Browse
Engage
Research
Bold stuff.
Stepping back a bit, this could be the all-time greatest strategy … or the worst. Some have called it the big bang: Strike with the full agenda now while support is high and the votes will follow. Others say that trying to do too much will dilute focus and result in little or nothing being accomplished. (Jon Stewart, whose fake news is often better than the real version, quipped that Obama went over the top when he vowed to cure cancer … you had me at health care reform).
So, what does this all mean for green business?
First, energy and environment was the first of three major policy planks laid down on Feb 24 by the president. Was I the only one dumbfounded that his energy and environment agenda was placed before health care and education? With 10 percent of the recovery plan dedicated to cleantech, it seems clear that this administration sees green development as a key to economic recovery.
Second: With most of the big money lobbyists and pundits fully employed grappling with health care and tax reform, development of cleantech will be less of a target from opponents of "industrial policy."
Third: This administration is stacked with talent. The energy and environment team is experienced, competent and -- because most of them see an opportunity for legacy-making changes -- they are eager to move quickly. With the backing of the White House and wind at their backs with Congress and public opinion, expect to see rapid and significant moves implementing the green agenda.
We may look back on these times as salad days in the green business movement. Regardless of the outcome the next couple of years should be an interesting ride.
Tim Mohin is a principal consultant and team leader for EORM's growing sustainability and corporate social responsibility practice. Formerly, Tim was Apple's senior manager for supplier responsibility and led Intel's environmental and sustainability efforts. He also led the development of national environmental strategy at the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Senate, including the development of the National Environmental Technology Act. Email him by clicking here.
A marginal evaluation of "green policies"
The anonymous writer is exactly right. Mr. Morhin's article completely disregards the fact that perhaps a central planned economy-- albeit a green one!-- has several detrimental implications. Subsidies, tax-incentives will at the very least create malinvestment due the distortion of prices (i.e. making riskier/greener investments that much cheaper).
Fans of planned economies put their faith in the hope that one person or administration or bureaucracy was some "perfect" knowledge that for whatever reason, entrepreneurs free from government interference do NOT. To economists this a ludicrous statement because the government is so far removed from the price mechanism that drives our economy. Again I point to the above comment regarding the fact that to achieve an eco-friendly society in the most efficient manner, it needs to start from the private sector.
As good as the intentions may be on part of the federal government, the laws of nature are such that it is simply not possible for them to efficiently direct resources to their most efficient allocation. Thinking on the margins: where could these resources (money, raw material, science and R&D, etc.) be used otherwise? what else could they have accomplished (a CHEAPER fossil-fuel alternative, cure for cancer, Windows Operating System).
NY
Change in emphasis - no real change in leadership
Mr. Mohin's article doesn't for one moment question whether the government should be deeply involved in the environment, education and health care.
We've seen what happens when the government has been involved with energy in the past. The Federal Government makes more revenues from oil and oil-related revenues than the oil companies themselves. We've all learned to fear "big oil" and the effect on our energy policy, but the truth of the matter is "Big Government" has had much more at stake, and has hijacked our energy policy in it's own best interests (increased tax revenues).
Needless to say, the Government's involvement in the green and renewable energy sphere will very likely promote inefficient spending and inefficient results. Where "energy" and "efficiency" should go hand in hand, by time the Federal Government gets their hands on the renewable energy industry, "energy" and "efficiency" will become an oximoron.
As for health care, we've seen inefficiencies introduced by Federal, State government rules and regulations and the AMA union. More beurocracy and inefficiency is to follow.
As for education, we've seen such stupidity as "No Child Left Behind". We don't need a U.S. Department of Education. It costs us $40 billion per year (not including the bailout 80 billion dollar cash windfall the U.S. DOE will receive in addition). This money would be better spent by NOT sending those tax dollars to Washington and let Cities and Towns spend it on what matters most - TEACHING!
President Obama and his advisers are intellectually dishonest from the get-go. They've seized on a problem ("the economic downturn") and now believe that a greater role of government (and a lesser role of private enterprise) is somehow going to solve all our problems. Governments generally do not solve problems - their policies are part of the problem.
This is no different than President Bush seizing the problem of "911" ("war on terror") and turning it into a war in Iraq (and subsequent handouts for Bush's friends and the war industry).
So we've seen a change in emphasis, but no real change in leadership.