By one key measure, the U.S. economy looks sick. Growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) the stuff that fuels future prosperity, pays for our debts and funds our government is sleepwalking. The annual growth rate is just scratching the 2.0-percent mark. GDP, the economic elixir of life, is determined by just two activities: the number of people working and their productivity. More people working and doing so more effectively yields more goods and services for all to enjoy.

Labor force growth in June was increasing at a 0.8-percent annual rate and is projected to average just 0.5 percent over the next few years. We know that labor participation is low, we also know that the Trump administration is discouraging immigration, and we know that there are more than 6 million unfilled jobs begging for workers. So the burden for GDP growth now rests on productivity.

When we add the 1.2-percent productivity increase to the current 0.8-percent labor force growth, we get a pale 2.0-percent growth in GDP. And that expected 0.5-percent labor force growth in the future spells trouble. The economy is sleepwalking, for sure, and is not likely to awaken any time soon.

By this reckoning, things look pretty bleak, but the same bad news has been flowing for a long time. From 2005-15, productivity grew at a 1.3-percent rate, but that included the Great Recession. From 1995-2004, productivity grew by 2.8 percent. But that included the microchip-based information technology revolution. And from 1974-94, the productivity count came in at 1.6 percent. Lets face it: From 1974-2015, the United States, on average, did better than what we are doing now.

Why might productivity be so weak?

Sources of the slow growth economy: over last 6 years output has grown 2.1% avg/year, labor productivity 0.5%/year. https://t.co/Njh0yePrUH pic.twitter.com/GGz2koVkbX

As might be expected, when considering human beings the ultimate resource working in a dynamic economy, there are lots of moving parts to consider. First off, the amount of new capital assets employed in the economy matters a lot. New capital investment plummeted across 2007-2013 and remains below par. Perhaps tax reform could change that, but weak is still weak.

Then, government regulation, which expanded markedly in the last eight years, has laced the economy with production restrictions. Current regulatory reform efforts might loosen some of those restrictions.

The fact that we have more than six million open jobs indicates a problem in matching available skills to the needs of a more sophisticated, knowledge-based economy. Steps now being taken to enhance the educational experience by way of apprenticeships and applied learning may improve this situation.

Finally, theres the matter of how we measure what is produced and whether measuring output has become increasingly difficult and therefore less accurate in recent years.

Is it possible that the labor force is really producing a lot more? As pointed out by Google economist Hal Varian in a 2016 Brookings productivity conference, in the last decade, a revolution in smartphones has merged phones and cameras. Meanwhile, the production of cameras, film and developing has plummeted, pushing down GDP growth. Important medical breakthroughs bring new life-extending pharmaceutical products and hospital procedures, while also shaking up the healthcare economy.

It is always difficult to properly account for new products and procedures. Last of all, there is the matter of producing things that never have been counted in GDP calculations and never will be. Things like reductions in carbon emissions and water pollution, which are not sold in the economy and therefore do not get counted.

Remember, GDP growth however it is measured provides a rough estimate of how we are doing. Given the political constraints on labor-force growth, the burden for future prosperity gains rests heavily on improved labor productivity. As a nation, we need to employ more capital physical and human and we need to reduce the number of regulatory restrictions that limit the implementation of improvements in how we produce and distribute our bountiful supply of goods and services.

Productivity matters.

Bruce Yandleis a distinguished adjunct fellow for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Dean Emeritus of the Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Sciences, and a former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more from the original source:

How to wake a sleepwalking economy - The Hill (blog)

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Walls intuitive decision to step down one year and four months into a new mandate had some Saskatchewanians scratching their heads last week.

Others, like me, who understand the demanding electorate, observe that Wall had no other choice. It was either go now, or face leadership opposition within the Saskatchewan Party or, even worse, humiliation at the polls in 2020.

This time last year, Wall first elected in November 2007 was riding high in the polls after the April 2016 election in which he received a majority mandate to govern for the next four years.

So what happened?

One unpopular budget and the Saskatchewan Party premier, a member of the Mennonite faiths conservative wing, is folding up his evangelists tent and moving on like Steve Martin in Leap of Faith.

After the miserly April 2017 budget, Wall, who was once the most popular premier in Canada, watched on helplessly as his SaskParty approval ratings dipped to a record low of 40 per cent.

It was a small cut to the coffers and the elimination of the government-owned, money-draining Saskatchewan Transportation Company (STC) that left Wall stranded.

Outside the provinces major centres, if you want to get on the bus, Gus, or make a new plan, Stan, youll have to hitch a ride, Clyde, cause Uber doesnt service rural Saskatchewan.

Walls rural stronghold of conservative seniors has evaporated, since those without drivers licences and with city medical appointments can no longer ride the STC, which has been the lifeline for rural people since 1946. That senior demographic can no longer rally for Wall in Regina.

Sure, there was a literate outcry over the de-funding of libraries in that same ill-fated budget. But the library funding was soon restored for just one more year. The funding structures will be re-evaluated in 2018 after a consultation with librarians.

When Wall and his government sharpened their pencils with this most recent budget, they made a massive miscalculation: the SaskParty didnt spend money during a downturn.

Instead, the government punished the electorate with a philosophical budget that off-loaded the treasurys shortfall onto voters. Walls ill-advised April budget was an act of fiscal conservatism, which was an attempt to bolster his credibility with his conservative base a rookie move for a premier of almost 10 years.

Like other western Canadian resource-based provinces, Saskatchewans economy has been listing like an old navy destroyer. Perhaps Wall, who has always had a good grasp on the mood of the electorate, knows his party is facing imminent failure at the polls in 2020.

Still, its a kick in the teeth to the loyal voters who elected his SaskParty based on the reassurance that a moderate would be at the helm for four more years.

The majority of voters in this polarized province chose between two extremes: the socialist NDP and the free-enterprise SaskParty. There hasnt been a Liberal premier since W. Ross Thatcher (1964-1971).

The so-called polarized major political parties are more alike then theyll admit: both are dominated by prudish social conservatives who thrive on the status quo; nothing changes in Saskatchewan not even the time zone.

Wall the populist knew this, so he assumed the position of the appearance of change, without any bold policies that would set off the stuffy electorate. His moderate stance endeared him to the voting majority while alienating the far-right factions of his party.

So its farewell to Brad Wall. His 2016 winning election platform of "Keeping Saskatchewan Strong" has been an epic fail. All it did was fortify the NDP, who are now poised to steal the province from the SaskParty, thanks to the erosion of Walls rural base.

So what are Brad Walls future career options? Open a surf shop in Tofino or sit on the board of PotashCorp? Will Brad and Tami Wall buy a Class A motorhome, become roadies and tour with their 22-year-old musician son, Colter, a rising blues-folk-Americana star in North America and Europe?

Perhaps Wall knew the voters were ready to run him, and his party, out on a rail. Its the only other way out of town now that the STC has been cut. To drown their transportation sorrows, rural voters thanks to a quasi-privatization scheme for liquor stores can now buy a cheap bottle of Golden Wedding rye at the same hotel bar where the STC once stopped.

Patricia Dawn Robertson is an independent journalist in Wakaw, Sask.

View original post here:

Wall cuts his way right out of office - Winnipeg Free Press

Acad. Ivan Bednjicki

Moon Stone International Investment has its own business model for the efficient management of material resources based on circular economy policy as a new economic model for resource management.

Luxembourg (PRWEB) August 14, 2017

In recent years, efficient use of resources and a low-carbon society have become the focus of global discussions on the transition to a circular economy. Transition to a circular economy is one of the fundamental development challenges of our society, which will have an ever more important role in the future due to its environmental and climate impacts, and because of the economic potential deriving from it. Therefore, the transition to a circular economy cannot only be a vision, but is a necessity. Circular economy connects several concepts, such as green growth, the green economy, industrial symbiosis, resource efficiency and sustainable development. With wider or narrower focus, the common goals are generally three: to improve the efficiency of resource use, to ensure resilience of ecosystems and to strengthen social equity. Global demand for natural resources is rising steeply. In the 20th century, the world's population increased by 4 times, economic output by 40 times, consumption of fossil fuels 16 times, and water consumption by 9 times. The same trend will continue in the future. By 2050, the global population will increase to 9.6 billion people, and it is clear that the linear economic model will soon come to its limit as it is based on the exploitation of natural resources and the increasing production of goods with a short lifespan.

The Seventh Environmental Action Program of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union for the period up to 2020 sets out the priority objectives to be achieved during this period. With this environmental action program, the EU has committed itself to further strengthening its efforts to protect our natural capital, promote low carbon growth by effectively using resources and innovation, and protecting the health and well-being of people while respecting the natural limitations of the planet. The program contains nine priority objectives and tasks that the EU must undertake to achieve by 2020, among which a special focus is on improving resource management.

According to Eurostat data, most EU countries are still ineffective in terms of material productivity because they use too many natural resources for the unit of GDP generated, which puts them in an extremely precarious situation in the long run from a competitive point of view. The reason for this is the overwhelming inheritance of the surviving linear model of thinking in the economy and service activities (acquired, used, discarded). We need to start thinking about how to set up a circular economic system in which raw materials, water, energy and other resources will circulate, as they circulate in nature. By introducing the circular economic system, the company will be a step closer to not considering environmental policy as a factor of limiting growth, but as a key development opportunity for a new development paradigm.

The notion of "circular economy", in which nothing is discarded, is crucial in seeking to increase the efficiency of resource use. Prevention and preparation for the reuse and recycling of waste enable the company to acquire substances or materials from existing, already produced sources. This reduces the need for natural resources, and consequently reduces the use of energy and the negative impacts on the environment. Therefore, when introducing circular economy, there is no question if, but only when the economies of the countries will do so.

Moon Stone International Investment S.A. from Luxemburg is a company, which has come to realize that proper waste management is a new industry for the future for those who will recognize this opportunity. Expert studies and operational experience of the company show that the limited processing of only certain waste by a certain technology reduces the possibility of their processing into new usable materials, the scope of the possibilities of implementing certain services is limited, while lower added value and lower operating profit are achieved. On the contrary, the combined processing of waste from different areas of their production by combining different processing methods gives the greatest possible degree of their conversion into new useful materials, the maximum extent of service delivery, unsurpassed development opportunities and the achievement of higher added value and higher operating profit. And all of this is the strategic business goal of Moon Stone International Investment S.A. from Luxembourg, which has its own business model for the efficient management of material resources based on circular economy policy as a new economic model for resource management.

