Another view and prediction for how the US moves forward

[Curt Smith]

Greetings to the many folks working on sustainability,

Just posting my views of the moment on why the US will deal
with global warming differently than the the current path the other 1st world countries have taken so far.

A side comment: Yes the enviro insiders and change advocates need to discuss these issues and then how to facilitate their implementation. I see that it's been tough to get folks to use the thwink board. I don't know if I'm a test case for why there isn't more traffic or not, but my reasons for not seeking out folks to discuss sustainability with is that I'm tired of spending time chatting with the choir after spending many years with a large environmental organization in various leadership roles and seeing that this time maybe enjoyable but it's not in and of itself solving the actual problems. I agree that the scientific community must debate and spend time reviewing papers and issues which improves understanding and improves the hypothesis. For me, what would cause me to re-prioritize my time to this area is if I saw honest critical mass building and nitches where facilitation and expert advice could be offered and then have a reasonable likely hood of it being taken. I don't see this in the US and my prediction is that it won't happen in the same way as it's happening in AU. I may have an inaccurate view of the AU global warming dynamic: enviro groups to a less extent, general voters to a larger extent with low level politicians are speer heading the policy debate and decisions with the top gov leading a little and following alot. Summary: the common voter has a large role, a situation that I can't imagine here for many and wide ranging reasons.

My prediction for the US:

I've been thinking about the sustainability problem here in the US for about 5 years and my view of how and the players hasn't changed, but only has been reinforced by my recent few years of financial / stock market mechanics study.

- In the US every step (with no exceptions that I can think of) will ALL have a profit basis. My reasons are many. Just follow the money to start with. It only chases profit. The traditional Dualing loops roles is the the other major reason why profit will be the only reasons for when and what is adopted or ventured. If a friend of a friend can't be given special profit oportunities, the deals will move to areas where such recent deal priorities are possible. Baksheesh and corruption is alive and well with all three branches of government controlled by conservatives. Perhaps almost as much so when Dems where in charge too. Systems analysis should allow us to ignore the issues of repugnancy and morality and focus on just how things work and the path change must follow. IE the "evil-corporation" becomes a potential partner for change etc. This has been the toughest lesson for me to learn to trade stocks profitably. IE the system _is_ rigged, the SEC is not addressing the issues, more and more people are getting involved with market rigging, but if you look for the fingerprints and learn how the system works, then and only then can you trade profitably. Your biases must be left for the dinner table.

- Dualing loops inversion where the right decisions can get made: AU is ahead on this, where stopping uranium mining and reactors was driven by the past inversion of the roles in the loop where environmentalism, conservation of precious water caused the right decision of no new mines or reactors to be the rule of the day. BTW, the loop roles will revert in 6 months and there will be new mines and reactors in AU. The reversion will have the traditional reasons and loop roles for the out come. The remaining high leverage major force to slow this trend is drought and water shortage. AU is in a major and sever drought and is expected to worsen from climate change per the models. A resource consumption model is needed quickly to show that U mining and agriculture both are not possible with the shortage of water. The water issue may help keep the ideal loop roles in a balance.

- The US will enjoy inversion of the loop roles for dominance as profit based entrepreneur's attract venture and hedge money. It will be profitable as well as fashionable to do the right thing. This will happen sooner than a carbon trading system is enacted at the fed level. Local politicians and economic beneficaries will be allies and promote their projects via the business as usual market based mechanisms.

- The US having fewer political reasons for stopping nuclear will permit many new power plants. This is already happening below the radar. China and the other 2nd world countries (India, Brazil, Malasia etc) are also quietly making similar plans. This plan is based on Uranium miners who have nearly an unlimited amount of new cash from the stock market finding the necessary places via the dualing loops to get their decisions and permits approved, backed by the GE's who make reactors. Profit is the basis. If the same profit and cash was available from some other technology, that would be the path forward. Photovoltaic and wind has a miniscule cash flow in comparison to uranium and coal. Coal remember has not only the electricity generator companies to promote the current dualing loops relationship, but the mining companies and now the new darling of wall street the railroads. 50% of western railroad income comes from hauling coal. Buffet didn't buy 10% stakes in 4 railroads because he used the dart method to make is choices.

A path forward
--------------

This is just my opinion and is not backed up by any literature search or seasoned debate.

- Systems analysis will be apart of the solution, but not in the scientific way that we might be hoping. My belief that doing and showing the benefits are the only way the US will utilize any aspect of the systems approach. Why? We're the MTV culture. Someone else will have to push the buttons and produce answers that are spoon fed to various actors. Forester's 1 year project on urban renewal I believe is the model.

