".......Without changing our patterns of thought, we will not be able to solve the problems we created with our current pattern of thought." --A. Einstein
Renewable Energy Gets $100 Billion
Globally July 16, 2007
It has
been a while since I have posted. I have been really busy reclaiming
materials from an old home. I am getting around to my thinking about
"memes" finally, and you will read that below.
Last time I addressed the reality that the "Parallel Energy Establishment" is
emerging. Well, I have to let you know that I am not kidding. I have
been compiling info on that; many new projects and investments, and new
optimism. Every single day I find new things people are doing in the
realm of finance and research to deal with these issues. By my last
numbers, based on just what I have been able to find, there has been
over 500 Million Dollars invested in the last 2 weeks alone, on a
variety of new developments, investments and research projects, and
that is just from my internet searching. There is a link provided below
that backs up these numbers:
And here's some more on just the Solar Industry alone:
Total global
investment in renewable energy technologies was 25% higher in 2006 than
the year before, topping $100 billion, according to a United Nations
Environment Programme analysis.The majority of that money - $71 billion
- was invested in companies and new sector opportunities, 43% more than
the year before. Another $30 billion came from mergers, acquisitions,
buyouts, and asset refinancing.Most of the investments are going
towards wind power, solar energy, and biofuels, with $28 billion
invested in new generating capacity.
The global solar industry spent some $2.8 billion on plants and equipment in 2006, according to Solarbuzz's 2007 Marketbuzz report, as it added 548 MW, for a 33 percent jump in capacity, to a worldwide total of 2204 MW. Solar sales reached $10.6 billion last year and will likely grow to somewhere between $18 and $31 billion by 2011, for a 170 to 290 percent jump.
You'll
see a lot of this type of news in the new INDUSTRY Section in the sidebar.
I really just don't know which planet the people who scoff at new energy are living on.
Now, on to the installment:
MEMES
MEME (From Wikipedia):
Meme, a term borrowed by Richard Dawkins, referring to a unit of
cultural information transferable from one mind to another. A
derivation of either French même (lit. "same"), or Greek mimeme
(something imitated). See also Mimesis.
meme n.
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea,
that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to
another.
(Dicrocoelium lanceolatum)
There is a great video (you'll find the link below) online that includes an explanation of a bug called the Lancet Fluke (Dicrocoelium lanceolatum). It's actually a parasite. This thing has evolved in a way that is very unfortunate for the ant it infests. The Lancet Fluke finds a host, an ant, and it takes control of the ants brain. It forces the ant away from it's strong grounding in its own best interest, that of its colony, and it drives the ant up to the top of a blade of grass.
The Lancet Fluke uses the ant like a craft, like some kind of piece of equipment, driving it away from its obvious purpose, and up this blade of grass so that it can be eaten by a sheep or a cow in order for the Lancet Fluke to get into the stomach of the sheep or cow. The ant is commandeered into abandoning it's own best interest, and the interest of its civilization and dies in the process.
What kinds of ideas are forcing people people today to act against their own best interest? There are plenty. It is amazing to watch the ludicrous arguing on the internet over what to do about energy issues. To read some of the arguments people make, and the bizarre ad hominem and non sequitor people use to argue against things that will improve and extend their own lives and protect their posterity. What makes people do that?
What makes people reject solutions to problems in favor of maintaining the problem for the sake of a cause, which works against their own longevity and survival?
What makes someone, upon hearing about a new effort to deal with energy issues in a healthy manner, begin a nonsensical rant about some kind of botox treatment that Al Gore received? What makes a person, even though they know the dangers of uranium mining, and uranium enrichment, the hazards and contamination that goes with that, the increase in cancer rates, the poisoning of water which lead to birth defects, and the issue of waste disposal go into irrational arguments in favor of nuclear power, and against new technology development, simply because that technology is not available right this instant? As though addressing the issue of long term energy solutions is supposed to be like ordering a hamburger from a fast food joint.
What makes a person reject notions that technologies and solutions can be developed through human creativity, because if problems are solved and systems delivered through business, that is some kind of evil, because of business? What makes people maintain a position that there need to be more controls placed on society, when those controls more often prohibit solutions to problems from being implemented? Is it some kind of parasite?