Moon Stone International Investment S.A. Is mainly focused on handling large masses of waste from construction, mining, industry, energy, utilities and debris of inland water bodies. Among municipal waste, priority is given to the treatment of sludges from wastewater treatment plants, the remains of so-called unusable heavy fractions after mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste, and ashes resulting from the thermal treatment of alternative fuels from treated waste. The use of recovered waste as new materials, composites and soils is primarily intended for the implementation of earthworks, focusing on the implementation of remediation of degraded areas in the past, improving the quality of soil for agricultural production and for new provincial construction, with an emphasis on the implementation of measures for the construction of flood protection for threats to the operation of high flood water.

In the strategy of its operation, the company does not use the words "disposal or incineration of waste" since it is at all times looking for recycled waste with comprehensive project support at the highest level for its predominantly strategic clients under its own patent procedure and its own business model for useful permitted re-use for the purpose of implementing the circular economy strategy efficient resource management.

Original Article

See original here:

Circular economy Effective resource management - Virtual-Strategy Magazine

At 41 years of age, Dr Alfred Madigele is Botswanas youngest Cabinet Minister.

After completing his studies in Ireland, Dr Madigele was employed for a year at one of the biggest hospitals in Ireland called Limerick Regional Hospital, as a Medical Officer and he decided to quit and come back home.

Dr Madigele was employed by Princess Marina Hospital for a year before opening his own private clinic as a general practitioner before contesting for Mathethe/Molapowabojang Constituency in the 2014 general elections.

Voice reporter Portia Ngwako-Mlilo had a chat with the youthful minister about his political journey, challenges and growth opportunities at his ministry of Tertiary Education, Research, Science and Technology.

Q. What inspired you to join politics?

A. When I was at junior school I read a lot about former South Africa leaders of the struggle like Robert Sobukwe and Oliver Tambo and got inspiration from their stories and what they did for their people.

I think I developed interest at that age and I thought perhaps when I grow up I would be interested in joining politics.

One of the things I really wanted to do was being a medical doctor which I managed to achieve and after 10 years of practice I joined politics.

Q. One would say you were not known much in the BDP until you stood for elections, when did you join politics?

A. I joined politics a long time ago behind the scenes because I had established a business of private clinic and I didnt want my professional life to mix with politics.

I came into the picture two years before the election.

Q. What was the response from people in your constituency?

A. People were very appreciative and according to them it was a breath of fresh air.

They appreciated that I was a professional and young compared to previous leaders.

The message that I put across was also appealing to the electorate.

Q. It is said you come from a family of BNF activists, why did you choose to join BDP?

A. Growing up I read a lot of literature from Russia- the former USSR, because my uncle was a communist and a councilor in Lobatse.

It didnt mean I was pro socialism, and as I grew up I evolved into a situation of a free market of capitalist tendencies because I also felt that I was an aspiring entrepreneur, so I couldnt go with socialists.

BDP is a natural home for me.

Q. What have been your achievements so far in your constituency?

A. There is a lot that has been done so far and I believe there is still a lot that needs to be done.

There is a primary hospital and a bridge on the cards for Molapowabojang village as well as a police station and housing currently under construction.

In Mathethe we have developed an Agricultural Centre which is under construction.

Other areas include Lorolwane village where electrification is underway and there is also a maternity clinic coming up at Gasita village, just to mention a few.

Q. You were employed at Limerick Regional Hospital in Ireland for a year. Why did you decide to quit and come back home?

A. I really wanted to achieve that agenda of business and I had to come back so that I could develop a conducive environment for myself and eventually join politics.

Q. Dont you miss your days at the Ministry of Health and Wellness, considering that it was in line with your qualifications?

A. Yes I do, but for me it was a blessing to shift from the Ministry of Health because it is good to try other new things in life and it was good for growth.

I was happy that the leadership appreciated my leadership skills and I believe so far I have done a good job in starting a ministry from scratch.

Q. There were rumours that you were suppose to defect to the opposition, what happened?

A. I heard about that too but it was just that, rumours! Defection has never crossed my mind.

I think people mistake my character. I like to engage in discourse even with opposition politicians and some of them are my friends.

I would spend some time with them and people tend to believe I am considering joining them.

Q. Are you standing for the next elections?

A. Right now I am the Member of Parliament and the decision to stand or not has not arrived yet.

Q. Whats next after politics?

A. To continue being a reputable entrepreneur.

Like I said I am not a career politician and I am still a professional at heart.

Q. Should BDP be worried by the merging of opposition parties?

A. I dont think so. BDP should get strengthened because for us to govern we need a strong opposition.

In a democracy like ours there has to be strong institutions that will make sure that the government is able to deliver.

We shouldnt take change just for the sake of change.

BDP has so far done a lot of good things in terms of provision of basic things.

As we speak there is no other country that gives free health care or education.

Q. What challenges do you face at your ministry?

A. There is a lot of challenges like provision of quality relevant training.

We talk about programmes that are fully accredited and our graduates can be compatible with graduates from the region and the world at large with regards to relevance.

One of the problems we find is skills mismatch. Creation of HRDC will make sure that we train looking at the economy demand.

Our mandate is to migrate from a resource based to a knowledge based economy.

Q. We outsource skilled labour especially from neighbouring countries.

What are you doing to ensure that your ministry benchmarks in those countries?

A. This is a result of skills mismatch and we trained more people for white collar jobs and there was stigma attached to vocational schools.

We are very much working on that and we believe that a strong Technical and Vocational Education Training is very very key towards attaining a good level of employment.

We studied new models like that of Israel and Singapore and those countries do not have natural resources and depend only on their skills.

Q. What criteria is used to upgrade colleges to universities?

A. We have what we call National Credit and Qualification Framework which grade the level of qualification.

The purpose of a university is not only teaching but also for research and strategies.

Q. Why are other institutions intakes higher than others?

A. As government we have an obligation towards our institutions and we should be able to support them.

For the economy to grow it needs a strong private sector and that is why for the past 15 years- through a parliament Act, we allowed the emergence of private institutions.

Allocation of students is upon institutions to ensure that their programmes are fully accredited.

HRDC gives us an idea of which courses we can sponsor.

This year we have concentrated on construction, auto motive industry and others.

Q. Kindly share with our readers, progress on the Target 20 000.

A. It was introduced to up-skill and to re-tool our young people. More than 9 000 students benefited.

It is a great idea but I believe and agree with some critics that maybe the implementation was not great.

This year we suspended enrollment of new students for the programme and next year we will have a new and revamped Target 20 000, more appropriate and responsive to what we need from our students.

Q. How is the BQA transition process going?

A. I am working closely with the Board of Directors and BQA management to make sure that all the challenges we are facing are addressed.

BQA was formed in 2013 from two organizations BOTA and TEC.

BOTA was responsible for vocational training while TEC was for tertiary.

There was a bit of confusion because with BOTA there are true criteria either the course is accredited or not while TEC there were different levels of accreditation, approved provisionally, fully accredited or rejected.

Q. Do you think the time given to institutions is enough? What happens if they fail to meet deadline?

A. We realized the amount of work that needs to be done is so immense given to a transition within 12 months.

I am still waiting for a report from the board which would advice me on what to do.

Our stakeholders need to be reminded that the transition deadline is nearing so that we can all meet our obligation.

Q. Government funding is drying out.

What are you doing to ensure that scholarship grant beneficiaries pay back the money?

A. BGCSE produce about 35 students every year and our budget only sponsor around 10 000.

The issue is about budgetary constraints.

We are currently exploring a policy shift in tertiary education financing so that we can increase access.

There is need to reform the grant loan scheme which is behind times and really talks to government employment but things have changed.

We are talking with government to open up to the employees to allow them access to education loans for their children.

Q. Who is your inspiration?

A. There are many but I was mainly inspired by political figures like Robert Sobukwe at the level of politics.

On an individual level I was inspired by my late father, Fish.

I always admired his perseverance and hard work.

Q. What legacy do you want to leave at your ministry?

A. Issues of relevance need to be addressed.

there is also the training for the economy which would obviously reduce unemployment.

I would also want to leave a legacy of strong and innovative society.

Q. Thank God is Friday. What are your plans for the weekend?

A. I will be at the farm.

Link:

Young and vibrant - The Voice Online (blog)

The Post and Couriers John McDermott reported on more than 12,000 acres of forestland being acquired by a solid conservationist (Land deal by South Carolina video chain pioneer provides happy ending, Aug. 6). That surely was a happy ending, but the article coincidentally reported on a trend that does not have such a happy ending.

That forestland was part of former MeadWestvacos large East Edisto tract where more than 30,000 acres in Charleston County have changed hands in about 15 sales over the past three years. That trend is large tracts of forestland being subdivided into smaller and smaller tracts, some remaining forestland, some being developed, and, in fortunate cases, some being acquired for conservation purposes. There are consequences to smaller tracts.

Those consequences have technical names: forest parcelization and forest fragmentation. Parcelization occurs first, when a change in ownership results in a large forest property being subdivided into smaller properties. If the new owners take no further action, then the forest remains intact. However, say one or more of the smaller properties are developed. Forest fragmentation then occurs, with the forest being physically separated by areas of nonforest. This produces all kinds of negative ecological changes, especially impacting wildlife populations and water quality.

This is an important trend, impacting all of the nations private forests. In the early 1990s Westvaco owned over a half million acres in South Carolina, much of it near Charleston. Most of it is now sold off to timberland investors and recreational buyers. That land was prime timberland, producing tremendous amounts of wood that helped fuel the local economy. Nearly all of it was bought up by timberland investors and is still being managed to produce a timber crop. Gradually more and more of it will be developed or become recreation property, and cease to be timberland.

Those timberlands support one of the states top manufacturing sectors. Forest products contribute $21 billion to the states economy and provide employment to 84,000 South Carolinians. Just over two-thirds of South Carolina is forested (about 13 million acres) and 88 percent of that is privately owned. The public portion provides little timber for the economy. Timber production is on the huge private portion of the forest that is being slowly eroded by parcelization.

