Category: economic development

  • Population is a killer for Global Warming. Good news, Kinda.

    The world’s out of control human population growth is something that few people want to talk about loudly because it sounds so very insensitive. But the increase in world population at nearly exponential levels is non-sustainable and multiplies all issues of sustainability: exhausting natural resources, pollution, etc. Estimates are that world population will grow to between 9m and 11m by mid century and then slowly decline.

     World Population Estimates
    Source: OurWorldInData
    The problem with increased population is a double whammy. Not only are there more people, but the footprint of each person should raise dramatically as more people enter the middle class (or higher). Countries like China and India that have burned only 2 barrels of oil per person annually, can be expected to move up their consumption to 4 or 5 times that, more in line with the USA. People that eat lower on the food chain, rice and corn, can be expect to start eating beef and pork which takes 20 to 30 times the resources to produce. 
    But, a new study, published in the Lancet, has found that fertility rates since 1950 have dropped faster and further than anyone expected. (See the BBC article by James Gallagher on this study.)
    The low fertility rates in developed countries means that their populations should start shrinking (without net immigration). In 1950 women had an average of 4.7 children in their lifetimes, a rate that is now half at 2.4! Fertility rates less than about 2.1 result in a decrease in population (excluding net immigration). Many of the developed countries, like the UK with 1.7, have less than 2. Japan has 1.3. With fewer young people to work, the aging retired population becomes a bigger and bigger burden on the economy. It will take decades for the change in fertility to work through the population levels. 
    Economic development has long looks at the use of population to improve the overall economy; more people could/should result in more things produces and a bigger economy. However, per capita economic development can be significantly improved by reducing the number of children. If the economy increases at 5%, but population also increases at 5%, then the per capita income remains the same. China reduced the rate of population growth, and that contributed dramatically to the improved per capita income and the rise of the middle class. I just saw stats talking about the percent of Chinese in extreme poverty at about 1950; more than 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty (currently a purchase-power-parity of $1.9 per day). By 2018, only about 1% of Chinese are in extreme poverty.  Controlling their population was a big contributor to China moving to surpass the USA in terms of economic power (GDP of more than $23T vs $19.5T for US). (Of course their single-child policies have caused many other problems and has recently been relaxed.) 
    China and India represent about 35.7% of the worlds population with 1.4B and 1.34B, respectively. China has stomped on the brakes for decades; India has only tapped on the brakes. China’s growth rate is only 0.39, while India’s is 1.2. US is 0.71 and Japan is -0.23.
    So, a big sustainability question, is first to stop the increase in population world-wide and regionally. But should sustainability initiative actually champion the reduction of world population. One way or another we need to get back to the carrying capacity of Mother Earth.  When you look at Earth over-shoot day, which has moved to August 1, it becomes graphically clear how much we are depleting the earths resources to live beyond our means. Stated differently, about 212 days into the year, we exhausted the renewable resources provided by the earth (and sun), so the resources consumed in the remaining 153 days of the year are depleting resources. In 1987, overshoot day was December 19th; in 2000, overshoot day was November 1.
    This is the same as your annual salary paying all your bills until August 1 (58% of the year), and then you have to borrow money to pay for the rest of the year. Each and every year, you have to borrow more because the overshoot day keeps moving earlier in the year. Non-sustainable issues like overshoot are cumulative, and compounding. Not only do you owe the cumulative total of all the borrowing, but the interest keeps growing at an expanding rate using the magic of compounding.
    We need to get our overshoots (and deficits) under control, and start to make the magic of compounding work for us, not against. Getting countries (and world) population growth under control is probably the most important factor in sustainability, and ultimately, the health and wellness of our plant. It’s pretty important, as well, for those things that have become accustomed to living on this planet.! 
  • Criminal Injustice: Is abnormal non-sustainable?

    We at SustainZine look for things that are abnormal, things that are so inefficient and clearly irresponsible that they should be categorized as non-sustainable. We think the Criminal Justice system in the USA qualifies and non-sustainable.

    Question, what is a “normal” rate of incarceration for you citizens? And if you are a way out-of-control outlier to the other developed countries, does this represent non-sustainability.
    That is, if you don’t put anyone in jail, are you leaving your citizens to be rampaged by mobs and vigilantes? If you have far more people in jail than any other developed country, is this non-sustainable. When does it fully represent a “broken” system of (in)justice.

