100 MGP Hybrids, Pickens subversion of Congress, CFL Recycling, Iran, Make Poverty Business

Were you raised to be a good citizen? That is the main purpose of society, to perpetuate itself with a population of new generation after generation of "good" citizens, who conform to the norms of the society and carry on the institutions that society has created to continue to be as it was in the past. Isnīt it?

Actually I am not a subscriber to that theory, though it might surprise you to find out that I am a subscriber to T. Boone Pickensī "Pickens Plan" email newsletter.

It might also surprise some of you that I want to add my praise to those heavy truck manufacturers olī Boone was cheering on in his latest edition. Mack Truck has recently announced that they are going to put on a big marketing push for a line of sanitation and re-cycling trucks using CNG powered engines. This is an especially "green" move because of the very low efficiency of the diesel engine combustion system at the very low speeds these vehicles travel during most of their working day. Congratulations, I hope this is a big success for them. Mr. Pickens also points out that Mack is getting off to a good start with an order for 20 units to be deployed in the Chicago area by Groot Industries, and that Waste Management has gotten on board, at least for trucks in the San Diego area. Of course both of those companies are heavily involved in recycling programs.

In Chicago, the Groot Industries, website informs, you must have a "building re-cycling plan" which includes at least 3 types of material recycling, or 2 materials to recycle and 2 types of waste reduction. Waste Managementīs website (you can afford to be a little more "institutional" in your advertising when your name is synonymous, literally, with the function your company plays in the world) offers bits of encouragement like, "recycling one aluminum can [saves enough power] runs a tv for 3 hours." But Waste Management didnīt get to be one of the largest waste handling companies in the world by overlooking new opportunities, so also advertised on its home page are recycling kits for Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. That ad links to another Waste Management site which actually offers to sell you these kits that consist, generally, of 3 or 4 of the CFL bulbs and a mercury vapor proof bag (in case they break during shipping) to be used to send them BACK to Waste Management for safe, conforming destruction when they wear out. They also sell a "kit" for recycling old 4 foot fluorescent tubes. Seems like a good idea.

It must have seemed like an incredibly good idea once the product development guys at Waste Management got through with them. The "kit" of 3 CLFīs (23 watt/100 watt equivalent) plus recycling box and bag and prepaid postage (umm, I thought you had to declare that you were NOT shipping "hazardous materials" any time you sent a package through the US Postal Service). And the cost? Why it is a mere, US$33.95, same price as 4 CLF 60watt equivalent bulbs and their recycling bag/box. Sounds "pricey" to me, but, hey, what price do you put on saving your planet, these things do contain mercury, although in this case WM claims that they contain only 1 milligram of mercury which they also taut as being "75% less" than "standard energy efficiency bulbs". More kudos are in order.

Of course, those kinds of statistics jump out at me like earthquake action on a lie detector polygraph. Seventy five percent of WHAT? [I do "subscribe" to the social observation from Sam Clements (better known as "Mark Twain") that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and then there are "statistics".] Do they mean to say that other "standard energy efficiency bulbs" contain 4 milligrams of mercury and theirs contain only 1 mg.? Thatīs 4 minus 75% of 4 (which, of course, is 3), leaving just 1 mg. Or do they really mean that "ordinary" energy efficiency bulbs contain 75% more mercury than theirs do, so thatīs 1 mg. plus 75% of 1 mg. which amounts to 1.75 mg. in the regular energy efficient CFL bulbs. Since the extra bit of cyberspace wouldnīt cost them anything extra, I would think that they would put an explanatory footnote on this page if it was the former, so I take it they mean that they hope you will not infer the latter. That is somewhat sad, because it is my cynicism that is getting the better of me today. Hereīs what GE (formerly known as "General Electric") has to say about those "ordinary" CFLīs.

"Is it true that CFLs contain mercury? Why and how much?

CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing - an average of 5 milligrams (roughly equivalent to the tip of a ball-point pen). Mercury is an essential, irreplaceable element in CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 600 CFLs to equal those amounts.

There is currently no substitute for mercury in CFLs; however, manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products over the past decade."

