Category: Environmental Issues

Monday Wake Up Call – November 3, 2014

Are you tired because you got an extra hour’s sleep last night? Let’s get your brain started with a question: Who benefits it the government funds the development of new technology?

Answer: Private corporations.

Economist Mariana Mazzucato’s book about the role of the State in innovation, The Entrepreneurial State says that the image of a useless State at odds with a dynamic private sector is a myth. Mazzucato reveals in multiple case studies that the opposite is true; the private sector is only willing to invest after someone in a garage has a good idea that must be commercialized, or after the State makes a seed investment.

She describes how it worked with Apple’s iPhone and Google’s search engine. In both cases their popular consumer products benefited from state financing of basic research. For the iPhone, some of the technologies that make it “smart” were funded by the US government, such as the global positioning system (GPS), the touchscreen display, and the forerunner of the voice-activated personal assistant, Siri.

As for Google, development of its fundamental search algorithm was funded by the National Science Foundation. Plus, of course, there’s that thing called the Internet, another government funded venture, which makes the iPhone “smart”, and makes Google searches useful and valuable.

The right-wing myth is that the government needs to be completely out of the way of business, except for providing tax and regulatory incentives for private companies, to make them “want” to create the products they sell.

But, in the real world, many successful companies harvest the work of others and repackage proven technologies into successful products. In the 21st Century, companies often just mine the surface of their technology estate. When “innovative” companies are hugely profitable, often they buy back their shares and/or raise dividends, but do not invest that much in their long-term futures.

Finally, despite the fact that some companies directly benefit from taxpayer-funded technologies, they “underfund” (via tax breaks and holding profits offshore) the government that helped develop technologies that led to their success.

The obvious way for the public to ‘profit’ from socialized risk is to retain some ownership of the technologies that underlie those successes.

Another myth that needs to be exploded is that companies will not introduce new products if they can’t own 100% the intellectual property behind the products. Not true. Today, they often share their technology ownership with other firms. And it is inconceivable that a growing public estate of licensable technical know-how would sit under-exploited, if it could be licensed by corporate America.

Monday’s breakfast buffet of linkage:

Heard of the 27 Club? The idea is that pop stars are more likely than the general population to die at age 27. Not true, but they do tend to die much younger than the rest of us.

Of course milk is good for you! Well, maybe not as much as the milk-industrial complex wants you to believe. Swedish researchers took two groups, one with 61,000 women and the other with 45,000 men, and followed them for 20 years to see if milk intake was related to fractures or to death. Apparently, not so much. Maybe you should give Almond milk a try.

Using CDC data, a study finds that high rates of ADHD diagnoses correlated directly with state laws that penalize schools financially when students fail. An ADHD diagnosis can take a student out of the statistics. The five states that have the highest rate of diagnoses — Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana and North Carolina — are all over 10% of school age children. The five states with the lowest percent diagnosed — Nevada, New Jersey, Colorado, Utah and California — are all under 5%.

The US has changed its H-1B record retention policy. The US Department of Labor said that records “are temporary records and subject to destruction” after five years, under a new policy. But, the H-1B visa lasts 6 years. The total database is about 1GB, so what’s the issue?

The Air Force doesn’t have enough mechanics for its new F35 fighter: The reason is political. The Air Force was counting on training A-10 mechanics, but Congress is blocking the Air Force’s plan to retire the A-10 aircraft. It could take 12 months longer than proposed to get the F-35 in the air, if the A-10 stays online.

International News:

Japanese journalists didn’t do independent reporting about the Fukushima melt-down, they simply reported the press releases of Tokyo Power and the government. Now some are speaking out. Sound familiar?

The war between the banks and phone companies over mobile banking in Kenya heats up. After the huge success of mobile banking in Kenya, commercial banks began to invest in mobile phone-based banking, including selling their own SIM cards instead of using those issued by mobile phone providers. Now, the mobile phone operators are crying foul.

When the TuNur project in the Tunisian Sahara comes online in by late 2018, it will provide clean and reliable power to more than 2.5 million UK homes. The project will be connected to the European electricity grid via a dedicated cable from Tunisia to Italy. The UK participated in funding the project.