(When we talk about about
energy, the first thing so many people think, or say is: "We need to
pass stronger laws that stop pollution, and conserve energy". When, it
is very often the case that the whole reason that there are so many
issues with energy and pollution is because it is effectively
against the law to use energy that does not pollute, and that is not
used inefficiently, WE HAVE CONTROLS THAT NEED TO BE LIFTED, PEOPLE. These controls are called "Hotlaws".)
Memes very often affect us in a way similar to reflexes. We
hear a word or an idea or a phrase and we have been conditioned to have
certain thoughts associated with those ideas. Those thoughts have been also associated with strong emotional feelings, and that is when we see the reactions that are irrational. I know Richard Dawkins likes to call them memes, and I know B.F. Skinner called it classical conditioning, Julian Jaynes called it bicameral thinking, all of these are valid, I'm sure. I like to call them brain spasms. When
there are impulses running through your brain because some kind of
"trigger" word or phrase has unleashed a process of chemical reaction,
and you are all worked up, and your mouth is moving but you are not
really thinking, that is just a spasm, plain and simple. We are at a point in our development that it is increasingly important that we remember how to have more actual thoughts, and less brain spasms.
OK, what are some of the things that make us spaz out? Where is the area of our mind that allows things to take it over, what takes it over? Hmm..Man, that's some seriously heavy and personal stuff, but you know, it is what it is. We don't like a politician, so we have spastic reactions to every thing they say; we have a political ideology, so we reject anything anyone says who comes from a different perspective; We have a religion, so any other person from a different religious idea is dismissed out of hand. Even when all these people have the same problems we have, and have to deal with solving the same problems we have, we can spaz out due to a meme we are affected with, and miss out on a solution, or a process to a solution, even though it is against our own best interest.
I'm not going to use religion as an example here, but I am going to use politics, specifically the "left v. right" problem.
As much as they would never want to admit it, there are elements of these two strains of thinking in the US that are essential to our way of life, but what are my broad definitions of left v. right in this context?
Well, there are the Hamilton/ Jefferson debates, which basically set up the parameters for most of our debates today. Very briefly (maybe briefly), Hamilton wanted a supremely strong central government, and limited education for the masses, with an emphasis on a very tight and small business oriented aristocracy. He did not believe that every day people could be trusted with the responsibility of governance, even in a voting role. Jefferson believed in broad Democratization and public education, he wanted to see the experiment of free will demonstrated to it's fullest, and it was he who honed the ideas about our Constitution that gave him and the rest of the fore bearers the "out" they needed for the mistakes they made in their efforts in the process of our government. We call these processes, these "escape hatches for the fore bearers", Amendments.
These Amendments require participation and input from the farthest reaches of society. For example, when an administration attempts to circumvent the Constitution by passing a resolution or announcing an "Executive Order", that is Hamiltonian. A Jeffersonian would say that to change the tenor of the law, and to adjust the structure of rights in the United States requires using the full government (all three branches) to pass an Amendment, and that using edicts and Resolutions is illegal, and that there is a reason that we did away with monarchy, and that we don't want anything like that to return. That being said, both Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians can be conservative, but a Hamiltonian can not be a liberal. It is very important to understand the roots of our debate. By the way, Jefferson won that debate, and we are supposed to use the Constitution to change the tenor of Society, not edicts from the executive branch.
What is another left v. right illustration? We can also look at the differences in class, and how the industrial revolution effected the level of participation across class lines.
Since the Industrial Revolution, in the West, the standard of living in general, has improved. Technology has put copious amounts of information into the homes of essentially every citizen, even prisoners. Ideas came with the Industrial Revolution that promoted the idea that not only the owner/ management class, but the working class is also worthy of a good life, with comforts, and the opportunity to truly enjoy the fruits of ones labor. Very few people disagree with this, although they may have different ideas about how to ascribe value to various activities.
Swinging from right to left we have people who have ideas about where more power should lie, in the ownership class, or the working class. Academics from both sides of this debate put forth their ideas, and those on the left, from time to time, are able to wield some strength through the idea that they are the ones producing the technology that the ownership class invest in, and control.