Waste Management is a kind of modern day Ed Norton. No, not the extremely talented young actor, Ed Norton, the Jackie Gleason Show/Honeymooners character Ed Norton, played by Art Carney. Ed worked in the sewers according to the storyline of the show, and so he tended to have a slight odor about him. Waste Management suffers from a similar taint, justified or not, but it genuinely does work at improving the environment, and wins the hearts of many environmentalists with its support of wildlife conservation through the National Elephant Center. How can any creature that huge, be that sensitive, gentle and just plain, CUTE!??!

Having come back around to old, wrinkled, grey things Boone and I both seem to qualify and while we are both concerned with alternative energy policy, it is not hard to tell us apart. Boone is urging his millions of supporters (he calls them his "army", an entirely too bellicose term for my taste) to wail on their congressional representatives (House and Senate) to support the principles and vote for a bill he calls the "NAT GAS Act". "Well, there he goes again!" as Ronald Reagan said about his opponent, Boone is dumbing down for popular consumption the bill that is actually titled, "New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009". Hereīs a summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan branch of the Library of Congress:

"New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow an excise tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuels and fuel mixtures involving compressed or liquefied natural gas; (2) allow an income tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuel motor vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural gas; (3) modify the tax credit percentage for alternative fuel vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas; (4) allow a new tax credit for the production of vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas; and (5) extend through 2027 the tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property expenditures for refueling property relating to compressed or liquefied natural gas and allow an increased credit for such property.

Requires 50% of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government by December 31, 2014, to be capable of operating on compressed or liquefied natural gas.

Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost."

Did you notice that middle paragraph? Fully HALF of all new vehicles purchased by the Federal Government between now and the end of 2014 have to run on natural gas? Iīll presume they mean "vehicles" in the sense of cars and trucks, and exclude boats and planes. And for that matter, urban service vehicles of the class discussed above (slow moving, exhaust belching garbage trucks, street sweepers and buses are great examples) would be a REALLY GOOD TARGET for CONVERSION to CNG, even up to 100%. But putting a target of 50% on ALL federal vehicle purchased for the next 5 years? Do we really want that to happen? It means putting up a lot of infrastructure specifically to service those federal vehicles. Hereīs a compromise suggestion that I rather like.

How about we ask congress to scrap HR 1835 and instead set a target of 50% of all electric plug-in hybrids purchased in the next 5 years be REQUIRED to have some flex fuel option(s) one of which could be CNG, but that at least 90% of the slow moving urban service vehicles (as mentioned above) which are not already on order but are purchased or ordered for delivery over the next 5 years must be flex-fuel capable, and at least one of the fuels they use must be CNG (thatīs a lot more flexible, including that computer tunable internal combustion engines could probably be set up to burn anything from a mixture of hydrogen and diesel fuel, to pure hydrogen, as well as CNG, thus) making CNG just one of many fueling options.

Think about how very, very, very clean a plug-in hybrid car that gets 100 miles to the "gallon of gas" could be if the "gas" it burned were compressed natural gas that pollutes relatively little to begin with. This is not some wild fantasy for the distant future. Word from Detroit is that engineers (and especially the marketing departments) are asking their research people to produce cars that actually GET 100 MPG as plug-in hybrids. Why? Well, thatīs fairly simple, because although we are used to hearing mileage statistics from Detroit automakers in the 20īs and 30īs for their cars, Europeans routinely are buying cars like the Volkswagen Golf TDI that get 45 MPG (yes, MILES per gallon, not kilometers) from their compact, turbocharged diesel engines. And although reports I have had from Toyota Prius drivers have been that the factory advertised (EPA quoted) MPG rating are not actually exactly what they are seeing, Priusī are suppose to get 60 MPG NOW, not in the future, but for the last couple of years as in CITY driving that uses the electric motor extensively. To be a really significant improvement over those kinds of figures, Detroit wants to be able to hit that 3 digit standard. Whether they make it in the first year or two of selling plug-in Hybrid models remains to be seen, but those are the targets they are looking to hit sometime soon, and if Chrysler and GM are going to survive, they had better hit them in the very near future, or simply be overwhelmed by foreign nameplate makers.