    Our sister site ScenarioPlans.com (or DelphiPlan.com) talks about the US criminal system of incarceration. It is clearly broken, and totally not sane: More prisoners in US than any other country: Criminal (In)Justice Scenarios.

    Here is the first paragraph:

    The US has the most people incarcerated of any country in the world…
    Even though we only have 4.3% of the world’s population, we have more inmates —
    2.2 million — than China (1.5m) and India (0.3m), combined (36.4% of world
    population)! We have 23% of China’s population but 40% more incarcerated. We
    have almost 1% of our population (0.737%) incarcerated! We have 6 times higher
    incarceration rate than China, 12 times higher that Japan, and 24 times the
    rates in India and Nigeria. That’s right, an American has a 1,200% greater
    chance of being incarcerated than a Japanese citizen. We have even a 20% higher
    incarceration rate than Russia with 0.615% of their population in (Siberian)
    prisons and jails.

    Tell us what you think. Is this insane? Do we need to reform? What do you think could be rationally called a “sustainable” level of incarceration?

  • Time to DrawDown and Look at All the Sky, not just Half

    In the US, we often
    characterize women hitting the Glass Ceiling where men are in the highest
    positions of companies – executives and board rooms. Interestingly, men don’t
    see much of a glass ceiling, maybe because they are usually upstairs and not
    looking down. Old white men may be complicit and complacent in women knocking
    at the other side of the glass, but world-wide the imperative to give women
    respect and opportunity is critical, with profound implications for the world
    population and sustainable economic development. It’s a human and a humanity
    issue for everyone everywhere.
    Let’s talk about Drawdown and Half
    the Sky
     (Wikipedia contributors, 2018). Both are bestselling books and
    global initiatives.
    Everyone should be
    familiar with each of these.
    Half the Sky is a bestselling book by Kristof and
    WuDunn (2009), a movie, and an activist movement. See Half the Sky
    movement: 
    http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
    Women are not allowed to
    do many things in many countries. The limitations on women in many cases mean
    that only half of the human resources in a country/area are utilized. It’s a
    lot like seeing only half of the sky!
    Women are often not encouraged
    to go to school. In many cultures girls are expected to drop out of school very
    early, say age 11 to 13, so they can get married and/or work. (Or worse,
    funneled into sex slavery.) Encouraging women to stay in school longer solve
    many problems simultaneously. At an older age, with education, they are better
    able to do family planning and more productive work. This is key to population
    control. Educating women is key to reaching a global population of 9B or less,
    instead of 11B or more.
    In terms of economic
    development, a better use of women resources is a critical asset to the work
    economy. In fact, women are absolutely critical to sustainability efforts:
    lower population, higher GDP, higher per capita GDP, and reduced environmental
    impacts on the planet.
    There’s an effort call
    DrawDown (
    www.DrawDown.org) that looks for the best initiatives, using the current
    technology that will make the biggest difference in CO2 emissions and global
    warming. Groups use the best, peer-reviewed, information available to analyze
    each initiative. Initiatives are evaluated on the emissions savings as well as
    the actual cost saving on a world-wide bases. When taken together, two women’s
    initiatives, ranked #6 and #7, would move up to #1 position. The two categories
    are: educating women and family planning.
    Note that the three
    women/girl initiatives are ranked 6, 7 and 62; however, combined, they
    represent arguably the best single initative to address in terms of impact on
    global warming reduction. And, oh, by the way, they will contribute massively
    to world GDP and assist dramatically with cost savings compared to business as
    usual.
    The book Drawdown and
    the web site Drawdown.org are edited by Paul Hawken (2017).
    The first table shows
    the summary by sector the top 80 Drawdown initiatives. These
    initiatives are all things that we should do, no matter how aggressively you
    think our action toward Global Warming might be. It would be simply
    irresponsible not to address these issues. Note that an initiative related to
    utilities is ranked 77 but has 3 parts; therefore, there the top 80 lists is
    actually 82 items (see the Top 80 list below).
    We need to be more
    proactively regarding women and girl’s rights; or, we could continue to see
    only half the sky.
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and
    Projected Savings)
    Summary by Sectors of the top 80 Initiatives
    Sector
    Initatives
    CO2e GT Reduction
    Net Costs (US$B)
    Savings (US$B)
    Buildings and Cities
                  15
                                       55
                            4,927
                     17,906
    Electricity Generation
                  20
                                     246
                            4,896
                     21,447
    Food
                  17
                                     322
                               777
                     10,017
    Land Use
                    9
                                     150
                               131
                       1,199
    Materials
                    7
                                     112
                            1,125
                       1,040
    Transport
                  11
                                       46
                         17,753
                     22,666
    Women and Girls
                    3
                                     121
                                     