But who are the geniuses? Who are the ones who invent the stuff, and come up with the systems for delivering it? And finally, why aren't they given control over the systems rather than either of the other classes, who are merely the investors and machiners?
In reality, if you are working to
create income and improve your life, everything is business, regardless
of the role you play you are participating in business. We
generally
think of the management people as the business people, and the working
people as, well.. working people, but they really are all business
people, because they are all making business happen. They are all
essential, and it helps if they are all playing a conscious role.
We are wanting to understand our energy situation, so we will look at obstacles people create, based on the meme they are affected by, in solving the problem. So, lets look at the strengths that each of these "rivals" on the right and left add to the equation, and look honestly at the way they actually work together, even though they do not realize it, and imagine what would happen if they became conscious of their cooperation, and gave full power to the geniuses who provide us with the comfort and longevity that comes with technology.
People who ridicule or abandon the idea that new technolgy can solve our energy problems are "doom and gloomers", regardless of their economic philosophy.
People on the "left" have a propensity toward analysis and problem identification. People interested in business, who are generally considered conservative and "right wing", are much more often identified with the process of bringing things into the marketplace, they understand that process. So, we have one group who is more concerned with the "marketplace of ideas", and one concern who is adept at the economic marketplace. The irony of what is happening now is that it is often people defining themselves as the conservatives who are the new "doom and gloom" naysayers, and it is much of the left who have become the optimists, at least in terms of understanding that it is possible to deal with these issues. A very vocal element of the conservative culture are doing nothing but ridicule the idea that the marketplace can provide solutions to our dependence on fossil and nuclear power. There is even an element of the left who have embraced nuclear power. This does not surprise me, because the left has always shown a lack of imagination and optimism in my experience. So, it is very strange to see the conservative media embracing such a doom and gloom position, especially since there are so many evidences that in other aspects of conservative culture the idea of new energy is being embraced, and invested in heavily. There are so many examples, every day, of new investments and opportunities that it is almost impossible to keep up with them. Take a look at the "Industry Section" of this blog. I get so many hits in my email box on new energy technology and the opportunities that arise from it that I have not been able to keep up with them on my current schedule.
Generally, we see this "debate" happening between the left and right about the issue of energy and the effect production is having on the climate. As I have repeated several times, and as is stated in the General Petition for New Energy, this is a waste of time. Regardless of a person's position on climate change, there are a growing number of reasons why we are in the process of changing our energy systems. There is a limited supply of our current fuels, and there is a growing demand for energy, which we have established in my prior posts, has contributed to our overall health, productivity and longevity, we live 30-50 years longer since the institution of energy was established.
The concern is that if we do not make these changes quickly enough that the cost will eclipse the value of the energy, this Cost v. Value Eclipse is also explained in the General Petition for New Energy. Thankfully, there is a preponderance of evidence to support the idea that the investment class and the New Technology sector have embraced the reality that they are to play a huge role in creating a New Energy Establishment. This will expedite the process of the dominant Energy Establishment making more lateral investments and moves into New Energy. We buy everything they produce anyway, they may as well develop new commodities.
- $71 Billion out of $100 Billion(.pdf) was invested in companies and
new sector opportunities in 2006. Most of the investments are going
towards wind power, solar energy, and biofuels, with $28 billion
invested in new generating capacity.
- New Section: New Energy Industry News
- NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS NEWS
- GREEN/ SUSTAINABLE BUILDING AND HOUSING
- AUTO NEWS
- SOLAR ENERGY NEWS
- WIND ENERGY NEWS
- ENERGY FUTURES, STOCKS, ETC.
- HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY
- More Entries in the Hotlaw Section. (tsk tsk tsk)
- Inventor Nik Shkolnik and his son, MIT grad student Alexander Shkolnik, are developing technology that aims to improve the internal combustion engine’s fuel efficiency by 250%, according to a release. And their startup, LiquidPiston, just raised $1.25 million in its first venture capital investment round.
- Referenced Entries:
-st
b
l
nt)
st