- My view on high leverage points:
- Conservative leaders who are too old and past their peak to anything to loose by telling the truth must be inlisted as supporters of sustainability and analysis. Think: Greenspan. Then think in terms of high leverage: raise federal gas tax, tax on energy consumption. Greenspan (folks like him) are enlisted on the conservative pro-business side of the aisle to advocate a path toward higher economic efficiency through less energy connsumption. Fortunately there are many (un reported) conservative economists who support raising taxes on energy.

- Adventurous systems analyzers will have an impact when they get directly involved with for profit projects. To gain an edge for investment capital, the project sponsors must be baited with Green Washing and suit immunity of their project and investment. Remember the investment group in Texas who sought out the Sierra club and others to Green Wash their coal power plan construction program and private buy out of a power company?

- High name recognition leaders like Gore and especially conservatives too old to need to continue lieing need to be sought out. They need to use their names and reputation to enlist the current players in the dualing loop addiction machine. Model bills need to be authored by immunized players so the current players have the fall guy and are given an excuse that the country is being arm twisted and black mailed by evil doers in the mid-east and we must do these difficult things like: raise gas/energy consumption tax, reduce the budgets for co2 and SO2 emissions, raise cafe even more, government funding for low carbon solutions, sequester carbon from coal power plants.

- Environmental orgs have figured out the leverage point equation and have perfected the process by which they choose the tactic for addressing global and national in scope that is least effective. I don't see this changing for the broad based orgs. Focused and science based orgs like NRDC are well suited for adopting an analytical approach to achieving their desired goal. I see work with existing orgs to be low leverage and a very long process. They need to change first, then they can start effective work on the global scoped problems.

- The highest leverage I believe is the following:
- The highest leverage point for nuclear in 1st world countries is the free government provided disaster suit shield laws enacted in most countries. The Dems will need to chip away at universal coverage and limits.
- Coal is here, it provides 50% of the worlds electricity. Any discussion about climate change without solving carbon sequestration of existing plants is silly. All environmental org energy policy has not one mathematical equation showing economic doability. No one's dealing with carbon sequestration of existing plants. Get behind a technology, solicit the coal miners union support and funding and provide green wash and PR to move this solution forward. Math is impressive when you calculate how many wind mills or square miles of photovoltaic it takes to replace any significant percentage of coal generation. This is a high leverage area because it solves 50% of the world's carbon problem with one success.

- As an individual or small group of expert level systems analyzers, pick one or two fledgling companies who could be pivotal in the sustainability solution. Approach all players; investors, benefactors, the company management. Offer: - traditional consultation services for systemic approach viability of their technology (you've done this upfront and know the answer), Green washing and PR, if needed: with your self given seal of environmentalism you'd build coalitions with locals to create a suit immunity shield.

- In short; find the highest or at least a high profit potential that has a sustainability benefit, get behind that company and build a consultancy on green washing and guiding that project.

Isn't the later what the Engineering group in AU does and so validates my prediction for the way forward in the US?

In other words: environmentalists need to morph into venture capitalist consultants. Books, algorithms, approaches that are symbiotic to venture funding of solutions will be readily read and heralded on wall street and _actually_ facilitate US progress. In other words, think like the US, think short term profits and law suit avoidance. If you couldn't recommend the stock for a friends retirement portfolio maybe that isn't a solution that will work here after all?

FWIW, ethanol is now a good short play (a bet it will drop), all phases of uranium is a buy, photovolatic was hot 2 years ago but burned too many investors with one company leapfrogging the other that it's hard to pick the winner, wind doesn't have a pure play and is too small a market (IE cape cod NIMBYs), coal sourced syn-fuel was hot then cold and is getting hot again, coal gasification has no interest, the hydrogen economy had it's peak in a 1 hour 2 year old presidential speech. What's missing is: new ultra high efficiency appliances, ultra high efficiency home design that is written into local building codes, much higher CAFE mileage and emission requirements and the required technology, carbon sequestration from coal power plants. Notice there's too little going on that viably addresses the carbon emissions problem. This is where the new US environmentalist (capitalism opportunist) comes in.

Just my views on environmentalism (capitalism) VS the big problems in the US.

Curt Smith

[Curt Smith]

Re thinking my over all view of the US process I did miss a huge role in the sustainability solution, government at all levels. Any readers would have picked up on this immediately. I can only offer I was in a hole, thinking from the implementation perspective that little will happen that doesn't generate a profit, but that opportunity can come from performance regs: CAFE, appliance and building efficiency standards etc etc. Individuals and traditional enviro orgs have always played an effective role in facilitating the creation of regulation at the federal level.