                             88
    TOTAL
                  82
                                 1,051
                         29,609
                     74,362
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.
    See
    the top 80 table below.
    References
    Kristof,
    N., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the
    sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide.
    New York, NY:
    Alfred A. Knopf.
    Hawken,
    P. (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan every proposed to reverse
    global warming
    . (P. Hawken, Ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    Wikipedia
    contributors. (2018, April 9). Half the Sky. In Wikipedia, The Free
    Encyclopedia
    . Retrieved 15:55, April 10, 2018, from
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half_the_Sky&oldid=835610476
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and Projected Savings)
    Total CO2e (GT)
     Atmospheric
    Net Costs
    Savings
    Rank
    Solution
    Sector
     reduction
    US $B
    US $B
    1
    Refrigerant Management
    Materials
    89.74
    N/A
    ($902.77)
    2
    Wind Turbines
    (Onshore)
    Electricity Generation
    84.6
    $1,225.37
    $7,425.00
    3
    Reduced Food Waste
    Food
    70.53
    N/A
    N/A
    4
    Plant-Rich Diet
    Food
    66.11
    N/A
    N/A
    5
    Tropical Forests
    Land Use
    61.23
    N/A
    N/A
    6
    Educating Girls
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    7
    Family Planning
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    8
    Solar Farms
    Electricity Generation
    36.9
    ($80.60)
    $5,023.84
    9
    Silvopasture
    Food
    31.19
    $41.59
    $699.37
    10
    Rooftop Solar
    Electricity Generation
    24.6
    $453.14
    $3,457.63
    11
    Regenerative
    Agriculture
    Food
    23.15
    $57.22
    $1,928.10
    12
    Temperate Forests
    Land Use
    22.61
    N/A
    N/A
    13
    Peatlands
    Land Use
    21.57
    N/A
    N/A
    14
    Tropical Staple Trees
    Food
    20.19
    $120.07
    $626.97
    15
    Afforestation
    Land Use
    18.06
    $29.44
    $392.33
    16
    Conservation
    Agriculture
    Food
    17.35
    $37.53
    $2,119.07
    17
    Tree Intercropping
    Food
    17.2
    $146.99
    $22.10
    18
    Geothermal
    Electricity Generation
    16.6
    ($155.48)
    $1,024.34
    19
    Managed Grazing
    Food
    16.34
    $50.48
    $735.27
    20
    Nuclear
    Electricity Generation
    16.09
    $0.88
    $1,713.40
    21
    Clean Cookstoves
    Food
    15.81
    $72.16
    $166.28
    22
    Wind Turbines
    (Offshore)
    Electricity Generation
    14.1
    $545.30
    $762.50
    23
    Farmland Restoration
    Food
    14.08
    $72.24
    $1,342.47
    24
    Improved Rice
    Cultivation
    Food
    11.34
    N/A
    $519.06
    25
    Concentrated Solar
    Electricity Generation
    10.9
    $1,319.70
    $413.85
    26
    Electric Vehicles
    Transport
    10.8
    $14,148.00
    $9,726.40
    27
    District Heating
    Buildings and Cities
    9.38
    $457.10
    $3,543.50
    28
    Multistrata
    Agroforestry
    Food
    9.28
    $26.76
    $709.75
    29
    Wave and Tidal
    Electricity Generation
    9.2
    $411.84
    ($1,004.70)
    30
    Methane Digesters
    (Large)
    Electricity Generation
    8.4
    $201.41
    $148.83
    31
    Insulation
    Buildings and Cities
    8.27
    $3,655.92
    $2,513.33
    32
    Ships
    Transport
    7.87
    $915.93
    $424.38
    33
    LED Lighting
    (Household)
    Buildings and Cities
    7.81
    $323.52
    $1,729.54
    34
    Biomass
    Electricity Generation
    7.5
    $402.31
    $519.35
    35
    Bamboo
    Land Use
    7.22