Of the 11.5 million acres of private forestland, 7.3 million acres are owned by families and individuals. These are mostly small ownerships that average about 66 acres. There are 212,000 family forest ownerships in South Carolina, but only 90,000 of them contain 10 or more acres. Less than 10 acres is essentially a backyard and not a forest in a real sense. Time is carving out more and more backyard forests.

As the old forest industry lands and family forests become smaller and smaller, management for timber production, wildlife or water quality becomes more and more difficult; its a matter of economies of scale. Smaller forests are more costly to manage on a per acre basis. They tend to be less likely to be managed under sustainable forest management and far less likely to be producing timber. Parcelization and fragmentation on the East Edisto tract is highly visible; changes to family forests are more insidious, with long-term consequences to the states environment and economy.

Forest policy can help reduce the impact. How timber is taxed as income affects the attractiveness of managing a forest. Current use valuation of forestland, where it is valued as a productive forest and not for its development potential, is a powerful incentive to keep land growing trees. Conservation easements protect some forests. Educating forest owners in proper estate planning can see that forests are held for generations. There is no shortage of policy tools.

Even if you dont care about the states economy, wildlife, natural resource based recreation or soil conservation, you probably do care about water. Much alarm has been raised lately concerning South Carolinas surface and ground water. Forests are watersheds and these changes will impact water quality. Connect the dots and the East Edisto story directly relates to the Aug. 6 editorial on the surface water free-for-all. Connect the dots and changes to the states forests affects a lot more than the trees.

Thomas J. Straka is a professor of forestry and environmental conservation at Clemson University.

Go here to read the rest:

Sell-off of East Edisto tract causing 'forest fragmentation' - Charleston Post Courier

Banking The partnership defies 20th century notions of a public private partnership, and offers a glimpse of the private sector tipping its hat to the sovereign function and prerogative in identifying and authenticating the beneficiaries of a digital service.

WhatsApp is going to integrate the Unified Payments Interface developed by the National Payments Corporation of India. Credit: Reuters/Twitter

A senior official in the Indian government hasconfirmed, via Twitter, that the soon-to-be launched payments system from WhatsApp would integrate the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) developed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI).

The worlds most popular messaging applications decision to use locally-designed architecture to send and receive money is momentous for reasons both technological and strategic. WhatsApp relies on the address books of users to send and receive messages, images or calls, so it could well have deployed an in-house mechanism to make digital payments from one phone number to another. Indeed, the Chinese messaging application WeChat has engineered exactly such a system WeChat Pay relying on user contacts and scanned QR codes to effect payments.

WhatsApp has instead chosen to adopt a homegrown product, and a UPI-driven platform will allow it to make payments through other personally-identifiable markers: Aadhaar numbers, account number/IFSC code and so on. It is yet unclear how the payment interface will be integrated into WhatsApp. WhatsApp has two options before it: in the manner of a PayTM, WhatsApp could fashion itself a digital wallet and link it to UPI addresses. But given this would necessitate an RBI license and would be a rather minimal use of the UPI interface, WhatsApp is likely to adopt UPI-driven payments in the same way as the BHIM (Bharat Interface for Money) app, and potentially process transactions from all manners of IDs: phone numbers, Facebook contacts, bank accounts or even Aadhaar numbers. No matter what the final configuration, WhatsApps embrace of UPI will have lasting consequences for Indias digital economy.

For starters, the WhatsApp-NPCI arrangement defies 20th-century notions of public-private partnership. In most turnkey or greenfield infrastructure and services delivery projects, the governmentsuppliesthe public assets with the last-mile operation run by the company in question. In WhatsApps case, the messaging platform has built a steady base of first-generation internet users, which the government will tap for digital financial inclusion. In other words, the massive datasets harvested by the private sector Googletoo has payment gateway designsof its own for the Indian market will be leveraged by the government for targeted interventions. This sort of collaboration ensures public agencies will not have to reinvent the wheel (and create overlapping databases) for the purposes of promoting financial inclusion.

But the WhatsApp-NPCI collaboration also raises the possibility of government collection and processing of financial and personal data through the private sector, the misuse of which is currently not contemplated by Indias IT laws. The provision of public utilities through technology companies also require a clarification on the responsibilities of the private sector: for instance, would they operate as essential services during internet shutdowns? In the event of a cyber attack on WhatsApps servers or firmware, who would guarantee the safety of digital payment gateways and how will real-time information sharing with government work? After all, the UPI is essentially sovereign property the private sector must be accountable for its use of the resource.

Build, and they will come?

WhatsApps adoption of a homegrown digital platform like UPI is also important for symbolic reasons. Silicon Valley suffers from an almost pathological determinism and irrepressible belief that technology designed in the Bay Area can offer solutions to most global problems. WhatsApp, by integrating UPI into its platform, has signalled to Silicon Valley peers that the Indian digital economy can offer mature technological solutions that augment their own. This should be a cue for Y Combinator to pilot its universal basic income project in Indian cities through the UPI platform, blockchain players including European companies like Guardtime to offer commercially scalable solutions that limit pilfering of funds in public sector projects, and AI-based technologies to work with state governments for creating predictive tools in health diagnostics.

In some sectors, as with health and education, the government can contribute through data sets, while in others, such as the financial sector, it can provide technologies that lead to greater inclusion and accountability. Even enlightened Silicon Valley engineers often pit technologyagainstpeople, attributing the failure of ingenious innovations to human resistance: India has an opportunity to prove technological designs that account for lived realities in its own cities and villages can influence social and economic interactions positively.

An Indian model of cyber sovereignty

From a strategic perspective, the use of sovereign markers by WhatsApp to effect digital payments is significant. The UPI is an Application Programming Interface that allows transfers of money from one virtual payment address to another. (That payment address may look different based on the app in question: for example, while using the BHIM app, a users payment address would be amsukumar@upi, and for a specific bank the address may be amsukumar@sbi. For WhatsApp payments effected through UPI it may be @WA.)

Whatever that address may look like, the UPI interface ensures the address resolution happens through a number of public markers: phone numbers, account numbers and IFSC codes, RuPay card numbers and possibly even Aadhaar numbers in the future. WhatsApp could probably effect payments through phone numbers or Facebook contacts if it wanted to the way its parent company has,by building a system from scratchand using Visa and MasterCard debit card information but its use of the UPI interface is an acknowledgment of these government-identified markers. At a time when governments across the world are increasingly tightening their control over the internet, the WhatsApp-NPCI arrangement could be billed by India as its own variant of cyber sovereignty.

Its Chinese version, which is being aggressively promoted by Beijing through forums such as the BRICS, is too heavy handed and intrusive for India to acknowledge. India can offer as an alternative a minimally-invasive arrangement where the private sector tips its hats to the sovereign function and the prerogative of the government in identifying or authenticating the beneficiaries of digital services.

And finally, WhatsApps UPI embrace is a shot across the bow to Chinese competitors like Tencent and Alibaba, who want to introduce their own digital payment systems in India. New Delhi will be naturally disposed towards foreign technologies that integrate indigenous solutions, so the development is likely to place political and market pressures on Chinese companies to follow suit.

For Beijing, which has run roughshod over digital economies with little care for homegrown technical standards, this would be a moment to pause and reflect.

Arun Mohan Sukumar heads the Cyber Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation. Disclosure: Facebook, WhatsApps parent company, is among ORF Cybers project funders.

Categories: Banking, Business, Digital, Economy, Featured

Tagged as: Ajay Kumar, Bhim, digital economy, Facebook, Finance Ministry, Modi, National Payments Corporation of India, NPCI, p2p payments, peer-to-peer, personal payments, RBI, UPI, Whatsapp

Read the original post:

WhatsApp's Integration of UPI-Based Payments Has Strategic Consequences for India's Digital Economy - The Wire

Hike along Bay Ocean Spit road, learn about coastal bays & estuaries, and discover the history of a lost town.This guided hike will also highlight the 50th anniversary of the Oregon Beach Bill, a legislation ensuring public access to all 363-miles of Oregon coastline, and inform on updates to closing gaps along the Oregon Coast Trail.

This ~5 mile journey is a moderate to easy hike that winds along and over dunes at the intersection of Tillamook Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Discover how the bay and dunes formed and changed over time, experience the story of a great town and its demise and more during this great beach and bay hike.

FREE and open to the public (registration required), the hike will be led by Chrissy Smith of Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS,Kristen Penner of Garibaldi Cultural Heritage Initiative, and Connie Soper, author of Exploring the Oregon Coast Trail. The event is part of theExplore Natureseries of hikes, walks, paddles and outdoor adventures. Hosted by a consortium of volunteer community and non-profit organizations, these meaningful nature-based experiences highlight the unique beauty of Tillamook County and the work being done to preserve and conserve the areas natural resources and natural resource-based economy.

Experience the unique landscape of our coastline, the story of a long lost town buried beneath the salal, and learn about new efforts to preserve Tillamooks historical legacies.Join us in discovering the natural wonders and history of this special place!

Note:

Date & Time: Hike is scheduled for August 16, 2017 from 1 p.m. 4 p.m.

Event Information: There are no bathrooms or drinking water facilities on this hike. Please bring water and snacks. Weather on the Oregon Coast is unpredictable and trails can be slick and muddy if it rains. Please be prepared and bring appropriate gear and clothing.

Difficulty: A majority of the hike route is relatively flat, graveled road and beach. There are two sections that require climbing steep sand banks (~1 mile in length). The trail can also be overgrown in sections. Please dress appropriately, wear sturdy shoes, and evaluate your comfort walking on soft, sandy trails.

Location: Near Cape Meares, OR. The park is a 20 minute drive from downtown Tillamook. Please register for driving directions.

Cost:No charge. Tax-exempt donations to Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS to enable programs like this are encouraged, but not required.

Registration: Required and available at EventBrite.com. For a link to the registration page, please visit ExploreNatureTillamookCoast.com or the Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS Facebook Event page.

