Note: Every Sunday I write an op-ed article for the Huffington Post. You can see this article in its original context here
Fuel Oil and Food Aid Were Key in North Korea
16 months ago North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear program in exchange for aid and the lifting of sanctions. President Bush recently removed North Korea’s designation as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’, and “the energy -starved state is already receiving the equivalent of one million tonnes of heavy fuel oil.” This has been one of the Bush Administration’s few diplomatic victories, yet even as it works to ensure that North Korea lives up to its end of the bargain, a new, equally ominous threat, has been grabbing headlines: Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While the promise of aid in the form of fuel oil and food was instrumental in dealing with North Korea, the Iranian nuclear issue can be resolved with renewable energy. Here’s how.
If Iran Wants Electricity, Give It Renewable Power
Iran claims that “its nuclear [program] is solely aimed at generating electricity so that it can sell more of its oil and gas.” If that’s the case, then all Iran really needs is a means of generating electricity that doesn’t involve oil, gas or nuclear power, since the international community is staunchly opposed to a nuclear Iran. Well, that only leaves one form of energy production: renewable energy (nuclear power is not renewable, as uranium and plutonium are finite resources.) Imagine if the six countries involved in the negotiations–the U.S., China, Russia, Germany, Britain and France–went to Iran and made the following offer: “in exchange for shutting down your nuclear program, we will give you aid in the form of renewable energy equivalent to the amount of power that would have been produced from two of your planned nuclear reactors. In addition, we will provide strong incentives and subsidies in the future as you expand your wind, solar photovoltaic, solar concentrating and biomass programs, and we will also lift all economic sanctions.”
The other day I was watching a program on the Science Channel about cutting-edge green technologies, such as solar towers (about which my good friend T.H. Culhane recently made a youtube video), rooftop wind turbines and high-efficiency, low-cost, thin-film solar panels, and I was struck by one thing above all else: saving the world is cool, fun and rewarding. Why wouldn’t one want to do it? Nowadays you can make enough money to live comfortably, while at the same time bringing technology, innovative financing, and social equity together to create the future. Why not get a job in the coming green economy? There’s no reason to be a hero; hell, since in the West we seem to have come to vie heroes as people that suffer for a cause, I don’t see how one could consider saving the world heroism!
I’m currently reading a book on physics titled ‘The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?’ by Paul Davies which, as with almost any book I read on science, philosophy or religion, has me thinking about the nature of existence, the universe and mortality. In particular, a quote in the first chapter reminded me of a thought I’ve often had: that life is like a lucid dream, or a video game in which the parameters are limitless, and one is free to roam the world as one wishes. Here is the quote:
“Somehow the universe has engineered, not just its own awareness, but also its own comprehension. Mindless, blundering atoms have conspired to make not just life, not just mind, but understanding. The evolving cosmos has spawned beings who are able not merely to watch the show, but to unravel the plot. What is it that enables something as small and delicate and adapted to terrestrial life as the human brain to engage with the totality of the cosmos and the mathematical tune to which it dances?”
I wrote this article for the Huffington Post. It can be seen in its original context here.
Cycling Has An Image Problem
For the last five years the bicycle has been my sole means of transportation, and I happen to feel pretty good about that. Sure, it means my carbon footprint is smaller and I save money on gas and insurance, but what really matters to me is that cycling keeps me in shape and is fun, and I love the beauty and technology of bicycles. In fact, when I complete my masters degree and start earning more money, my hope is not to be able to afford a Mercedes, but rather a carbon fiber race bike. Unfortunately, for most people the bicycle is something you use for transportation until you are successful enough to buy a car; that the bicycle is not seen as a sexy, technologically advanced machine worth aspiring to tells me that cycling has an image problem.
This image problems crops up in numerous T.V. shows and movies. One example is The 40 Year Old Virgin, where Steve Carell, in the role of a loser, rides his bike everywhere. The message that is constantly conveyed is that not only is cycling for transportation inconvenient and dangerous, it’s also a sign of failure. It isn’t surprising, then, that people aspire to purchase a better, faster, sexier car: that’s what signifies that one is moving up in the world. What’s more, any ‘Ten Things You Can Do for the Environment’ list will invariably include cycling, which turns a simple bike ride into some sort of heroic act instead of what it is: fun and good for you. And, as I pointed out last week, people don’t want to be heroes, they want to work for a better world by having fun and using their creativity and talent to solve problems (think of a kind of Google workplace for saving the world).
