run its Hummer off the road
• Dem Leaders Want Bush To Aid Auto Industry
• UAW chief: No more concessions
• Seeking Aid, Automakers Have a Friend in the U.A.W.

Mr. President-Elect, Bring On the New Green Economy, But Be Practical

Now that the election is over and Americans have selected Barack Obama as our next president, it is time to get back to work.

I'm not going to dwell on the historical heft of this event; many people have and will.

Suffice it to say that, regardless of your politics, you had to be proud to be an American last night. We are truly the land of promise and opportunity.

And it is opportunity that I hope President Obama will focus on when he takes office in January.

Now is the opportunity to transform our economy from one based upon greed, deception, and pollution to one of green, transparency, and solutions.

We heard a lot from both candidates about the new green economy, a new energy economy, during the campaign. Much of it was aspirational and not entirely pragmatic.

As he moves forward with his plans, I'd like Mr. Obama to live up to this statement from his speech last night:

"I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree"

It is time for us to get a realistic path forward for the new green economy, which is the best way to turn this economy around and move America forward again.

But it is important to take pragmatic steps within the limitations of the current economic climate.

We need real answers about how Mr. Obama plans to move this economy toward its green future. The goals he outlined in the campaign -- 5 million jobs and $150 Bn -- may not be realistic in the short term.

But in tempering his ambitious goals, I hope Mr. Obama will stick to his guns on going green.

It is important to our future that we have realistic, measurable goals and strong leadership at this time -- now more than ever -- especially on alternative energy, climate change, and overhauling the financial sector.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Barack Obama First African-American President
• Barack Obama: Reaction from the world's media
• Senator Obama the 44th President - Some of my thoughts
• What Change Should The Web World Expect Now That Obama Has Won?
• Technology in the Obama Era

On Panic and an Opportunity in the Midst of Crisis

"Can't you understand what's happening here?" George Bailey says in "It's a Wonderful Life," as the crowd gathers in the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan to make a run on their accounts.

"Don't you see what's happening? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying! And why? Because we're panicky and he's not. That's why. He's pickin' up some bargains. Now, we can get through this thing all right. We've, we've got to stick together, though. We've got to have faith in each other."

The scene ends with the financial wizards of the BBB&L toasting the last two dollars they have before closing time. Hope springs eternal, even in the worst of times.

I kept thinking of that scene during the past few weeks and, while there are comparisons to that earlier era, the "Debtpression" is different from the Depression. And while the seemingly socialist tools of nationalizing banks and credit institutions seems like a "New Deal," I don't think it is the answer and may end up being a raw deal.

We need to rethink the whole premise of our economy and of what growth looks like, and what our country is built upon. For far too long, our economy has been built on unsustainable growth, and greed.

When housing starts are the bell-weather of growth and consumption fuels the GDP, what do we expect? What do you do when new housing slows down? Make loans more available to those who can't really afford the mortgage you're selling. And extend their credit so they can buy more things to fill up those houses. How long could that have gone on?

We need to rethink the foundational elements of our growth. Why can't growth be equivalent to healthy communities, to greater efficiency, and improved and better uses of existing infrastructure? Why can't our economy be built on sustainable innovations?

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures and author of the popular blog, A VC, wrote today about the effects of the economic downturn on his portfolio companies. And (pardon me Fred if I've misinterpreted) it seems that he actually finds opportunity for these companies in the challenging times we're facing.

He writes, "Much has been written about how the 'nuclear winter' of 2001-2003 led to many of the innovations we've been tapping into since. Clearly the capital efficiency revolution was fanned in the nuclear winter. When capital is scarce, smart people figure out how to do more with less. So first and foremost, let's all take advantage of this capital efficiency to get our costs down and build businesses with even more operating leverage. And hopefully there are new tricks out there that we can use to get even more capital efficient."

Gregor Macdonald, an oil analyst and energy sector investor, who also focuses on the coming transition to alternatives, seems to share this view of a leaner, more efficient financial engine.

"What’s needed now is a flowering of smaller investment banks and private equity, to fund the next wave," he writes on his blog Gregor.us. "The financial landscape should become 6 inches high, and 3000 miles wide. We are going to have to cut in the opposite direction, from the current consolidation in US banking. And it will take time. But I think what the country needs is to see a lively investment community in all major cities. Not just New York and Silicon Valley."

Greater capital efficiency and more dispersed investment community. Lean business models and more operating leverage. Sounds more sustainable.

I can't help thinking that out of this crisis -- if we can avoid the noise and abject panic -- can come a new path; a second chance, really. A path that is fundamentally about triple-bottom value creation, where profits are good, but so is people and the planet.

