Archive for category Attitudes

Boom, stalemate and decay cycle

The propensity to become irrelevant and/or self-destruct, once it sets in, is almost impossible to stop. There is no amount of innovation, capital injection, meetings, or restructuring it seems, that will reverse this process of irrelevance or self-destruction. The good thing though, is that once irrelevance/self-destruction has well and truly started, it paves the way for innovation and a quick acceptance and uptake of new and bold ideas. This implies that only through a crisis created by becoming irrelevant or self-destructing, do we dare to adopt change. You could say that that the propensity to become irrelevant or self-destructive is a necessary and sufficient “evil” that enables us to embrace change or take up innovation.

It seems most systems follow this cycle of boom (relevance), stalemate (capital injection, restructuring etc) and decay (irrelevance/death). Think of Kodak and what happened to its business because of the adoption of digital technology. Look at GM Motors with all the massive capital injection from the US government, which did not leave the company unscathed. Think of slavery, that the British government stopped and within a year of stopping it, paved the way for the Industrial Revolution. You almost have to wonder whether Microsoft’ s time is up (as in loosing relevance) as the competition from Google becomes fiercer with every new product Google puts on the market. What about the infrastructural change we face today to Clean Energy that will see a lot of businesses, educational systems, and political ideologies become irrelevant.

I guess the million-dollar question is that, is there any way a business or government can stay relevant forever? I do not know, although one thing is evident, our history is littered with examples that seem to suggest that we cannot. Let’s us say we cannot … why then can’t we put management systems and protocols in place that will enable us to transition better from becoming irrelevant to becoming relevant. That is, rather than fighting to keep more of the same that is showing signs of decay, allow the boom-stalemate-decay phenomena to follow its natural course and concentrate resources on building or preparing for the “new”. This would save us from painful restructuring and capital injection, which is only indicative of our yearning of the past that was once relevant. As many of us know, we perceive change as something that will cost us our jobs and livelihood and sometimes it is like that, but more importantly it holds the key to our continued survival and allows us to embrace a future that we are not frightened of.

Now think of Climate Change mitigation in this context … We are reaching a critical situation and its not surprising that many businesses and/or governments are injecting massive capital for more of the same that is starting to show decay. Wake up world, it’s that time again to transition into the “new”!

 Facebook  StumbleUpon  Technorati  Deli.cio.us  Slashdot  Twitter  Google 

Tags: , ,

Is it really about Emissions Trading or Carbon Tax?

When I started looking into the details of paying for emissions I ended up somewhat biased against Emissions Trading. The financial crisis did not help either, as I somehow tried to justify to myself that it was itself overwhelming evidence of what would happened to an Emissions Trading Scheme. Because of its similarity to an options market, I conjured up a situation where carbon traders would invent derivatives (no different from the credit default swaps), which will ultimately bring the whole system to its knees, just like what we observed with the current financial crisis. I flirted with the idea of a carbon tax for a while, because it was obviously easy to understand. However, what I hadn’t factored in my thought process was that tax systems are man-made and, therefore not perfect, needing re-jigging from time to time to suit the situation at hand. There isn’t a single country in the world that has got its tax system in perfect order, as governments, year after year, continue to tinker their tax systems.


Fast Tube by Casper

As I started to move away from trying to find or justify what I thought would be the best delivery mechanism of achieving low emissions, and rather looking more into the impacts of climate change and a desire to mitigate it, I found out something about myself. I realized that no matter which system or systems the world will adopt, the hard issue I was not willing to face was, CHANGE … i.e. moving away from “business-as-usual” and start doing things different. Like leaving the car at home and commuting on public transport, or cycle, or walk. This is such a hard thing to do and somehow I entertained the idea that with clean energy I could still maintain my affluent ways or similar levels of energy spending. It is not hard to see that if all or most of us maintain our current affluent levels, even with new clean energy, at some point, demand will outstrip diminishing supply.
So, I had been thinking all along that the whole emissions reductions notion is about making the right choice between Emissions Trading and Carbon Tax, and ultimately arresting climate change. In actual fact it is all about which system will cause less pain (for me) and will mean less change of my old habits. Because of this discovery (of myself), I am starting to think that it really doesn’t matter whether its Emissions Trading or Carbon Tax, as long as it is sufficient to cause us to change our ways of affluent living and become more conservative in energy consumption (or energy efficient). We have to bite the bullet, at some point, and do what’s right for the future generation. Arresting Climate Change will have to start with a mind change.

 Facebook  StumbleUpon  Technorati  Deli.cio.us  Slashdot  Twitter  Google 

Tags: , ,