What is Silicon Valley’s role in helping solve one of the planet’s major problems?
Global warming could cost the world’s economies up to 20 percent of their gross domestic product if urgent action is not taken, a comprehensive report released by the British govenrment said today.
“We have a window of 10 to 15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points,” the report said. Here is a summary of the highlights. Here is the report itself.
What is California’s responsibility, given Washington’s refusal to approve the Kyoto Protocol? What can Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs do to help? Well, we’ve got Proposition 87, which would raise an oil tax, and spend $4 billion on alternative fuels — some of it potentially going to start-ups.
VentureBeat is running a series of opinion pieces (at our contributor’s column) over the next few days, elaborating on the pros and cons.
Here is who we’ve had so far:
1) Vinod Khosla: Don’t let the Big Oil money confuse you
2) Robert Rapier: Proposition 87: Deceptively marketed
3) Vinod Khosla: Don’t let the Big Oil money confuse you, part II.
Next up: Tad Patzek, of UC Berkeley.
If you know of an expert, or of an informed observer interested in contributing, please let us know. Also, let us know your own thoughts on this in comments below. VentureBeat would eventually like to make an endorsement on this issue, one way or another.
8 Comments
-
Lin Khoo said:
If we want Silicon Valley/California to remain the preeminent incubator for innovation and technological advancement, we had better get in BIG TIME on the emerging cleantech boom. The British have already officially announced their plans to invest and profit from technologies to save the world, we should stop letting politics get in the way of the next Silicon Valley boom. Prop 87 is taxing on the short term, but immensely valuable in the long term. Like all significant technology revolutions, the cleantech boom needs a catalyst. Prop 87 is a catalyst that will make alternative energy cheaper than oil just long enough for innovation to develop it much further than fossil fuels will ever take us.
-
Ted Shelton said:
Here is another perspective that doesn’t seem to be covered in your debate between Vinod and Robert — if Robert is right and gas prices go up $0.05 a gallon in California, I will be paying $50 more per year for my gasoline. What, you say? Only $50? Sure. I drive about 25,000 miles per year. I get about 25 miles per gallon. That means I buy 1,000 gallons of gas each year. So a lousy $0.05 per gallon over 1,000 gallons is all of $50. So for a $50 tax I get job creation in California around one of the fastest growing new industries in the world - replacing fossil fuels. And the long term gain of improving or environment and world. Tell me where to send the check, I’ll send an extra $50 as well.
-
William Jolitz said:
I agree with Ted, the debate is narrow and wonky.
What difference does the tax make to market fluctutations, where dollars a gallon increase are possible given market speculation, which the current US administration has no interest in moderating?
Perhaps the big missing issue here is that maybe the voters see the Iraq war and energy policy as the key influencer of gas price. If so, than perhaps an oil tax is no big deal, because they have become accustomed to extremes at the pump?
That would be an ironic twist - that erratic high oil prices kills the fear of a tax raising prices, and the voters go for 87 simply to torture the oil companies - ha !
-
Mark Wendman said:
DEFINITION of SILICON VALLEY -
“The Leader in Commercialized Technology Innovation, catalyzed by Savvy Venture Investors, to a degree of WORLDWIDE IMPACT SEEN LIKE NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.”
That is my take of a nickel definition of the raison d’etre (reason for being) of Silicon Valley. Or more pedantically put - the MISSION STATEMENT of SILICON VALLEY.
Find BIG Problems and FIX them with a unique critical mass of tech innovation (real tech not only software) and successfully(we hope) make a decent business of implementing the result.
In GLOBAL WARMING, we have Possible Peril and Opportunity.
The wise man, seeing the glass half full, finds opportunity, fulfills the mission and does so for the benefit of SOCIETY - all in balance of RESPONSIBILITY & PROFIT (capitalism can be GOOD)….
The unique aspect - really unique about this wondrous place, is the PEOPLE Who Make Things Happen - by Innovation, Investment(a manifestation of belief in can do), thoughtfulness, IMPLEMENTING and delivering…..