Recently Cool Cities campaign is having success working with mayors and local leaders as high leverage points with the core of the sales pitch being the city saves money.

Summary point: The Powell Memo, a pivotal proposal for the conservatives in the '70's, proposed among many tactics to reshape the antagonists from within and through manipulation.

The Sierra club about 5 years ago started an appropriately named project, The Apollo Project, created a web site and then did little more.

Early this year, 2007, a surprise happened, an investment group sought out Texas environmentalists to consult with the investors to shape an acceptable plan for their buy out of a Texas power producer and modify their plans to build new coal fired power plants. The environmentalists where caught off guard having little extertise the Powell Memo suggests a good offense requires. Industry does seek and value collaboration especially if Green Washing and a law suit shield is included.

A missing component of the sustainability work I feel is missing is the systems analysis that shows economic development and the corporation and wall street players as possible synergistic partners. My contention is that the largest lever for achieving change is being over looked. Further, the progressive actors are thinking in "pre-Powell" terms and in organizational performance terms achieving very low productivity and effectiveness.

Curt Smith

[Jack Harich]

Curt,

You’ve covered a lot of ground. I’ll try to address some of the points you have raised.

Regarding: “I'm tired of spending time chatting with the choir after spending many years with a large environmental organization in various leadership roles and seeing that this time may be enjoyable but it's not in and of itself solving the actual problems.”

Me too. In fact, the last grassroots environmontal org meeting I went to, I sat around noticing how the regulars seemed to be there primarily for sociability reasons, rather than problem solving work. But I suspect all orgs are not like that, such as The Nature Conservancy, who rated well in my assessment in the AA book, and the NDRC which you mention.


Re: “For me, what would cause me to re-prioritize my time to this area is if I saw honest critical mass building and niches where facilitation and expert advice could be offered and then have a reasonable likelyhood of it being taken.”

Again, me too. Critical mass that is clearly leading to productive work and a high probability for solving the problem is what I’m looking for. I would hope the approach I’m taking falls into that category. Here’s where Thwink.org is at:

The basic synthesis work is complete. We have a novel, cohesive, fairly complete approach to making a significant contribution to solving the global environmental sustainability problem. This consists of a formal process that fits the problem and extensive educational examples of applying it. All this has been written up on the website and in two books: The little Dueling Loops book to get people started, and the big Analytical Activism book for serious readers.

Next we have to get the word out on this new approach. That’s the phase we are in right now. Publicity is low because I have a near zero network and am a nobody in the environmental, academic, and business world. So I’m hoping to attract supporters of this new paradigm, who it turn will use it and promote it. If it is more productive, then this will work. The word will spread. But right now it’s happening very slowly. The only active supporters are Michael Hollcraft in Indiana, the folks at Hatch in Australia, plus Glenn MacMillian in Australia. The only mover and shaker in this group is Philip, the Global Sustainability Director of Hatch. He will soon be contacting a few prominent individuals.


Re: “System analysis should allow us to… Your biases must be left on the dinner table.”

Yes. I’ve attempted to apply system analysis as best I can. The top two strategies were to drive the analysis with a process that fits the problem, and to use tools capable of handling the incredible complexity and counter intuitiveness of complex social systems.

The Analytical Method and the System Improvement Process (SIP) are the process. The workhorse is SIP. It was continuously improved for about four years before it stabilized. The key strategies it brings to the table that have been lacking are to decompose the problem into three smaller subproblems, one of which is change resistance, and to do a diagnostic analysis BEFORE getting into solution consideration. This is the same thing that doctors have been doing for centuries: diagnosis first, treatment second. If the diagnosis is skipped or done poorly, then the treatment is likely to fail.

These strategies can change everything, as perhaps the sample analysis and solution elements of the Dueling Loops show. A handful of people have gotten quite excited about the Dueling Loops. Then, when digging deeper, they have discovered that it was process and prescriptive modeling that led to the Dueling Loops model. Then they get excited about the potential of this approach, because if it becomes the norm, then environmentalism will have made the same transformation that all of science made 400 years ago, when it switched from alchemy to true science, due to adoption of the Scientific Method.

So our challenge now is to convert/transform others to this new way of thwinking, and get them to become formal process and formal model driven. If we can do that, the problem will be solved in short order. This is called the Transformation Problem in the AA book.