Note: I wrote this article for the Huffington Post. It can be read in its original context here
A New Model
During the twentieth century, if you wanted to save the world chances are you sought to emulate Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King or any number of tremendous individuals whose fight for justice was characterized by self-abnegation and spiritual rigor. To some extent, that was because the average person lacked the requisite tools to reach the whole world with her ideas. But with the proliferation of computers, the internet, and information technology, a new model has emerged that dramatically lowers the barriers to entry to saving the world and, to put it simply, makes doing so more fun. What’s more, not only is the old model outdated, it sets a high bar that keeps out the very creative thinkers that can solve 21st century problems.
Whom Should We Admire?
In a recent NY Times article titled ’The Moral Instinct,’ Steven Pinker posed the following question: “Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug?” He went on to point out that while most would lionize Mother Teresa, demonize Bill Gates and ask ‘Who is Norman Borlaug?’, if one looks at what each of them accomplished, the answer is quite different. Dr. Borlaug, father of the so-called Green Revolution (for which he received a nobel peace prize in 1970), is credited with having done more to abate world hunger than anyone in history. Bill Gates, through his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is at the forefront of dealing with the world’s deadliest, yet most treatable, diseases. Mother Theresa, on the other hand, “offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.”
I wrote this article for the Huffington Post. It can be seen in its original context here.
Here are two interesting points: electric motors are inherently more efficient (and simpler) than internal combustion engines (ICE), and it is far easier to produce green electrons than it is to produce green gallons of liquid fuel. Both augur well for an increasingly electrified transportation system.
The first point is incontrovertible: electric motors can easily reach an energy conversion efficiency of 90%, while ICE’s have an efficiency of around 20%. Simply put, that means that for a given unit of energy, an electric motor will produce more power. What’s more, electric drive trains are far simpler, requiring 1/10th as many parts as a gas car (no spark plugs, fuel tank, transmission, muffler, etc.).
This is the quote of the day: “If you want to make the world a better place, coming up with a breakthrough concept or technology is just the first step. The most challenging problem is coming up with a practical way that you can put the innovation into the hands of the hundreds of millions of people in the world who need it.”–Paul Polak, Out Of Poverty
Be still my dear.
Stop running away from me.
I merely wish to return the flower
That you dropped last fall.
Note: I wrote this article for the Huffington Post. It can be read in its original context here
It’s amazing how unaware Americans are of the extent to which our economy is dependent on oil. Amazing not only because of the consequences–geopolitical, environmental and social–of oil addiction, but also because oil prices affect every aspect of our daily lives. I was reminded of this fact the other day when I went to my local bike shop. There, the talk wasn’t about carbon fiber and chainrings, but rather about how the cost of shipping has skyrocketed over the last few months (fortunately for the bike shop, high gas prices also mean business is booming). Meanwhile, food riots in Haiti, Egypt and Mexico have made headlines, and the airline industry, hit particularly hard by fuel costs, has gone so far as to begin charging $15 per checked bag.
From high-end bike shops in Providence, Rhode Island, to the slums of Port-Au-Prince, and everywhere in between, people are directly feeling the effects of $130 a barrel oil. Yet there is still no sense of urgency in American political discourse. President Bush was recently on his hands and knees begging OPEC to pump more oil (which they declined to do), and both John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been touting a federal gas tax holiday. Some believe that once oil gets expensive enough America will be forced to truly seek out new sources of energy. But that kind of thinking belies a fundamental problem: the switch to an economy based on renewable energy won’t happen overnight, and it will require far more than a mere policy fix. Just try to think of one product you buy that can be manufactured and delivered without fossil fuels and you’ll see that the scale of the problem dwarfs our current proposed solutions.
I am the Founder & CEO of Capital Good Fund, a nonprofit social venture seeking to tackle poverty through financial services. I am also a writer, poet, cyclist, and avid reader. Enjoy my blog!