Links:

Excerpt from:

Explore Nature: Hike Bay Ocean Spit - North Coast Citizen

By

December 18, 2013

Realtors in two northern B.C. boomtowns are frustrated by a lack of product in the face of huge buyer demand. Sherry Hart, broker/owner of Royal LePage Fort Nelson Realty said much of her time is spent trying find clients the ideal property when it is not being offered for sale. Harts said that in many cases owners are simply not prepared to sell, regardless of the terms being offered. There is vacant industrial land, but the lack of available contractors creates a dilemma for those wanting a turnkey building, she said. Fort Nelson is among the northern towns fueled by natural gas investments, including at least seven new LNG plants and related work. Fort St. John is a northern centre for the natural gas fields and BC Hydros proposed $7.9 billion Site C dam, which is about seven km. from the city. It can be frustrating at times, says Ron Rodgers, owner/managing broker for Northeast B.C. Real Estate. I had a group of investors in my office the other week with $4 million to spend and they were prepared to sign on the dotted line right away. However, I didnt have a list of investment opportunities for them to choose from. There are a lot of investors who are looking forcommercial and/or industrial real estate in the Fort St. John area, both locally and from out of town. Financing can also be a problem. Even with all of the attention and the huge potential of northern B.C., getting mortgages and financing is still problematic for many investors, developers and business owners because we are told by the banks that we have a resource based economy Rodgers said. Ironic, isnt it? There is still caution among smaller investors, Rodgers added. After all, no LNG plants have actually been built and Site C will be facing public hearings for months before a decision is made. Until full commitments are made for these projects and actual contracts are signed, there are not a lot of commercial real estate sales that have been completed. While there is a good demand for retail and office space, the highest demand in this area will always be for industrial space to accommodate the many businesses that service and develop the oil and gas reserves in this area. For a full report on boomtown real estate, see the January issue of Western Investor.

See the article here:

Boomtown realtors frustrated by lack of product - Western Investor (subscription)

Why does a state with mass higher education is not needed

Russia is one of the few countries where higher education is accessible to most citizens. Thats just the demand for that knowledge is small. This is the conclusion reached by the authors of a joint study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Sberbank, Worldskills and Global Education Futures.

Its most qualitative human capital of the Russian exports, but the one that remains untapped. A resource-based economy is absolutely not value knowledge, according to the study. Therefore, the incentives to master the difficult professions a bit. So, the doctor in Russia earn on average only 20% more of the driver. For comparison: in the USA the difference is 261%, Germany 172%, in the emerging Brazil 174%.

While the public higher education quality of personnel in Russia does not improve, analysts say. The new economy requires not only theoretical knowledge and programming skills, but also creative, analytical thinking, ability to work in conditions of uncertainty. Meanwhile, the current education system orients young people to technical and routine work teaches us to act according to the instructions.

As a result, the demand for these graduates is small. Many receive diplomas and work where diplomas are not needed. This does not need a long time to learn, stated in the study. According to analysts, 26% of graduates would as well learn less than five years. However, the Russian education system focused on enrollment, not on actual business needs, conclude the authors of the study.

There is another problem. Over 20 years of wide-ranging reforms, from 1995 to 2015, the structure of the labor market in Russia has changed slightly. The main employer is still the public sector, even in state-owned companies and small and medium business, and large new corporations, less than one third of all employees.

According to analysts BCG, the matter is compounded by the fact that unemployment in Russia is one of the lowest almost does not react to GDP changes. Worldwide if GDP is falling, unemployment is growing, we can even decrease. In such an environment, even if a person has a need for a new economy knowledge and skills, to apply them it would be nowhere. This means that in the future Russia can be claimed by any modern professional, summarize experts.

See also: Russia is preparing an attack on the Western sports

You need to knowledge in Russia again became in demand, will lead the economy out of the impasse?

I work in higher education since 1974, says the Chairman of Russian economic society. SF Sharapova, Professor of international Finance (University) Valentin Katasonov. And for four decades to observe the process of its degradation. Part of this degradation stems from the fact that universities are not quite adequate applicants. But do the universities contribute their mite, and considerable.

So there is, in my opinion, because the goal of the current system of higher education is not the training of qualified specialists, and in the formation of a certain type of human consciousness.

Our universities form a person who should be most manageable. Not only in terms of their economic activities, but in the broadest sense. From this point of view, the system of higher education is the pipeline for release, sorry for the harshness, fools. Because the most valuable resource in a market economy, in my opinion, is a fool. No kidding, the market model is banal will not work.

For the first time in the observed pattern: when a person comes to the first year of University, apparently he still thinks, asks some questions. But by the end of a University course the average student is usually sick. He begins to stereotype, and to see the world as if through a narrow window.

Believe me, it hurts me to say on this topic. But I do believe that the current higher education system does not generate and destroys man.

SP: This system prepares specialists?

The fact of the matter is that the professionals it prepares. But the damage from this system outweigh the positive results.

SP: This is purely a Russian problem?

Oddly, no. We sometimes idealize the higher education system in the West. In fact, problems there are no less acute. In Spain about 50% of graduates cant find work in the specialty. In Russia the share of people with higher education who work in low-skilled areas, about the same as in OECD countries 20%.

See also: 28 years before the Apocalypse - the prospects for Russia without oil

In short, this is a global problem. And I believe her roots stretching the learning process. Once in the West as in the USSR was a ten-year secondary education. Now in the American schools for 12 years. Once in our country was a five year system of training in higher education. Now it takes 6 years: four years undergraduate, two graduate.

Such tightness of the learning process in time only makes the chaos. And most importantly because of this young man much later enters the labour market.

SP: If the education system in Russia was normal, it would have had a multiplier effect on the economy?

Of course, not only on the economy. The education system needs to form the personality of the person. Keep in mind that in Soviet times the universities we are not only taught we were brought up. And no one was embarrassed. On the contrary, universities have emphasized that the conduct of not just the process of transferring some of the knowledge and skills, but also the process of education.

Without this education, I believe there can be no civil society. After all, the man is the primary as a citizen, not as a narrow specialist.

If in Russia there will be a full-fledged civil society, there will be a normal economy. I think that the destruction of the educational component is a major problem and the current system of education, and the country as a whole.

Primary still the structure of the economy, under which is formed the labor market, said the President of the Union of entrepreneurs and tenants of Russia Andrei Bunich. And you can say that there is full compliance. If the economy developed, it required a proactive, energetic, creative shots. If it is raw, it is enough to two thirds of the population was engaged in unproductive work. Hence the huge army of security guards in our country, hence the situation in which a significant part of the working-age population has no qualifications, and odd jobs.

This situation has changed dramatically, need to change the economy. Then rebuilt and the educational system, and knowledge it useful.

2017, micetimes.asia. All rights reserved

See more here:

A resource-based economy makes Russia a country of fools - http://www.MICEtimes.asia (press release)

By Emmanuel Ugwu, Umuahia

The federal government has advised state governments to start thinking of ways to exploit the revenue potential in the heaps of waste products that have become common place in most cities and rural communities across the nation. To prod state governments to start making money from refuse heaps, the federal government has launched the National Waste-to-Wealth Programme with appropriate technology whereby states could make money from wastes and enhance their internally generated revenue (IGR) profile.

Minister of science and technology, Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu flagged-off the programme at Abia State government house, Umuahia for the Southeast zone, where he called on the state governments to key into the programme, adding that the new programme would be launched in all the six geopolitical zones. He expressed optimism about the viability of the waste to wealth project, saying that all Nigerians must embrace the programme as it would help create both wealth and jobs. Explaining how states could make money from waste products, Onu said that electric power can be generated from wastes, organic fuel for domestic and industrial use is also available in refuse heaps while organic fertilizer can also be produced for use in the farms to enhance food production. I am confident that this programme, if properly implemented, will help our great nation, Nigeria to effectively convert the huge amount of waste generated in both our rural and urban areas into very useful products to promote the happiness of our people, he said.

According to the minister, the deployment of appropriate technology to realise the programme would further strengthen the place of science, technology and innovation in our search for a new beginning andhelp move our economy from being resource based to become knowledge based and innovation driven for the good of all. Onu stressed that the nation has a lot to benefit from turning heaps of garbage to generate wealth as it would usher in a new order of sustainable development and enduring prosperity for the nation. It will help create wealth and jobs, reduce poverty, help defeat hunger and stimulate national consciousness in the power of science and technology as an important instrument for nation building, he said. Furthermore, the minister expressed confident that through this National Waste-to Wealth programme, by using appropriate technologies no waste would be wasted as what becomes waste for one household can become useful for another, he said. The science and technology minister dispelled any doubt about the possibility of waste generated in one household becoming a source of wealth for other people, insisting that science, technology and innovation would make it possible.

According to him, the new initiative of using waste to create wealth was part of the commitment of the All Progressives Congress (APC) led federal government to do all that is necessary in the best interest of the nation to accelerate the pace of national development driven by science, technology and innovation. I am confident that we will our objective because we are driven by the love of country, Onu said, adding that every Nigerian irrespective of social status, religious persuasion and ethnic origin has the right to live a decent life.

Read the rest here:

FG Wants States to Enhance Revenue Profile with Waste Products - THISDAY Newspapers

Penelope Comette, the Pembina Institute's program director of the clean energy economy, at the Grouse Mountain turbine. The Pembina Institute created a B.C. Clean Energy Jobs map in 2015 that showed there were 14,100 jobs from clean energy in B.C., which includes wind and solar power, run-of-river and large hydro, biomass and biogas. Postmedia News Files

B.C.s forestry, energy and mining industries are the economic foundation of our province, yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are essential to job creation in every B.C. community.

Families have been working in the resource economy for generations and they will continue to for generations to come, taking pride in the work they do.

Its rewarding, high-technology work that builds strong families and communities. As many as two out of every three dollars in B.C. are generated in the resource regions but spent throughout the provinces economy. And this may come as a surprise, but more than half of new natural resource jobs are located in the Lower Mainland.

These jobs pay the highest of any industry and are more likely to be full time. This is surely linked to the fact that jobs in resource-producing regions have up to six times the GDP impact than the average British Columbia job.

In addition to jobs, our natural resources help to pay local taxes for communities that need them, and fund critical services we rely on like health care and education.