(ie sitting on ones thumbs for various reasons and merely observing and critiquing does not admit you to the club)
We are no better than our accomplishments (or at least effort in progress toward noble goals), and if one seeks to do good, one has to DO, and Do So Thoughtfully.
While some see cries of Chicken Little, “The Sky is Falling”, others take up the slack (opportunity? maybe) and TRY TO DO GOOD.
This fantastic, even wondrous place is not one of entitlement, nor of vainly bestowing nepotistic success, One Has To Make It Happen.
Leadership is by doing and is not an observers sport.
The $50 / year to contribute to those who might have a chance to innovate solutions to prevent a possible(?probable) worldwide calamity (or at least contribute to the prevention of Global Warming spiraling out of control) is MONEY WELL SPENT.
Those who think the smarts are not here, are simply deluding themselves, or have unspoken nefarious motives.
Will Houston or Riyadh forcefully pull the planet out of this potential monstrous calamity ?
No Effin Way !!!
Will diligent engineers and scientists and the Great Venture Community here possibly do so?
Maybe - there are NO guarantees we might succeed, but the KARMA is HERE, and the WILL to drive a new change in transport and energy fueling paradigms is HERE.
YOU BETCHA !
(ie Prof. Newton got it right that VINOD has it RIGHT - Moore’s Law is implicitly one of PACE of INNOVATION, and not specific to Integrated Circuits - the mantra here in the valley is WE INNOVATE, and substantively so)
One still has to have sane skepticism about any prospective fix, a keen and discerning eye for truth of the core of the innovation and implementation, but one has to actively search, sift, analyze, and bring to bear best in class REAL improvements that might make a difference, and then apply the wisdom of the BUILDERS, INVESTORS and MARKETERS, to IMPLEMENT.
Undoubtedly there will be missteps.
There will be diversions from the final and best methods along the route of INNOVATIONS. History is littered with accidental innovations, one cannot deny this aspect of successful solutions to problems. But any progress comes from substantive effort and observation and implementation. A keen eye is critical …
I believe in the people of the valley here in doing good. If something can be done it will be found and if there are many pieces to the solution of the complex tapestry of the puzzle, we might have a chance here at doing something significant to address the challenge of Global Warming successfully.
Don’t breath the fumes of wild eyed enthusiasm, but apply the dint of thoughtful perspiration to do, and do substantively.
Be honest as one can be in one’s undertaking this very formidable challenge, but do !
The potential implications for possibly irreversible climate change are CATASTROPHIC IN EXTENT around the world - of first order of business is ALL POPULATION CENTERS NEAR SEA LEVEL…are at HUGE risk of being flooded possibly irreversibly and definitely CATASTROPHICALLY.
(the polar bears losing their ice flow habitat are telling us something, if we wish to listen)
So, anyone with the ability, wherewithall, or interest, SHOULD be civic minded and if possible contribute in useful and hopefully in appropriate cases, significant manner (it is not an issue of money per se)
The debates regarding specifics of particular strategies to prevent irreversible flooding of low lying regions are almost immaterial.
Significant things HAVE to get DONE.
One can miss the point of INNOVATION brought to bear against this potentially HUGE problem, but INNOVATION of some kind on a HUGE scale is required.
Historically California LEADS - by example, and by technology, and wisdom of the folks who live here. There are numerous cases in all kinds of challenges and innovations that characterize this place and people.
The amazing folks of Silicon Valley might do something of note here in this HUGE challenge to Tame and Reverse Global Warming.
To put it bluntly, it is highly improbable that ANYONE even remotely associated with the OIL INDUSTRY will be of ANY help, as one can remark that the OIL INDUSTRY is repeatedly funding DISINFORMATION to avert the gaze of all from the TRUTH of the SUBSTANCE of GLOBAL WARMING.
Disingenuous?
