Keith Hudson on China, US and Global Warming

In his Sapientia, a daily newsletter, Keith Hudson tackles some of the toughest questions facing us with a depth and understanding generally un-common. This time he tackles the 4th strategic dialogue between China and the US.

Excerpts from today’s, DAILY QUOTE 471:

…what of global warming? This is already the major concern of Western European countries. But so far there isn’t the faintest scintilla of evidence that either America or China is yet persuaded that man-made carbon dioxide is the major cause of it. It may be that industrial growth is of such huge importance to both countries that they are in ostrich-like denial about any possibility of cramping their style.

It may also be the case that, because some very eminent climatologists still have doubts about the man-made cause of global warming, politicians and administrators are waiting for conclusive evidence. Contrariwise, it may also be that they are indeed already convinced, but that the likely higher sea levels, swamping of seacoast cities, ecological adjustments, human migrations and so forth are judged to be economically bearable while the era of cheap oil and gas reaches its peak during the next 40 years or so. After then it may be calculated that world-wide economic growth will be forced to decline as we move into much more expensive mined-coal or highly expensive solar technologies in order to generate electricity or make transportation fuels.

Some economists — and eminent ones, too — certainly believe that any money likely to be spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be better spent — at least at present and the foreseeable future — on other matters, such as raising the educational standards of all countries.

My own view is that senior administrators in both America and China probably believe that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is making some contribution to global warming even if there are other more fundamental but as yet unknown climatological changes taking place. Furthermore, that there are insufficient energy and other resources in the world that will allow anything more than a fraction of the world population to even approximate to the way of life of, say, half of Americans, half of Western Europeans, most of the Japanese and the middle-class in the coastline provinces of China now enjoy.

All this is quite apart from global warming. Whether this continues or not, the world has already reached its maximum of food production due to freshwater constraints. Furthermore, as noted in a recent Sapientia posting, there is strong evidence from several research groups that there are sufficient minority metal resources of a crucial nature — such as uranium or germanium — to take all the countries of the world into the advanced technologies and the way of life that some in the West (and the coastline of China) already enjoy.

Vinod Khosla’s Energy Porfolio

Vinod Khosla is one of the most successful venture capitalists in the world, mostly as a General Partner at Kleiner Perkins and before that he was one of the founders of Sun Microsystems. He recently started Khosla Ventures where using his own money he has been making investments in the areas of clean tech, environmentally friendly technologies and micro-finance. (Trivia: I had the opportunity to work in Deeshaa Ventures which was based on the idea of RISC (Download : RISC paper) co-authored by Atanu Dey and Khosla)

For sometime now he has been a big proponent of alternative energy and the way to end the reliance on oil. On his website he provides a good set of resources on his ideas in these areas.

Khosla gave a speech as part of the Management of Technology Lecture Series earlier this month at the Haas School of Business in Berkeley. VC Ratings was there and provides a fantastic overview of his energy portfolio. (Hat tip: Peak Energy Delicious)

Most of the companies are based around the general themes of making coal, materials, efficiency and oil more efficient. Then, he further refines them by grouping his investments according to the type of energy that the portfolio companies are trying to improve or harness. Here are the specific investment themes and companies that fall into each category:

1) CellulosicMascoma, Celunol, Range Fuels, 1 stealth startup

2) Future FuelsLS9, Gevo, Amyris Biotechnologies, Coskata Energy

3) EfficiencyTransonic Combustion, GroupIV Semiconductor, 1 stealth startup

4) Homes – Living Homes, Global Homes

5) Natural GasGreat Point Energy

6) SolarStion, Ausra

7) ToolsNanostellar, Codon Devices, Praj

8) Water – 2 stealth startup

9) PlasticSegetis, 1 stealth startup

10) Corn/Sugar FuelsAltra, Cilion, Hawaii Bio

The list of startups provides far more information about Khosla’s efforts in this area than has been revealed before. Khosla’s web site only lists two cleantech startups. And a few others such as Altria and Cilion have been publicly announced listing Khosla Ventures as an investor.

The best part of the above list is not even the sheer scale of his investments. It is his understanding of the big picture in energy options and dividing all his investments based on specific area including energy efficiency. He is betting wide in this area which may suggest that one, he is not yet decided on the best combination of alternative energy options that will be needed or two, we can interpret that it is a combination of sources combined with energy efficiency measures that will make the difference.

All in all, this is amazing and one to follow.

A Conversation with Amory Lovins

The Rocky Mountain Institute has an interview with its’ co-founder Amory Lovins (Hat tip: Peak Energy)

What impact has RMI had over the past 25 years?
More than we often realize or dared to hope. We’ve created much of the
basic intellectual capital — in technology, policy, and business
strategy — that underpins natural capitalism
(www.naturalcapitalism.org), the energy and water efficiency revolutions, green real-estate development, renewable energy, Factor Ten engineering (www.10xe.org), and profitable solutions to the oil (www.oilendgame.com), climate, and nuclear proliferation problems. We’ve been a key driver in saving over half the oil and natural gas, a sixth of the electricity, and two-thirds of the water that the U.S. now uses per dollar of GDP (vs. 1975), and similarly in dozens of nations.

Our syntheses of new approaches to energy, cars, hydrogen, security, and several other fields are starting to be adopted. Our reframings — end-use/least-cost, the right size for the job, resilience — now informmany disciplines.

Hundreds of our alumni/ae are making important contributions. And thousands of people I meet all over the world say we’ve inspired them to rekindle hope and commit to action.


How would you contrast the issues and methods of RMI in its early years with the work it does now?

We’ve become more disciplined without losing our spark, more capable
without losing our agility. We’ve gotten better at aikido politics,
more astute about how to harness causality and influence, and far more
deeply engaged with commerce as our prime instrument of outreach and
effectiveness
. Now we’re poised for a whole new level of effectiveness.

What do you see as the best strategy RMI can undertake to ensure that its ideas go to scale in the market?
Hypercar Revolution
So far we’ve implemented our efficiency concepts mainly by helping early
private-sector adopters succeed so conspicuously that their rivals are
forced by competitive pressure to follow suit or lose share. We’ve
begun to use the “demand pull” of huge organizations like Wal-Mart and News Corporation to change wider market behavior.
We’ve begun to get better at injecting new business models into troubled industries at critical moments, to practice institutional acupuncture, and to inform the enormously powerful private capital market. But we’re always seeking more and better trimtabs.

Our biggest puzzle is how to make natural capitalism (www.naturalcapitalism.org)
into a beneficial social virus that propagates itself exponentially
with network mathematics, rather than our having to introduce it to one
company at a time, which works well but isn’t fast enough.