B.C. companies work hard to meet federal and provincial environmental standards, knowing that it pays to innovate and exceed standards and be a world leader. And when we make mistakes everyone does we choose to learn and improve.

B.C. has a proud history of environmentalism that provides the foundation for responsible resource development. B.C.s resource economy helps drive the development of world-leading environmental best practices and investments in clean-tech innovations.

When we export our cleaner B.C. resources, such as LNG, we can help other countries reduce their unhealthy practices that damage the global environment.

Developing British Columbias natural resources can be a risky business. It has taken many years to develop a safety culture and there is still much work to do. It requires many partnerships among B.C.s workers, unions, communities, regulators and companies to keep us safe and to work to make us safer.

And when there are mistakes, we need to continue to learn and improve. These are values that have always been recognized by elected leaders no matter their particular perspectives.

B.C.s natural resources have shaped where we live in the province with towns that were built around a mill, port, smelter or river.

B.C.s resource economy creates jobs and skills training opportunities in rural areas through specific resource projects. Building new mines and keeping up with market demand for petroleum products has required a vast amount of investment. Only housing is bigger.

During the past two decades, $108 billion was spent on resource equipment and installations (not including utilities). Along the way, thousands of new businesses were incorporated, resulting in further spinoff employment.

British Columbia has an important role in Canada as the gateway for resource exports to growing parts of the world. B.C. also has important cultural links to Asia and South Asia that we can capitalize on for everyones benefit.

Having the ability to export our resource products to foreign markets means that we can always get the best prices for Canadian goods.

Other parts of the economy may struggle in competitive global markets. Resources are why British Columbia can consistently punch above its weight class. The continuing diversification of resource-based product lines shields us from the boom-and-bust effect at a time when minerals, lumber and the ingredients for fuel and plastics are in greater demand than they have ever been in the history of humanity. Resources are the future, not just our past.

There are many challenges to doing all this successfully. As we celebrate B.C. Day on Aug. 7, it is impossible to imagine our success as a province without the daily contributions made by resources and resource people.

Stewart Muir is executive director of the Resource Works Society.

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com

Read the original here:

Opinion: How resources continue to make BC a beacon of responsible prosperity - Vancouver Sun

By Joe Oliver

Last week, Canada received more bad news in its prolonged failure to export energy resources abroad. Petronas decided not to proceed with its $36-billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project, dealing a body blow to B.C. employment, economic growth, funding for social programs and revenue to First Nations. Understandably, the federal and provincial governments sounded defensive, characterizing it as a business decision based entirely on the decline in liquified natural gas prices.

However, Petronas had previously emphasized it considers the industrys long-term prospects, including costs, not just the current market. Furthermore, LNG projects are moving forward south of the border and in Australia. An initial project description was filed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) in February 2013, raising the question why it could not have been approved sooner when prices were higher and costs potentially lower. For the sponsor, it must have felt like death by a thousand cuts, with frustrating delays and ceaseless demands for concessions from politicians and regulators, as well as lawsuits from environmental and aboriginal opponents.

Norway green policies have not prevented it from exploiting its vast offshore resources

When I was minister of natural resources, our Conservative government legislated one project, one review in a defined time period, a significant regulatory improvement. Later, we provided an accelerated capital allowance for the projects facilities and extended export licenses. In contrast, the Liberal government denigrated the National Energy Board (NEB), politicized, duplicated and lengthened the consultation and review processes and broadened their scope. It is now considering the addition of social and cultural impacts, which would exacerbate uncertainty and delay.

Former premier Christy Clark imposed a provincial carbon tax and took her time in pressuring Petronas to commit up to $1 billion in investment over 20 years. For its part, the CEAAs numerous and onerous requests for information stopped the clock and added a one-and-a-half-year delay. Meanwhile, the B.C. NDP, later to form government, officially rejected the project. In September 2016, the federal cabinet finally gave its approval, subject to 190 conditions including a cap on carbon emissions. So, a lot of people contributed to killing the deal.

Lets put the project in perspective. Canada has enormous natural gas reserves (1,100 trillion cubic feet), enough for 350 years of domestic use at current consumption. It is just common sense that we export as much as we responsibly can, as soon as we can. However, according to the NEB, Canada will be a late entrant in the highly competitive global LNG market and the next several years will be critical to the development of the Canadian LNG industry. Unfortunately, only the $1.6-billion Woodfibre LNG project has any chance of being built in the next five years.

Canadas strategic challenge is that our sole customer, the U.S., has discovered vast domestic shale reserves. Its companies are buying our gas at the low Alberta border price and exporting gas at the higher Henry Hub price. A substantial oil price differential also exists between Western Canadian Select and international Brent. Our exporters only option is to pay U.S. pipeline tariffs and contract with Gulf Coast facilities. For Donald Trump, its a great deal. For Justin Trudeau, not so much.

That leads to Kinder Morgans $6.8-billion Trans Mountain pipeline extension, which would transport 890,00 barrels of oil a day to Burnaby, east of Vancouver, for export to Asia. The new minority NDP government promised its Green Party supporters it will immediately employ every tool available to stop its construction. To avoid being sued for bad faith, the government is cautious about how it handles permit approvals and its role in lawsuits launched by opponents. Nevertheless, its historical opposition was fierce and Green votes are crucial to keep it in power.

The$12-billionEnergy Eastpipelineis also encounteringNIMBYopposition. Itwould deliver 1.1 million barrels of crudefrom Western Canada toQuebecand New Brunswickfor refining, consumptionand export.

These are nation-building projects. Trudeau should look to Norway, whose passionate commitment to green policies has not prevented it from enthusiastically exploiting its vast offshore resources and becoming the worlds third-wealthiest country per capita. Canada is 19th.

In terms of safety, anewFraser Institutestudydemonstratesthat while global tanker shipmentsdoubledfrom 1970 to2015, spills plummetedby 98 per cent.Therefore, whena projects environmental impact hasbeenscientifically vetted,it is timefor the federal governmentto grab thenettleanduse all itsauthoritytoget itbuilt.Ambivalence doesnot cutit.

We urgently need a national campaign strategy and a federal champion to explain to Canadians what is at stake. Otherwise, time will pass without progress, lengthening a distressing record of lost opportunities. It would be an inexcusable failure for Canada to be the only resource-rich country incapable of exporting its resources for the benefit of its people.

Joe Oliver, chairman of investment dealer Echelon Wealth Partners, is the former minister of natural resources and minister of finance.

Excerpt from:

How to smother a resource economy to death, starting with LNG - Financial Post

The first Model 3s were delivered this week, and with it, perhaps the beginning of the end of the internal combustion era. This might be the way horse stable owners felt when they first saw a Ford Model T. The new Tesla is as snazzy as the very expensive earlier models, but its price is a more affordable $35,000 rather than the upwards of $100,000 cost of more luxurious models. Elon Musk, like the late Steve Jobs, seems to know how to bring a product to market and create buzz around it. Like the iPhone and the first Model T, the trick seems to be to create a good that you know people need, or could easily learn to need. Marketing geniuses seem to have a feel for how to create and sell these goods. It seems more craft than science, but listening to Musk, you know he has that feel. Its true that a sustainable, renewable resource based economy requires fewer rather than more cars, but the cars we end up with need to be capable of running on electricity from renewable sources rather than gasoline refined from fossil fuels. The Tesla 3 is a big step in the right direction.

In the United States we need to build more and better mass transit options, but due to our land use development pattern in most of the country, personal transportation will always be part of our mix. The transition to personal electric vehicles will take decades, but clearly the marketing trick is to create a product that is loved by consumers and experts. The initial reviews of the Model 3 last week were nearly uniformly positive. Jack Stewart in Wired observed that:

This car feels like an automotive tipping point, a sign that electric vehiclesand hopefully, the infrastructure that supports themhave finally come into their own. Time will tell whether Musk & Co. can hit their deadlines and keep production lines hummingElon Musk revealed Friday at the Model 3s coming out party that over half a million people have now plonked down $1,000 to reserve their ownbut for now, it looks quite nice.

Tesla has to demonstrate the manufacturing capacity to build the new car effectively and efficiently, and for it to move beyond novelty, the issue of charging stations, especially for people without home garages must also be engaged. But it appears that the key battery technology needed for the electric car is here.

The growth of the electric vehicle market provides an example of how the transition to a renewable resource based economy will probably take place, particularly if you combine it with the sharing economy. As the vehicles range improves, and its reliability is established, we will start seeing it appear in ride-sharing services. So many more people will ride in a Tesla than will own one. Still, the Tesla is so beautiful that many people will want to buy it, own it and make sure their friends see it parked in their driveway. People will experience these vehicles via many different models of use. The transition will be very gradual. The pace of replacing the internal combustion engine will take decades. People replace their cars more slowly than they used to. According to Antonio Bent, Kevin Roth, and Yiou Zuo, the average lifetime for passenger cars has increased from 12.2 to 15.6 years between 1970s and 2000s. Cars last longer because they are made better than they used to, and while people often trade in old cars for new ones after a few years, the old cars remain in use through the used car market for many years. No one will simply toss out a car because electric cars are better and cheaper than gasoline powered cars. But the transition will take place as new electric vehicles beat out gasoline powered vehicles in the marketplace.

We will see a similar process as home solar energy battery installations become more affordable and reliable. Even if utilities refuse to buy back excess solar energy, if a homeowner can store it for their own use, its easy to see how over time, they will simply decide to disconnect from the grid. We may never get distributed generation, we may simply see decentralized home generation. At first, the homeowner will notice their electric bill going down, then they will replace their gas appliances with electric ones, and after a few years without using power from the grid theyll just disconnect. Weve seen this with landlines, we are seeing it with cable TV service. Electricity will be next. The pace of change will be determined by market forces and the price, reliability and attraction of new technologies.

Government and public policy could accelerate or impede the pace of change. We have seen Secretary of Energy Rick Perry try to define threats to the electric grid as a national security issue. He seems to want to prevent renewable energy from being sent to the grid. This position is absurd, but seems to be part of Trumps all out push to revive fossil fuels. Sad! It would be far better for the planet if the trend toward renewable energy was accelerated, but regardless of governments stance, it is easy to see the market appeal of low cost, completely decentralized energy.