And I keep thinking, as I know Gregor does, that the three areas crying out for investment and that could provide a foundation for a new economy are energy, infrastructure, and new financial service models. Really, a new green economy.

"We invested in the wrong things," Gregor writes. "We invested in the wrong infrastructure. We invested in things that are now paying us little, in the way of return. I’m certain a new era dawns for energy and finance. The investment failures of this decade have likely made the ground fertile, to make it happen."

So, I'm trying to pay attention to a different kind of noise right now -- although it has been tough. It's a bunch of conversations, dialogues, monologues, and even rants by people a lot smarter than me in this arena. It's happening in a community that has a gathered on services like Twitter and StockTwits and Disqus. And it's a more hopeful noise. Concerned, yes, but already beginning to think about what happens post-panic.

As Andy Swan put it in his blog tonight, starting to move from despair to opportunity:

Despair : Opportunity

Fully Invested : Cash Heavy
Short Term : Long Term
Employee : Entrepreneur
Noise : Vision

STOP leveraging your bottom-calls.
STOP thinking in terms of next week or next month.
STOP just being an employee.
STOP listening to the noise.

START raising money.
START thinking about 2012
START thinking (and working) like you own the place

START FOCUSING.

To which, I can only reply (and did), "Amen, brother."

We can get through this thing all right, as George Bailey told the investors of BBB&L. We've, we've got to stick together, though, have faith in each other, and stay focused on a vision and a plan for 2012.

Van Jones and Green Jobs Now: A National Day of Action

Image via WikipediaVan Jones, as readers of The Green Skeptic know, has done some remarkable things at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and now is trying to focus attention on one of the critical needs of our economy: jobs.

Specifically, Green Jobs. Van's premise is that Americans can be put to work in the New Green Economy; that, in fact, it can help lift people out of poverty.

And there may be something to his assertion. While the manufacturing of materials and products associated with alternative energy or energy efficiency can be done overseas, the installation and servicing of those products needs to be done on site.

Now Van and his cohorts have conceived of a National Day of Action calling for Green Jobs Now. Tomorrow, Saturday, September 27, they are asking people to step up and say, "I'm ready for the green economy."

The objective is to foster a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.

Here are Van's own words, from the Green Jobs Now blog:

George W. Bush's house of credit cards is falling down - on the heads of the American people. We need dramatic action - but not just to bail out financial titans who destroyed the economy.

We need to throw a green life-line to the people who want to rebuild it.

There is only one comprehensive solution to the present mess: put America back to work retrofitting and repowering America with millions of green-collar jobs.

A new study from the Center for American Progress and PERI shows that it can be done.

Saturday, tens of thousands of people in all 50 states will be rallying, demanding real solutions for our communities. We are calling the events: "Green Jobs Now! A day to the build the new economy."

This massive green jobs day of action is being co-produced by Green for All, 1Sky and Al Gore's WE campaign - with more than 100 partner organizations. It is the first of its kind in the history of the country, and it will include people from all walks of life (including low-income people and people of color).

As of today, we have more than 600 events planned. You can pull up event details (and see a cool animated VIDEO) on www.greenjobsnow.com.

Now is the time for the USA to pivot away from an economy based on borrowing and toward one based on building. We need to rely less on credit from abroad and more on creativity here at home.

And here is more detailed info:

Green Jobs Now, a national day of action this Saturday, September 27 to advance a socially just and inclusive green economy.

In collaboration with Green for All, 1Sky, and Al Gore's We Campaign, and many more organizations, we have organized nearly 600 Green Jobs Now events in all 50 states! Together we are building a movement to lift millions of people out of poverty and solve the climate crisis.

Our actions will send the message that people of all classes and colors are ready for a new economy - one that uplifts people and honors the planet. These events will call for building green pathways out of poverty and into prosperity for millions of people. From coast to coast, tens of thousands of people will tell the world: "Were ready for the green economy."

Goals for the National Day of Action:

1. Encourage elected leaders and presidential candidates to prioritize green jobs and an inclusive green economy.

2. Build a powerful and diverse base of organizers, promoting the movement for green jobs as the best way to fight poverty and global warming.

3. Elevate the voices of low-income people, people of color and other vulnerable constituencies in the movement for green jobs.

For more information and to find an event near you, visit: www.GreenJobsNow.com .

Related articles by Zemanta

• GOOD Magazine: Green Jobs Not Jails
• Van Jones: Jumpstart The Economy: We Need "Green Jobs NOW!"
• Van Jones: Green-Collar Jobs: Energy Bill includes Christmas present for nation's job seekers