|
Your discussion 'The Economic Argument Against Keystone XL' is very much on message. I was however disappointed with the linked background material on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) ... not your fault, but a problem nevertheless. As you well know, modern policy decisions have been made using the money profit dimension of economics and finance, and I would argue that has delivered far better outcomes than for example communism for the past century. This system is not, however, very much good for the future where we start bumping into the carrying capacity of the planet and a lot more people achieving a lifestyle that is more middle class rather than bottom of the pyramid. We need massive reform in the metrics that are used to guide decision making at all levels from individual decisions to the big corporate and government decisions. The scientists have done some amazing work, but this does not easily translate into management (decision making) information. The life cycle cost of tar sand oil is a big number. The life cycle cost of wind power is a very much smaller number. The social value of the energy they each produce is huge and the same. The money cost of tar sand oil is probably smaller than the money cost of wind power (maybe, but maybe not) ... but it is only the money cost piece that is understood by most financial decision makers and corporate and political leaders. Social cost and social value must be made part of the conversation. For this to happen there has to be a system of metrics that is easy to use and widely accepted. I am struggling to design such a system ... calling it Multi Dimension Impact Accounting where everything that matters is quantified. If we can do an IoT where the Internet attaches to everything ... surely we can have a data system where we have some generally accepted standard values for everything. Obviously ... your piece got my attention. Thank you Peter Burgess Truevaluemetrics.org
9:52 AM
On 4/23/2015, Sanjay Kapoor said the following:Peter - I have enjoyed your posts since the time we have been connected and appreciate and support your efforts on MDI. I have been wary of monetization as valuation, because I seethe former as inherently reductionist. For me, there was a revelation after a conversation with Pavan Sukhdev, when I realized that externalization will continue to happen as long as we measure money against some other measurement framework. So this is the tack I am using, recognizing and wary of its limits... The variability of the other value items is the other issue. When I went digging into the SEIS I was horrified by the quality of the analysis used and could not understand why the government (or its consultants) itself could not use some of its own guidance. I also think your point of carrying capacity limits is evidence that we are completely screwed up in how we approach limits. Keep up the good work and I am looking forward to your help in evolving my own thinking...
11:01 AM
4/30/2015
On 4/30/2015, Peter Burgess said the following:Dear Sanjay I wanted to confirm that I also am wary of monetization as valuation. The value determined by a market is simply a function of supply and demand ... and in my experience most of the mechanisms we now call markets are being gamed in a variety of ways so that the real situation of supply and demand is masked. There are some real markets that still exist ... fish markets, vegetable markets all over the developing world where many small traders congregate and negotiate the price for each and every transaction. In the developed world most of the so-called markets or exchanges are rigged in a variety of ways, none of them good for the consumer. I also have been encouraged by the work of Pavan Sukhdev and for some time. I have used the TEEB work as a jumping off point for my own work ... also the Trucost work that went into TEEB and is being used in other initiatives. My grumble with these efforts is that they are not yet to the point where they are easy to use and part of a 'system' that is also low cost. I will keep on trying! Peter
11:24 AM
Jul 5
On Jul 5, Sanjay Kapoor said the following:Peter - I hope you are well! I have been pretty quiet for the past few months on the various social networks, but this morning I read a David Crane piece on Tesla and Solar City and noticed that you had a comment.
On Jul 5, Sanjay Kapoor said the following:In addition to the warmth of seeing a friendly name and face there, the piece left me a little puzzled and I am not sure I fully understand it. I thought I would reach out to you to try and understand it better. Let me know if you would be up for a chat. ope yu are well!
12:40 PM
Today
At 3:51 PM, Peter Burgess said the following:Dear Sanjay I have also been fairly quiet, but in this modern era, it seems that if you aren't active on social media, you might as well not exist. I am up for a chat most any time ... I stay quite flexible ... and like Skype, though not when I am travelling (which is mainly day trips into New York City). As to the Tesla / Solar City merger ... I believe there are several different dynamics in play. The business model for Solar City has, I believe, taken advantage of significant government incentives which are being rolled back and growing push back from a better organized legacy electric utility sector that wants to make net metering as unattractive as possible. Tesla cars use electricity and it must come from somewhere. Where better than roof-top solar ... and a car has battery storage. So putting Solar City solar energy into the Tesla electric car seems like a pretty good match. There are some important technical details ... sun up when the car is not in the garage ... speed of charging ... etc etc ... but I think the big idea hangs together. My Skype contact is peterbinbushkill All the best
3:51 PM
Compose a new message to the conversation's recipients
Type a message to Sanjay Kapoor
|