Another key element of this transition is to ensure it is not limited to the wealthiest nations and that the environmental impact of products such as the new Tesla are monitored and minimized throughout the supply chain. As auto ownership in China, India and eventually Africa increase over the coming decades, a concerted effort is needed to leapfrog internal combustion technology and move directly into electric cars. A global economy with increased production and consumption of transport and other consumer items could devastate the planet if it is not managed sustainably. Developing a high throughput economy without massive environmental destruction is the single greatest challenge we will face in the 21st century.

The process of transitioning to such an economy is underway, and the introduction of vehicles such as the new Tesla is part of that process. The temptation to make short term profits at the expense of environmental destruction remains and should never be ignored. There are a variety of means available to counter this temptation. Visibility and exposure can be a powerful weapon to counter wanton ecological destruction. Videos of degraded rivers, toxic waste sites and other acts of destruction can be very powerful. Lower priced communication, information and the growth of environmental advocacy organizations around the world, enable consumers in the market place to learn about corporate polluters and then reflect their environmental values in their purchasing decisions.

None of this will be easy, simple or without setbacks. Earth systems observation, environmental monitoring, analysis and projection are critical to understanding the impact of human consumption. Education and communication of conditions and impacts are also critical. We need a more sophisticated understanding of the impact of our actions. When that understanding impairs the interests of powerful economic forces, we can expect powerful resistance to new knowledge and analysis. We have already seen that with tobacco and fossil fuels. Nevertheless, our dependence on science and technology for our well-being requires the use of science to understand its impact on natural systems and on our own health.

The new Tesla is a testament to human ingenuity and the power of a visionary entrepreneur. It provides an indication of what we are capable of and hopefully is an element of the broader transition we require. Lets celebrate this achievement and move on to the next one.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See original here:

Tesla's Model 3 And The Transition To Sustainability - HuffPost

Pippa Malmgren cannot get over the fact Australia has tied itself to the low-value end of the Chinese economy but doesnt want anything to do with Chinas greatest economic initiative since the Great Wall.

The former adviser to US Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama wants a China-obsessed Australia to wake up and smell the hard landing.

For Australia the big issues are Chinese, Dr Malmgren said on a visit to Sydney.

China has already had its hard landing its not a question of if and they realise theyre not competitive anymore.

Domestic consumption isnt happening in China, thats why theyre going abroad it isnt happening fast enough, yet why is Australia banking on that?

According to the former deputy head of global strategy at UBS who was among the few to call the GFC; selling her house and moving her family to rent before the 2007 crash Chinas middle class is not burgeoning the way people thought it would.

So instead China is building a middle class elsewhere.

Theyre building it in Burma, in Central Asia , in Western Europe, in Portugal. And this is critical, by the way, because you notice theyre not investing in Australia , Dr Malmgren said.

China has shifted the paradigm to its high-profile One Belt, One Road initiative , connecting regional economies, driving Chinese branding and interests and, importantly, building GDP outside the country.

And the commitment to the build-out of global infrastructure is truly mind blowing. Its massive, Dr Malmgren said.

I find it really interesting Australians are very happy about being tied to the Chinese economy but now the Chinese want to make GDP abroad, the Australians dont want to go with them.

So far the Federal Government has not signed an MOU, alongside 65 other countries, to take advantage of the most ambitious global infrastructure initiative in a generation.

Dr Malmgren said it was an opportunity for not just in the words of former Austrade chief economist Tim Harcourt selling rocks and crops, but for Australia to finally mature as an economy.

The author of Signals: How Everyday Signs Can Help Us Navigate the Worlds Turbulent Economy, has been scratching her head as to why Australia does not grow up and join the latest industrial revolution.

Youve been a resource-based economy and I really wonder, I always ask the question why dont the Australians move up the value-chain, she said.

I mean China has moved up the value-added ladder. They used to make cheap manufactured goods, now theyre going to make more sophisticated manufactured goods cars, white goods theyre going to build global brands, why does Australia always just stop half way?

Dr Malmgren said Australia was better placed than many nations with its skill sets and human capital but had failed to focus on manufacturing.

Theres no excuse anymore for Australian businesses not to be present on the global landscape, she said.

AAP

Go here to see the original:

China-obsessed Australia to wake up, smell hard landing - The West Australian

Dr Pippa Malmgren can't get over the fact Australia has tied itself to the low-value end of the Chinese economy but doesn't want anything to do with China's greatest economic initiative since the Great Wall.

The former adviser to US Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama wants a China-obsessed Australia to wake up and smell the hard landing.

"For Australia the big issues are Chinese," Dr Malmgren said on a visit to Sydney.

"China has already had its hard landing - it's not a question of if - and they realise they're not competitive anymore.

"Domestic consumption isn't happening in China - that's why they're going abroad - it isn't happening fast enough, yet why is Australia banking on that?"

According to the former deputy head of global strategy at UBS - who was among the few to call the GFC, selling her house and moving her family to rent before the 2007 crash - China's middle class is not burgeoning the way people thought it would.

So instead China is building a middle class elsewhere.

"They're building it in Burma, in Central Asia, in Western Europe, in Portugal - and this is critical, by the way - because you notice they're not investing in Australia," Dr Malmgren said.

China has shifted the paradigm to its high-profile 'One Belt One Road' initiative, connecting regional economies, driving Chinese branding and interests and, importantly, building GDP outside the country.

"And the commitment to the build-out of global infrastructure is truly mind-blowing - it's massive," Dr Malmgren said.

"I find it really interesting Australians are very happy about being tied to the Chinese economy but now the Chinese want to make GDP abroad, the Australians don't want to go with them."

So far the federal government has not signed an MOU, alongside 65 other countries, to take advantage of the most ambitious global infrastructure initiative in a generation.

Dr Malmgren says it is an opportunity for not just - in the words of former Austrade chief economist Tim Harcourt - 'selling rocks and crops,' but for Australia to finally mature as an economy.

The author of 'Signals: How Everyday Signs Can Help Us Navigate the World's Turbulent Economy,' has been scratching her head as to why Australia doesn't grow up and join the latest industrial revolution.

"You've been a resource-based economy - and I really wonder, I always ask the question - why don't the Australians move up the value-chain?" she said.

"I mean China has moved up the value-added ladder. They used to make cheap manufactured goods, now they're going to make more sophisticated manufactured goods - cars, white goods - they're going to build global brands, why does Australia always just stop half way?"

Dr Malmgren says Australia is better placed than many nations with its skill sets and human capital but has failed to focus on manufacturing.

"There's no excuse anymore for Australian businesses not to be present on the global landscape," she said.

Original post:

Australia's China play wrong: US adviser - SBS

Forty-five years ago, the Club of Rome, an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity, published a study, The Limits to Growth, which initiated a debate about the impact of unlimited growth in population and demand for goods in a world with finite resources. The report was based on a study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who used a computer model to track the worlds economy and environment.

Focusing on industrialisation, population, food, use of resources, pollution and modelled data up to 1970, they developed a range of scenarios up to 2100, taking into account steps taken to address environmental and resource issues. Without serious action, the model predicted overshoot and collapse before 2070. The Limits to Growth generated controversy. Not because the questions it raised about the problems of population control, environmental degradation, and resource exhaustion were unimportant, but because of its methodology: the reliance on computer models and its doomsday conclusions.

Averting overshoot and crash scenario, the study noted would require policies and investments in technology to alter the course. Essentially this 1970s study viewed economic growth as inimical to environmental protection and resource conservation. In the 1970s, this would mean foreclosing the path to economic growth and consigning billions to poverty forever The social consensus was in favour of economic growth.

Beginning in the late 1980s, this gave rise to the concept of sustainable development. This approach argued that economic growth can be compatible with environmental protection and resource conservation. The global conversation was also beginning to focus on climate change.

For a long time, the discussion on environment focused on climate change. It was as if there is only one environment brain cell. Now there is a growing realisation that climate change is important, but the resource crisis is becoming important as well, said Astrid Schomaker, director for global sustainable development, environment directorate-general, European Commission. The focus on climate change and sustainable development led to a re-engagement on the question of ensuring economic growth with the least impact on the environment. The resulting concept of resource efficiency calls for the use of natural resources in a sustainable manner and minimising impact on the environment. This approach does not suggest limiting growth but provides a pathway to promote production using fewer natural resources. The Sustainable Development Goals adopted by all countries in 2015 recognise the need to address this issue, hence the focus on resource efficiency.

This recognition received a political boost at the G20 Summit in Hamburg in early July, when world leaders agreed on initiating a G20 Resource Efficiency Dialogue. The dialogue will provide an opportunity to exchange good practices and national experiences to improve the efficiency and sustainability of natural resource use and to promote sustainable consumption and production patterns. Recognising its importance, the government established the Indian Resource Panel in 2015 as an advisory body under the ministry of environment, forest and climate change. Supported through Indo-German bilateral cooperation, the panel studied resource-related issues facing India and advised the government on a comprehensive strategy.

The panels work forms the basis of a strategy paper prepared by the government think tank, Niti Aayog, for a policy approach on resource efficiency. For developing countries like India, resource efficiency is particularly relevant. The rapid transformation of its economy, its growing population, increased pace of urbanisation, improved incomes and a growing middle class, and the governments plans for massive industrial push, each of these indicates growing demand for resources. In this context, the idea of using resources in a more efficient manner is the way forward. Indias per capita consumption of material, 4.2 tonnes, is lowless than half the global average. But given its larger population, Indias total resource consumption is quite high.

India is now the third-largest consumer of materials and consumption is expected to increase rapidly, with the majority of the people living in urban centres by 2050. The changing face of the Indian economy is another factor. Though agriculture continues to be the dominant employer, the share of industry and services in employment and GDP is rising. These are resource-intensive sectors, and the rise in disposable incomes has led to higher consumption patterns. Indias material requirements are projected to be 15 billion tonnes by 2030 and 25 billion tonnes by 2050.