Not merely, but even DECEPTIVE, and DECEITFUL.So folks here in the valley might eagerly take up the REAL CHALLENGE implicit in the KYOTO Agreement, despite us not having signed. Who cares about signing Kyoto, what matters is doing something versus talking about it ad nauseum.
The Valley is characterized by useful, thoughtful and sometimes profound discussion, and then getting to do something about it.
Change the world by dint of one’s mind’s eye and screw the naysayers.
Be Like a Plowhorse and Plow That Field of Challenge and Opportunity for the GOOD of ALL..
my 2 cents …
-
Robert Rapier said:
Here is another perspective that doesn’t seem to be covered in your debate between Vinod and Robert — if Robert is right and gas prices go up $0.05 a gallon in California, I will be paying $50 more per year for my gasoline..
Ted, I want to make it clear that I am not campaigning against Prop 87. I mean it when I say that I am ambivalent about passage, and I made it clear to Matt when he asked that I would not write a “No on 87†essay. A friend of mine, Ana Unruh Cohen from the Center for American Progress, actually helped draft Prop 87. But as I have made it clear to Ana, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and a lot of hate mongering being fostered by the “Yes†forces. I am addressing misinformation and hypocrisy that is pointed in my general direction. My ultimate goal is to raise the level of political discourse around our energy policy.
I would personally pay much higher prices for gasoline, and I have advocated a steep tax on fossil fuels. We certainly do not pay “true†costs for fossil fuels, and I am a fan of European approach to fossil fuels (and am in the process of moving to Scotland). We must have alternatives, but conservation is going to have to close a big gap.
I hear too many people quoting Moore’s Law to me when they talk about cellulosic ethanol. Moore’s law presumes that there are not fundamental laws of chemistry and physics at play. How well is Moore’s Law working right now? You are beginning to find that you are running into some barriers, and despite all the innovation in the world, Moore’s Law breaks down at those physical limits. What too many people with expertise in computers, but not in cellulose chemistry, do not seem to understand is that some of those physical limits are already being encountered. That is the problem. Vinod Khosla extrapolates a 7% increase in cellulosic ethanol yield for the next 20 years to show how we can run the country on ethanol! I could apply this to practically any technology to show that it will be viable. I can apply this to space travel to show when we will exceed the speed of light. But those kinds of superficial analyses ignore fundamental laws of science. Those are a bit hard to innovate your way around. People ignore that at their own peril.
Here’s hoping to a higher level of discourse on energy policy.
Cheers, Robert Rapier
-
Alpha24Seven said:
Has anyone really taken a look at current subsidies?
Solar:
The new $3bn initiative. Funded by ratepayers and taxpayers.
Beneficiary: (select sample)
BP Solar. BP Solar (business unit of BP proper) is one of the largest providers of clean RE solar energy in CA. Can someone explain why a company that made $69,222,222 of profit PER DAY in their last quarter, should be subsidized by California ratepayers to purchase their products?
Big changes are coming. Count on it.
-
Charlie Peters said:
The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gas is about $500,000,000.00 per year.
The ethanol may add over $1.00 per gal. to the gas profit in California.
That may be about $100 billion in oil profit from California motorists.
The science is interesting but so is the money.
A $4 billion Prop. 87 oil tax may add $40 billion in oil profit.
Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals -
Charlie Peters said:
Ethanol Eco nomics…
Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007
The public policy farce that the “Green Governor” unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called “greenhouse gas” law) continues. Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.
First, a few basic facts. Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre. That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement. But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds. Get the picture?
The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country). And that’s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.
As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels. And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion. And here’s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and – you guessed it – carbon dioxide.
Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and it’s more expensive – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.
The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store. By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating. Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.
The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard – but they will hit starving third world populations even harder. Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.
So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.
One Trackback
11:39 am
Venture Beat Contributors » Why is Proposition 87 a Bad Idea? said:
[...] [Editor’s note: Tad Patzek is the latest to weigh in on our Prop. 87 “oil tax” debate. See our previous discussion of Patzek’s private meeting with Vinod Khosla several weeks ago.] [...]