Your wake-up song is from Trigger Hippy, a new roots super-group founded by Black Crowes drummer Steve Gorman, and singer Joan Osborne. It is an amalgam of country, blues, soul and rock. Here is “Rise up Singing”, so time to rise up:

 

Let this thought guide your week:

Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth. – Muhammad Ali

Facebooklinkedinrss

Do Demonstrations Matter Anymore?

Newsweek reported that The People’s Climate March on Sunday in New York was perhaps the largest climate change protest in history. Between 300,000 and 400,000 people took to the streets. Celebrities and high-profile politicians were among the marchers. The protest was big on social media, but it was largely ignored by the TV talking heads. HuffPo reported:

All in all, it was a perfect opportunity for some of America’s biggest news organizations to cover the topic of climate change, something that usually gets either ignored or badly handled. For Sunday talk show hosts, there was even a nice political hook, since the march was pegged to a UN summit that President Obama will be attending.

But HuffPo said that no Sunday morning show except MSNBC’s “Up” so much as mentioned climate change, or the march. There was one reference on “This Week” by The Nation’s Katrina van den Heuvel, who pointed out that the march was actually gathering right outside the ABC studios in Lincoln Center where the show is taped. The fact that more people actually showed up for climate change than an iPhone 6 sale in New York City is big news and it should have been covered!

Why no coverage? And more important, do demonstrations matter anymore? From Juan Cole:

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for demonstrating and admire everyone who came out in New York City on Sunday (some 400,000 according to Time magazine) to demand that world leaders deal urgently with climate change.

Cole makes the point that in the current political climate, holding large rallies rarely results in any political change. But, there have been exceptions. Consider the 1963 March on Washington. That was a case where succinct demands were associated with ground-up mass actions across America. It did not bring about immediate results, but the demonstrations combined with months, and sometimes years of base-level organizing, delivered energy and momentum to that same cohesive set of demands.

But the 21st century is not the 1960’s. Now, people just send a tweet and think they’ve accomplished something. The failure of demonstrations today is symptomatic of the failure of our democracy, which refuses to separate corporate money from elections, or from influencing the mass media. Pew Research reports that only 40% of Americans think that it is important for Congress and the White House to tackle the issue of climate change. The public already knows about climate change and sees it as a problem, yet nothing is done by either party, because it would inconvenience their corporate patrons, and anger the Koch brothers.

A 2010 Stanford University poll showed that voters are unpersuaded by the usual arguments against taking action on global warming:

Only 18% believe that slowing climate change would cause unemployment, and only 14% think the US should wait for other countries to go first.

What climate change activists must first realize that the obstacle is oligarchy, not public awareness of the issue.

Large demonstrations can help build local organizations, can bring together a broad range of activists who would not otherwise have face-to-face contact and can show like-minded people that they are not alone, that there are large numbers of people who share their views. These things are all valuable to any movement for social justice.

The writers of the US Constitution believed it important enough to explicitly provide for ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble’, although recent efforts in cities across America to abridge that right in the name of public safety  have been growing. Assembly should still be seen as a form of pressure that requires many other steps to move the needle on the status quo.

The movement also needs a charismatic leader, a compelling story and a skilled group to coordinate all activities.

The next stage has to be competing for mind-share of our Congresspersons and Senators, against the entrenched and very wealthy hydrocarbon industries.
Gerrymandering that has produced a structural Republican majority in the House means that climate activists need to find GOP challengers who are deeply concerned about global warming and who are willing to primary the incumbent.

In the end, a single-issue Climate PAC, if very well-funded, could make a difference. Much of the climate change action will have to be done or coordinated by politicians, and at the moment most of those in Washington are owned by Big Oil, including by the Koch brothers.

Finally, it is clear that in addressing climate change, we address multiple ills in our society, including the tremendous waste of resources caused by the pursuit of war. We have long needed a political movement that ties together the various threads of what is wrong with our society and shows how they are interrelated.

Climate change activism has the potential to do that.

 

Facebooklinkedinrss