The bulk of the increase is expected in fossil fuel, metals and minerals consumption, according to the Indian Resource Panel. India and the European Union have agreed to work together over the next three years to adapt international standards and best practices in business and foster the efficient and sustainable use of natural resources. This partnership will focus on drawing up action plans for resource efficiency. The partnership will focus on four areasmobility, particularly electric and hybrid vehicles; building and construction; renewable energy, especially photovoltaics; and waste, with a focus on plastics, packaging and e-waste. Finally, it hopes to give impetus to evidence-based policy advice that will feed into the governments broader resource efficiency strategy.

Read more:

How India is trying to conserve precious natural resources - Economic Times

Not many commodities are hot anymore; investors are quite comfortable shunning the segment. But perhaps you may want to know about a commodity that in contrast is particularly overheated these days.

Natural gas firm service transportation out of Alberta, for the upcoming winter season.

Firm service prices are being bid up to unusual levels, even in the face of a relatively low commodity price forecast. Producers appear somewhat panicked about their ability to access markets for their natural gas. This is understandable; current market conditions for AECO-priced gas are extremely shaky with some forecasts of sub $1 gas for the next few weeks due to capacity constraints. This happens not infrequently whenever there is a pipeline outage for western Canadian production, which has few market options. It is also a sign of the times that the producers are desperate to access markets that are in the shadow of potential US shale output, which could spring to life at the sign of any price increases. Thats not normal behaviour, its an indication of how few options gas producers have.

This might seem an inconsequential irritant to the industry, the only byproduct of which would be cheaper gas for consumers. But its actually a big red flag warning of underlying problems. And then, right on top of this fiasco, lands the news that the $36 billion Pacific North West LNG export terminal will not proceed . Petronas, the major partner in the project, politely blamed market conditions, which might be believable were it not for the numerous US LNG export facilities marching towards completion.

Canada is about to have two of its major economic engines strangled into near oblivion while we stand around and watch. First was the oil sands, and now natural gas development is being throttled. As a country, we are playing with fire. Or maybe more accurately, putting out a fire that weve been relying on.

We all know that oil sands investment has pretty much stopped dead, knocking out one of the bigger lights in the Canadian economy. Natural gas might follow a similar path if it becomes a stranded commodity that can only be sold at ridiculous discounts. It is true that both the Alliance and TCPL systems are working to handle substantially more gas in the next few years, but that gas will still be destined for highly competitive US markets that already are digesting growing shale production. The result will be reduced netbacks all the way to Canada.

Capital will not flow into Canadian natural gas developments indefinitely when the only markets are severely discounted ones; at some point investors will tire of pumping money into a sector whose product sells at 20 year lows (and they maybe already have). Lower corporate netbacks and decreased investment levels may not make headlines immediately, but those factors surely will prick up ears when people hear about government deficits growing by tens of billions.

The Canadian economy is under attack on multiple fronts. The softwood lumber industry is once again getting slapped around by the US. If one removes lumber, and oil and gas from Canadas economic equation, or large parts thereof, there will be a massive government revenue gap and the only way the economic equation can be balanced will be to slash the spending side, such as on our vaunted social safety nets.

Oil, gas and lumber are tough shoes to fill for the nation. Manufacturing is big for southern Ontario, but not so much for the rest of the country. Hydroelectric energy is great, now that its been built, but creating any new dams will (or should) trigger the same blizzard of outrage that any petroleum based megaproject now does. Please dont point to other green energy sources for economic salvation; Ontarios fiasco of subsidizing renewable energy sources has created an unsustainable and bizarre power market where consumers cant afford the power bills and renewable energy sources reap huge benefits, all through the miracle of unsustainable mountains of government debt.

Canada is a resource-based nation. We may want to get away from that, and at some point we will, but if we decide to make the big switch in the near future wed better be ready for the pain that will be part of the ride. We cant continue in a half hearted manner where we accept low returns by keeping our product from markets where it will be welcomed. That only serves to make our production schemes uncompetitive in a global marketplace, and weve seen recently how quickly capital can evaporate when better opportunities exist elsewhere.

The environmental movement cheers these sorts of things, because any hindrance to petroleum development is a good thing in their eyes. If they get their wish, the world will get to witness firsthand the effects of strangling one of the worlds strongest, safest, cleanest, and most progressive economies, because the debt fairies wont hang around forever to watch it all implode. And on the flip side, for those who think strangling Canadas energy sector will save the planet, remember that Canada in total is responsible for about 2 percent of global greenhouse gases. There is nothing Canada can do short of shutting itself down that will have a meaningful impact on global emissions.

Wake up, Canada! We are presently a resource-based economy. Every resource based economy on earth tries to diversify, but its not easy. It wont be for us either. No matter how green you see the future, the path to get there must be a gradual one to avoid economic chaos. For now, our social infrastructure and standard of living are financed by natural resources, and we are accepting a fraction of the value we could be getting by strangling ourselves in red tape and second guessing. To get to a green future, we must first not kill the golden goose.

Either get behind energy megaprojects by demanding more of our politicians, or be prepared for a substantially reduced standard of living. The death of these developments, one by one, impacts us all.

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here

See the rest here:

Wake up Canada! Get behind energy megaprojects or get ready for the consequences - BOE Report (press release)

The latest quarterly Cross-border M&A Index shows that there were 17 inbound M&A deals in Africa in Q2 of 2017. The 17 inbound deals reflect a 48% drop from 33 deals in Q2 2016. On a quarter-by-quarter basis, inbound deal volume also dropped - by 45% - from 31 deals in Q1 2017.

Morne van der Merwe, managing partner of Baker McKenzie in Johannesburg explains, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in South Africa has decreased and this will continue until the local investment climate stabilises. Due to the credit ratings downgrades, the cost of raising capital for acquisitions has become more expensive, making deals more difficult. In addition, the Rand has been one of the most volatile currencies in 2017 and this volatility has suppressed deal appetite.

These factors, combined with recent political instability and uncertainty, have resulted in a perception in the market of increased risks of doing business in South Africa. Global players are finding more attractive investment destinations elsewhere.

Further, almost half the continents M&A activity flows through South Africa, so recent South African developments have had a negative knock-on effect in Africa. Political uncertainty in other jurisdictions on the continent, such as the current election in Kenya, has also made investors wary of African deal making in the short term, although we expect this to change once stability returns to the region.

The top target industry by volume and value in Africa was mining, which accounted for 23% of total deal count and $312 million or 40% of total value.

Africa has several technology hubs, including one in Cape Town, South Africa and the development of technology in the banking and finance sector, for mass usage on the continent, is well advanced. A positive explanation for there being no inbound deals in this sector in Q2 2017, is that this is not due to lack of IT development in Africa, to the contrary, but because IT companies are structuring their operations in a way that allows them to enter into partnerships offshore and bring their operations into Africa through licencing arrangements.

It is surprising that Australia was the highest inbound investor country by deal volume as one would expect it to be China or India. Australia is a resource-based economy, with the knowledge, know-how and asset base to attach to opportunities in Africa, so it does make sense that it would be investing heavily in African businesses.

Asia Pacific and the European Union were tied as top investing regions by volume, each accounting for 35% of total deal count. By value, Asia Pacific outpaced the rest with $487 million or 62% of total.

Technology tied with Business Services was a top target industry for Africas outbound deals by volume with a total of three deals for the quarter (20% of total). In terms of deal value, the Financial Services sector led slightly with $ 535 million or 35% of total deals. Technology deals came in close second, accounting for $510 million or 33% of total outbound deals from Africa.

Increase in development in African telecoms industries, as well as the opportunities presented by a rapidly developing financial services sector, remain key drivers of outbound investment activity in Africa. The growing financial services sector has also seen domestic banks make significant investments in technology, including in offshore companies. As discussed, the increase in outbound deals in the technology sector also points to African technology companies looking to base their local operations offshore.

The Index also shows that South Africa outperformed other African bidders by volume and value for outbound deals, with eight deals (53% of total) amounting to $821 million (54% of total). Top target regions for outbound deals were EU and Asia Pacific by volume, each with 40% share of total. The top target country from Africa by volume was India, with three deals accounting for 20% of total deal count.

Buyers announced 1,368 cross-border deals worth $345.8 billion, a 10% decrease in volume but only a 1% decrease in value compared to Q1 2017. As the EU gained relative stability in the wake of Brexit developments and elections in the region, it accounted for more than half of cross-border deal value and nearly half of cross-border deal volume in Q2 2017. Baker McKenzie's Cross-Border M&A Index, which tracks quarterly deal activity using a baseline score of 100, decreased to 233 for Q2 2017, down 4% from the prior quarter but up 15% from Q2 2016. In Q2 2017, cross-border M&A made up 36% and 47% of global deal volume and value, respectively.

We continue to see an increase in deal value as companies are choosing to invest more money in a smaller number of handpicked deals, said Michael DeFranco, global head of M&A at Baker McKenzie. While deal volume decreased in Q2, we are encouraged by the activity in the EU and the return of China to the deal table. As we head into the second half of 2017, we continue to believe M&A activity will pick up.

The leading bidders for cross-border deals into the EU were the US, China, and UAE, in addition to cross-regional deals from companies in the UK and Italy. Seven of the top ten most targeted countries in Q2 2017 were in the EU, compared to only four in Q1 2017.

For more information, go to crossbordermaindex.bakermckenzie.com.

Here is the original post:

M&A deals in Africa drop this quarter with South African political ... - Bizcommunity.com

Published on July 25th, 2017 | by Tina Casey

July 25th, 2017 by Tina Casey

So, this is weird. In one corner, you have US President* Donald J. Trump talking up the fossil fuel industry and denying climate change, and meanwhile his Department of Energy is touting a breakthrough in biofuel production and dropping another $40 million on new research aimed at ramping up the bio-based economy of the future.

Yes, they use the b-word (bio-based). That sure sounds like US energy policy is aiming at decarbonization, despite the promises Trump made to coal miners during and after his successful bid for the White House.

CleanTechnica took a quick note of the new $40 million in funding last week, which was officially designated Made in America Week by the Trump Administration.

As has become his habit, Energy Secretary Rick Perry went off in his own direction during Made in America Week to make a rousing pitch for the US wind industry a growing manufacturing sector that somehow escaped Trumps celebration of all things made in the USA.

Perry also shared his agencys affection for the bioeconomy of the future during Made in America week.