So, as you can see, Thwink.org is taking a high level approach. We are not trying to solve little itty bitty pieces of the puzzle. We are trying to see the problem as a whole, and then take the most effective strategic direction. This has boiled down to solving the Transformation Problem first. In a way, this is identical to what the Powell Memo did. It totally transformed the way the American conservative movement approached achieving its goals.

And it worked.


Hope this helps,

Jack

[Curt Smith]

-- The Transformation problem. I searched this site and caught some discussion and a reference to the AA chapter and got a general idea of what you mean by the transformational problem.

I re-read the Powell memo with your notations last night. One of it's strengths is that it's written in layman's language with a clear description of the problem, the un-halted end result, the players and a clear set of actions and their costs. Packaged in a short and easy to read format. Excellent work. Powell was amazing.

I view the Powell memo as primarily an Economic survivability analysis with an included plan directed at the constituency of corporate America. Powell recognized that the American Business model was what was being threatened and the members of this system where obviously the main actors in it's defense and transformation.

I may not be aware of one or more progressive projects to transform the American business model to be sustainable, but I'm not aware of any that went anywhere. The Sierra Club's Apollo Alliance project http://www.apolloalliance.org/ has no content changes since 2003.

A progressive's Powell memo is missing. It will need to lay out how progressives work within the American Business model and wall street to solve the sustainability problem. Corporations are now aware that they are again being threatened for survivability and this time it's not from progressives, but from the changing environment and rapidly changing business models being driven by higher energy costs, changes in fuels and chemical feed stocks, a wide range of nearly un-foreseeable business, economic and market place changes. Corporate lawyers and accountants are adding to corporate quarterly reports risk assessments and set asides for environmental issues and risks. Some leader power companies are now advocating the US start working on the GW problem as a result.

What happened in Texas with the coal power plant deal cut with local environmental groups says the progressives are still "pre-Powell" in their strategic thinking and are leaving alot of leverage un-discovered with the corresponding successes un-captured.

The dominant life form yes, the main partner progressives will need to work with to solve the must-solve problems, also yes, in my opinion.

Maybe a useful discussion is to tease out several plans, the actors, the mechanisms, estimated costs, the leverage?

curt

[Jack Harich]

Nice phrase, “A progressive's Powell memo is missing.”

The transformation problem is how to transform the environmental (or progressive) movement from Classic Activism to Analytical Activism. A desirable mechanism would be getting the New Dominant Life Form to work with activists to solve activist problems. But because these two groups currently have opposing fundamental agent goals, cooperation of the scale needed is unlikely to happen early. The recent increase in corporate pro-sustainability decisions is still several orders of magnitude smaller than it needs to be. So for now the transformation problem is how to transform environmentalists.

Now let’s consider your observation:

I view the Powell memo as primarily an Economic survivability analysis with an included plan directed at the constituency of corporate America. Powell recognized that the American Business model was what was being threatened and the members of this system where obviously the main actors in its defense and transformation.

This is beautiful, clear thinking. All we do is insert and substitute a few words and we get:

“I view the progressive Powell memo as primarily an Economic survivability analysis with an included plan directed at the constituency of progressive NGOs. The memo would recognize that the activist model is being threatened and the members of this system are obviously the main actors in its defense and transformation.”

It is obvious that if environmental NGOs cannot adapt, they will not survive. The premise of The Death of Environmentalism memo will come true.

So, do you think we could work together to produce a Progressive Powell Memo that is “written in layman's language with a clear description of the problem, the un-halted end result, the players and a clear set of actions and their costs, and packaged in a short and easy to read format”? This would touch on “several plans, the actors, the mechanisms, estimated costs, [and] the leverage.”

Jack

[Curt Smith]

It would be fun giving it a go.

A new challenge will be to make it pro wall street.

As with the original Powell memo, there's a dose of .gov with new regulations and carbon limits. What's new this time around (for the progressives) and most importantly Progressives need a road map from this point forward that invigorates collaboration with economic and corporate interests and vis-versa (all of Powell's subtleties included).

Curt

[Jack Harich]

Before we can start this, we will both need to reread AA chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 9 analyzes the Powell Memo and why it worked so well, plus related analysis. Chapter 10 goes into solution convergence. Our Progressive Powell Memo is a tactical move in the precipitating event, which is a solution element.

It will take we a about a week to clear up some active projects and be able to give this a few days full time. I expect we need to use at least one software engineering trick: design the test first. That is, how can we test our drafts to be sure we will have a successful final document?