The word "important" is tossed around on Antiques Roadshow on PBS in reference to evaluations of various antiques, artworks and even historic relics from "ancient" Boston. The word has been devalued by such usage, but I have to say that it is my opinion that an "important" study has been released by a consulting group called, MONITOR. Monitor is a worldwide organization with offices around the world. That may be redundant to say, but the Times of London is a globally respected newspaper whose actual presence outside Britain is usually some grimy little closet on the third floor of some sweaty little back alley office where a lone journalist struggles with her Blackberry to file a story. MONITOR is no less global for the fact that some offices may only be a few staff members in any given country. In this instance their study covered a great number of countries even though the report focuses mainly on successes in India. It is important, I hope youīll agree, when you understand what they are talking about.

Their report is called, Emerging Markets, Emerging Models subtitled, "Market Based Solutions to the Challenges of Global Poverty". Despite the thousands of lives that charitable efforts save each year, millions more are dying because poverty is so widespread and pervasive a problem throughout the developing world (not to mention there are significant numbers of people who suffer in developed nations as well, in spite of their various welfare safety nets). I donīt think it is "unfair" to say that the "war in poverty" is being lost based on the model of voluntary charitable efforts, both religious and secular. This report suggests a different route.

MONITOR examines a variety of successful business models that really address the needs of poor people, not just what outsiders decide they "need", but in order to succeed, it has to be what those people "want" instead. Cell phones, being a "pay as you go" and "pay for use" system where the hardware is virtually or actually "free" (subsidized by the profits of the carrier with rebates of any hardware costs to the consumer) are something that can become a shared community resource. A cooperative group of cabbage growers can survey markets and buyers through use of such a cell phone and therefore negotiate with greater confidence and strength for a fair price from their local buyer of a national grocery store chain. I use that example partly because it is one that has been recognized and used fairly extensively in the "microfinance" industry that lends small business loans (usually to cooperatives of women) to allow the poorest of people with no collateral to start and thrive in their own businesses. Microfinance repayment rates have been so high that they shame the traditional banking industry. Microfinance costs are high, too, because bank representatives often have to spend time "tending" their loans in person, in the field, including establishing and training these groups of women to be business cooperatives and to be aware of the opportunities. The, Emerging Markets, Emerging Models report looks at opportunities like microfinance from the opposite side, which is to say, what can businesses do to cultivate markets that work under business models that work among the poor. (The report also mentions that "poor" is not an insult or a bad word among poor people, and that most poor people self-identify as "poor".) The "important" part about this report is both that business and industry are beginning to realize that serving the poor is a viable market, and that promoting business independence among the poor is a strong stable way to build a network or suppliers or consumers, or both.

Moreover, the more successful these poverty base business models succeed, the more poor people raise themselves and their families above the levels of abject poverty that leads families to sell their children into indentured servitude or even the sex trade, to petty theft, or more desperate criminal activities to merely stave off hunger and starvation. Society as a whole benefits, and a widening middle class emerges. Developed countries have to recognize that exploiting foreign labor is not in the best interest of the planet in the long run, and not taking "the long run" into consideration means that we are bequeathing our future generations massive problems that we ourselves have created, rather than that "better world" we hoped to pass on to them and their children.

I saw The Proposal starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds a film directed by Step It Up director/choreographer Anne Fletcher, who, after about 14 years in the movie business has had a meteoric rise in the last few years, including choreographing Bring It On (2000), and Hairspray (2007), a possibly pivotal point being her work on the acclaimed HBO series, Six Feet Under on multiple episodes from 2001 to 2005. Everyone in the whole cast of The Proposal is nothing short of terrific, and even though the plot is a fairly tired re-tread, I havenīt laughed so much in a movie in a long time. How much more hearty a recommendation can I give it than that?

There has been entirely enough news coverage and analysis on the situation in Iran in recent days, none of which exceeds the quality of insight from Hooman Majd who appeared on both Fareed Zakaria GPS and HBOīs Real Time with Bill Maher this weekend. I do think that the key to Iran is that the existing theocratic government has missed one crucial point in the theory of what a society should be, which is that it also must question even the fundamental assumptions on which it has been constructed and always strive not to preserve the past but to build toward a better future. We often make mistakes along the way to what we think will be a better future, but we MUST STRIVE to achieve more, or we remain a world of goat herders and mud hut builders.

Happy thought to end with? There has been lots of good news in business this week that I am not "allowed" to talk about.

Love and warm wishes,

Sincerely,

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

http://daochienergy.com