The Department of Energy kicked the week off with a splashy announcement for the new $40 million funding program, which will go to three existing research consortia called the Bioenergy Research Centers,and to establish a new one, too.

The research centers aim at ramping up the efficiency of biofuel production and other bio-products:

The centers each led by a DOE National Laboratory or a top university are designed to lay the scientific groundwork for a new bio-based economy that promises to yield a range of important new products and fuels derived directly from nonfood biomass.

Science!

The $40 million is just seed money, btw. The Energy Department is planning on a 5 year funding program for the initiative.

Notably, Secretary Perry does not seem to be on board with the Trump Administrations fossil-friendly energy policy. Heres his pitch for the research centers:

The revolution of modern biology has opened up vast new opportunities for the energy industry to develop and utilize products derived from biomass as a sustainable resource. These centers will accelerate the development of the basic science and technological foundation needed to ensure that American industry and the American public reap the benefits of the new bio-based economy.

Yep, he said the b-word.

CleanTechnica has also noticed that Perry has been steadily building on Obama-era renewable energy initiatives some of which were launched even farther back and the new research centers provide yet another example.

The Energy Department makes this clear:

The current awards represent a follow-on phase to the original DOE Bioenergy Research Centers program, established by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research within DOEs Office of Science in 2007

That program established three Bioenergy Research Centers, credited thusly:

Over ten years, these three BRCs produced multiple breakthroughs in the form of deepened understanding of sustainable agricultural practices, major reengineering of plant feedstocks, development of new methods of deconstructing feedstocks, and reengineering of microbes for more effective fuel production.

With the addition of a fourth research center, expect more of the same, including patents (the original three centers produced 92) and license options (191 and counting).

The three existing centers are spearheaded by the University of WisconsinMadison in partnership with Michigan State University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The fourth center will be led by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which counts using plants themselves as sustainable biofactories as one of its areas of expertise.

The Trump Administrations ramped-up commitment to the biochemical sector is an interesting development considering that Exxon and other fossil stakeholders appear to be depending on the US shale gas and petrochemical industries to make up for lost ground as renewables edge into their power production and transportation fuel turf.

The oil giants have been dropping billions on new petrochemical and gas-to-plastics facilities in Texas, taking advantage of the shale gas boom and access to shipping routes. Thats partly in anticipation of increased demand for plastic products among emerging economies overseas.

In the most recent example, petrochem giant LyondellBasell is planning to build a $2.4 billion plant in Texas, which will be the largest facility of its kind in the world.

So, what are they going to do with all these gigantic, expensive petrochemical plants when the bio-based economy of the future swings into full gear?

Possibly, re-fit them to process bio-based feedstock. Just a wild guess. If you have any thoughts on that, drop a note in the comment thread.

Low oil prices have thrown a monkey wrench into the biofuel market, but the good news is that the competition has made it more urgent for the biofuel industry to develop better, faster, cheaper ways to pump out its product.

Secretary Perry used the occasion of Made in America Week to spotlight his agencys latest contribution to technology breakthroughs in the biofuel industry, featured as the part of the EERE Success Stories series of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

The new breakthrough involves a type of biofuel production process that depends on high-tech membranes to perform a series of steps to separate carbon from algae and other liquefied biomass feedstocks. These steps can account for as much as half the cost of biofuel production, so getting costs down will have a significant impact on the final product.

In the conventional approach, the separation steps are based on different sizes of the pores in the membrane. The problem is that the steps with smaller sizes slow down the process.

The new membrane adds another twist:

Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory set out to determine what could increase production speeds and improve the quality of biofuels and bioproducts. What they discovered is a new class of porous membranesa high performance architecture surface-selective (HIPAS) membrane technology.

ORNLs HiPAS membranes are innovative in that they do not rely solely on pore size to separate carbon. Instead, the new membranes use nanotechnology coatings to change the shape of the pores, allowing for 10-fold larger pore size with the same separation efficiency as traditional membranes.

ORNL has been working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to figure out which applications show the best promising.

Commercial application is somewhere out in the future but so far the results are promising. The labs anticipate that a 12% drop in the cost of algae biofuel could be leveraged with the new membrane.

In addition to biofuel, the new membrane also has potential biochemical and pharmaceutical applications.

The petrochemical industry could also put it to use, so stay tuned.

Follow me on Twitter.

Image: US Department of Energy, This figure shows the selective permeability and higher throughput of HiPAS membranes in a biomass to bioproduct conversion process. In this example, the membranes separate water vapor from high value chemicals in the product stream.

*As of this writing.

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: Bioenergy Research, Bioenergy Research Centers, DOE, Donald Trump, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Made in America, Michigan State University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, rick perry, Texas, University of WisconsinMadison

Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tinas articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.

Read the original here:

US Energy Dept. Goes Rogue On Biofuel, Celebrates Bio-Based Economy - CleanTechnica

Since the Finkel review was announced it has been open season for notion building in the energy space. While Malcolm has been pumping Snowy 2.zero, Craig has been promising death by renewables, quite literally. Josh seems to be for just about everything, besides Labor state governments of course, and reckons we are on track to meet Paris commitments. Barnaby, true to form, is backing coal, reckoning Paris can take care of itself, while Electricity Bill is keeping mum, knowing it wont but banking it will.

The one I like the best, but really hasnt been nailed quite the way I thought it should, is Tonys call for nuclear subs. Imagine, our first truly dispatchable power system, capable of delivering a few hundred megawatts just about anywhere you need it. Defending the grid with RANpower float and plug technology, just what we need to shore up our fragile energy system. A tour of dispatch last year including Tasmania from January through June, South Australia June through November, and then on to Queensland for the summer would have been a nice little money spinner for the Navy, worth around quarter of a billion dollars on the energy markets. And that doesnt include offsets, such as the purported $44 million Tasmanian government spent on diesel gensets. Could it be our best notion yet for meeting Paris?

It goes without saying that our political masters dont need much provocation to indulge in a bit of notion building. After all, it is what they do best.

But, in case you are wondering why this sudden release of energy, it might be useful to reflect on some recent analyses that paint a truly disturbing picture for our energy sector.

The first comes from the European Commissions latest electricity market update providing the comparison of wholesale electricity prices shown below.

International wholesale prices as adapted from Figure 33 in the European Commissions Quarterly report on European electricity markets Q1 2017. Average prices for the 4th quarter of 2014, 3rd quarter 2015, and the first quarter of 2017, are referenced as a percentage of Australian prices. Image: Figure 33, Quarterly report on European electricity markets Q1 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/quarterly_report_on_european_electricity_markets_q1_2017.pdf

As recently as three years ago our electricity wholesale prices were low by any measure. In fact according to the ECs analysis our market prices then briefly dipped below those in the US. Then, ours were just 20% of the Japanese price.

How times have changed.

According to the ECs latest analysis our prices tracked pretty closely with the US until the second half of 2015. It seems things to start going awry just about when Josh received the poison chalice as Minister for Energy and Resources.

Six quarters later and the EC now estimates that for Quarter 1 this year our prices were a staggering 400% higher than in the US.

This last quarter we even managed to top Japan, which is some achievement considering that across the quarter we exported some20 million tonnes of our thermal coal and over half a million tonnes of LNG to help them sure up a power system still reverberating from the shock waves of Fukushima. Thats about half as much thermal coal as used to power our system.

The second comes from BPs latest Statistical Review of World Energy released in June, which provides national figures for all things related to energy production and consumption, including sector wide emissions.

According to BPs latest figures our energy sector produced about 409 million tonnes of CO2 in 2016. That amounts to 16.7 tonnes for every Australian. On a per capita basis, that puts our energy sector a touch above the next most emissions intensive economy in the developed world - the US at 16.5 tonnes. Even Canada, which has a resource based economy more comparable to our own, gets away with only 14.6 tonnes per person.

Trends in per capita emissions for select countries (in tonnes per person), plotted as a function of GDP (in $US purchasing power parity terms). Emission data from BPs Statistical review of World Energy. GDP and population data from IMF. Time series start in 1981 (on left) and continue to 2016 (on right). Dots show 2009, in the wake of the GFC

Worryingly, relative to 2005 levels our energy sector emissions are up about 10%, which stands in stark contrast to most other advanced economies, and especially the US, down 12% over the same interval.

National energy sector emissions for select advanced economies, relative to 2005 levels, using data from BPs latest Statistical Review of World Energy released in June. Australias Paris commitment is to reduce national emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. Note that for Australia energy sector emissions (including transport and power) account for about 2/3 the total emissions

So the notion that we are on track to meet Paris is, at best, notional.

To achieve such extraordinary wholesale price outcomes, one might imagine something remarkable had happened to our energy system since 2014. Our Coal-cons such as Craig Kelly would believe it is because our power system is groaning under the weight of renewable production.

But maybe its the absence of renewables. Or maybe it is both, peskily masked in a cloak of invisibility. Check out the figure below, which shows our electricity production by key fuel group (coal, gas and renewables) over the period since our power prices have risen from the lowest to highest on the international pecking order.

Weekly average production of electricity by three main fuel group types (in gigawatts), dispatched on the National Electricity Market over the last five years. Data sourced from AEMO, using Dylan McConnells openNEM. RE (renewables) includes hydro, wind and large scale solar and biomass, but not rooftop PV which is not dispatched onto the market

Can you determine a trend that could account for anything? Im damned if I can.

And that in itself is sure to be worry enough to keep it open season on notion building for a long time to come.

For those interested, some more detailed discussion of the crisis besetting the National Electricity Market (NEM) in eastern Australia can be found in my Anatomy of an Energy Crisis series, Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3.

In response to some of the discussion I show below the equivalent of the last diagram above, split out into the various regional markets that makeup the mainland portion of the NEM.

Weekly average production of electricity by three main fuel group types (in gigawatts), for each of the four mainland regional markets on the National Electricity Market over the last five years. Data sourced from AEMO, using Dylan McConnells openNEM. RE (renewables) includes hydro, wind and large scale solar and biomass, but not rooftop PV which is not dispatched onto the market

Mike Sandiford, Chair of Geology & Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Read more:

Open season for our notion-building pollies - Architecture and Design