    $23.79
    $264.80
    36
    Alternative Cement
    Materials
    6.69
    ($273.90)
    N/A
    37
    Mass Transit
    Transport
    6.57
    N/A
    $2,379.73
    38
    Forest Protection
    Land Use
    6.2
    N/A
    N/A
    39
    Indigenous Peoples’
    Land Management
    Land Use
    6.19
    N/A
    N/A
    40
    Trucks
    Transport
    6.18
    $543.54
    $2,781.63
    41
    Solar Water
    Electricity Generation
    6.08
    $2.99
    $773.65
    42
    Heat Pumps
    Buildings and Cities
    5.2
    $118.71
    $1,546.66
    43
    Airplanes
    Transport
    5.05
    $662.42
    $3,187.80
    44
    LED Lighting
    (Commercial)
    Buildings and Cities
    5.04
    ($205.05)
    $1,089.63
    45
    Building Automation
    Buildings and Cities
    4.62
    $68.12
    $880.55
    46
    Water Saving – Home
    Materials
    4.61
    $72.44
    $1,800.12
    47
    Bioplastic
    Materials
    4.3
    $19.15
    N/A
    48
    In-Stream Hydro
    Electricity Generation
    4
    $202.53
    $568.36
    49
    Cars
    Transport
    4
    ($598.69)
    $1,761.72
    50
    Cogeneration
    Electricity Generation
    3.97
    $279.25
    $566.93
    51
    Perennial Biomass
    Land Use
    3.33
    $77.94
    $541.89
    52
    Coastal Wetlands
    Land Use
    3.19
    N/A
    N/A
    53
    System of Rice
    Intensification
    Food
    3.13
    N/A
    $677.83
    54
    Walkable Cities
    Buildings and Cities
    2.92
    N/A
    $3,278.24
    55
    Household Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    56
    Industrial Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    57
    Smart Thermostats
    Buildings and Cities
    2.62
    $74.16
    $640.10
    58
    Landfill Methane
    Buildings and Cities
    2.5
    ($1.82)
    $67.57
    59
    Bike Infrastructure
    Buildings and Cities
    2.31
    ($2,026.97)
    $400.47
    60
    Composting
    Food
    2.28
    ($63.72)
    ($60.82)
    61
    Smart Glass
    Buildings and Cities
    2.19
    $932.30
    $325.10
    62
    Women Smallholders
    Women and Girls
    2.06
    N/A
    $87.60
    63
    Telepresence
    Transport
    1.99
    $127.72
    $1,310.59
    64
    Methane Digesters
    (Small)
    Electricity Generation
    1.9
    $15.50
    $13.90
    65
    Nutrient Management
    Food
    1.81
    N/A
    $102.32
    66
    High-speed Rail
    Transport
    1.52
    $1,038.42
    $368.10
    67
    Farmland Irrigation
    Food
    1.33
    $216.16
    $429.67
    68
    Waste-to-Energy
    Electricity Generation
    1.1
    $36.00
    $19.82
    69
    Electric Bikes
    Transport
    0.96
    $106.75
    $226.07
    70
    Recycled Paper
    Materials
    0.9
    $573.48
    N/A
    71
    Water Distribution
    Buildings and Cities
    0.87
    $137.37
    $903.11
    72
    Biochar
    Food
    0.81
    N/A
    N/A
    73
    Green Roofs
    Buildings and Cities
    0.77
    $1,393.29
    $988.46
    74
    Trains
    Transport
    0.52
    $808.64
    $313.86
    75
    Ridesharing
    Transport
    0.32
    N/A
    $185.56
    76
    Micro Wind
    Electricity Generation
    0.2
    $36.12
    $19.90
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Distributed)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Utilities)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Grid Flexibility*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    78
    Microgrids
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    79
    Net Zero Buildings
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    80
    Retrofitting
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    Sum of top initiatives
                  1,050.99
        29,609.30
        74,362.37
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.

  • Toll of the Patent Troll

    The Wall Street Journal has a great article about Patent Trolls and the Toll the cost on an innocent economy. Here’s the excellent WSJ Article: America’s Biggest Filer of Patent Suits Wants You to Know It Invented Shipping Notification, By RUTH SIMON and  LORETTA CHAO, Updated Oct. 27, 2016 1:11 p.m. ET.
    Small(er) companies are targeted by a non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes ungraciously referred to as a Patent Troll. IPZine previously discussed Patent Trolls in their various forms. Efforts to kill the trolls, or at least send them back under the bridge have moved forward with mixed success. In the US, the court costs have been paid by both parties historically, so winning in court, might still be losing. It might be better to simply pay the fees that would go to lawyers and be 100% certain of the outcome. A court ruling in 2014 has shifted this court cost dilemma. (See Wikipedia article on Patent Trolls.)
    Imagine a portfolio of patents related to predictive arrival. That is, when will a product, person or thing arrive. The patent portfolio has 60 some patents with about half still active. That affects almost every business concept from shipping, manufacturing, service and more. It certainly hits on most of the activities that occur on the internet as well. Airlines, shippers, buses, and school buses — government and private — have fallen prey to the transit NPE.
    So a small(er) business, attempting to do business, gets suddenly clobbered by legal notices and maybe even law suits. WHAT!!!??? The company probably has no patent attorney, so they scramble to find one. The patent attorney advises, at say $500 per hour, on the options and the potential costs. Litigation will cost $250,000, unless you lose; then it gets expensive!.
    So, what’s a small firm to do? This fight is like taking a pocket knife to a gun fight. Might be better to pay some fee, say $25,000-$50,000 and possibly a licensing fee (say a small % of sales), then to risk the bankrupting if the business. 
    All agreements are confidential, so it is hard to see who paid what licensing fees, and how much. The big shippers of FedEx and UPS have, apparently, full licensing for them and their clients. So a small company that uses their services, and only their services (of shipping and notification), might be in the clear. 
    The big NPE in this Simon & Chao article is Shipping & Transit LLC. About 10 years ago, the company tried to do a product for buses and shipping (Bus Stop and ArrivalStar). But neither worked out. So now Shipping and Transit sit around suing companies. 
    Not a single law suit has gone the distance. Consequently, none of the patents have been really tested. This is interesting since many of the patent claims are rather obvious and arrival/queuing goes back 50-100 years. 
    It seems like some type of a class action suit would be possible and force the issue against the NPE. The secret to the success of the Patent Troll, however, is to pick off the prey a few small targets at a time. Then, those victims who survive, are signed into an iron-clad agreement that cannot be breached under penalty of death. The airlines, FedEx and UPS are not talking, but what an interesting conversation that would be. 
    The Jones gang of Shipping & Transit, way back in the day (circa Y2K) of ArrivalStar were ruthless. Doesn’t seem like much has changed… 
    Keywords: NPE, Patent Troll, licensing, PLA, patent licensing agreement, economic development, 

  • Olivier Scalabre: The next manufacturing revolution is here | TED Talk | TED.com

    Olivier Scalabre: The next manufacturing revolution is here | TED Talk | TED.com:

    Yes. It is here. The next generation of manufacturing.This is an absolutely spot on TED talk related to the world of manufacturing.

    Everyone in the USA wines and complains about the flight of manufacturing from the USA. We don’t make anything any more. That’s not really true. We still make a lot of stuff, but the percentage of the workforce that makes stuff is a much, much lower percentage.

    After 3 major industrial “revolutions” that have lasted 50-60 years each, we are due for another breakthrough technology/process/approach. It has now been about 50 years of slowing productivity. And the next revolution is already here.

    Monsieur Olivier has very profound arguments for manufacturing to return onshore. One of his arguments is mass customization that is best done near to market (onshore), especially with the latest technologies.

    There’s another massive argument that pertains to the US, and not Europe (France). With new technologies of fracking & horizontal drilling, the US is swimming in cheap oil and (nat)gas. A huge proportion of manufacturing has to do with the cost of electricity — cheap and clean(er) now with the major switches away from coal (toward NatGas and renewables). Transportation is cheap and more efficient. Plus, almost everything manufactured uses oil, particulates and natural gas. All plastics can, and should be manufactured at home.

    We have been flaring about half of the NatGas in the US. All we have to do is set up an electric plant (run electric transmission lines) and/or a plastics factory next to the oil fields to capture some of this free energy.

    Also, in 2015 and 2016, renewable energy has broken through that foggy glass floor. Without considering any of the externalities of coal, wind and solar are now cheaper for electricity. If the true costs of coal, considering all externalities are 2 to 3 times the price at the meter, then cheaper, better and cleaner energy is available at home. Far better in all respects than any factory in China or India.

    Watch the assumptions and assertions in Olivier’s presentation and see how much and how quickly it all comes to pass.
    ‘via Blog this’