To Tree Hug or not to Tree Hug? That is the question...

Sometimes we run into situations in life where its too late to undo what has been done and the only thing left is to chose between the "lesser evil" option.

If you are at a friends house and accidentally run into a large ceramic vase and the vase breaks. You can't undo what you did, the options left are: 1- to compensate for the loss by buying or paying for a substitute or 2- to piece the vase back together and somehow glue it back into shape. Either choice yields a bad result, but sadly, there is no way to go back in time and undo the damage.

I have talked to people across the "tree hugger" spectrum. People who believe "mother earth" is hurting and "she" needs our love and caring attention. And people who say that climate change is nonsense and that we are not impacting nature in any way by just going on with our lives.

We will only know the reality of today's status when we see the consequences in the future, and by then, it will be too late to change the result.

So let's try to make sense out of what we have today. Does Greentech stand a chance to help us avoid running into a unwanted "point-of-no-return" scenario?

I have said it many times: Greentech has to have economic feasibility. The cost of solar power has to match the cost of coal power. But, who says the cost should only represent materials plus labor. What about cost of public health. What about the cost of losing our bees (read this article Group Sounds Alarm on European Bee Industry)

The other factors we need to take into account when we compare Greentech to existing sources of Energy, Water and Waste Management are (a) the Economies of Scale and (b) the Research & Development amortization.

For example: A coal burning plant has several choices of vendors for their equipment (the risk of building a plant and getting it wrong are minimal); the sources of coal are well established and we know how to exploit them; the electric grid is designed to receive electricity from this type of source, etc. Today's entire world is set-up to generate energy from carbon. On top of all this, the majority of the cost of R&D for coal energy has been already paid for (as well as the cost of R&D for cars that run on oil, classical waste treatment methods, etc.).

Greentech will need a "boost" to achieve a competitive level with the existing technologies. Not only do we need to artificially create Economies of Scale for the replacement of coal plants, but we will also have to find a way to offset the cost R&D. That is why the CEO of Duke Energy agrees that coal is very bad for the environment and we need to substitute it, but he is not taking concrete steps to achieve that. Watch this:

Perhaps we are taking the correct steps to avoid running into a point-of-no-return situation (see Clinton Says U.S. Is Ready to Lead on Climate). I just want to leave you with the following thought: even though many people disagree on what happens after you die, few are willing to take the step to find out.

Here are some interesting comments I received for Who is holding Greentech back?:

"I don't believe it is who but what.
Any investment unless it is an emotional decision comes down to payback. Many green investments don't payback within many financial investor's needed timeframe.
With that said, I believe many are getting close."

"The banks or investors must check the results… that's why, good scientific consultants are required in financial business!!!!"

"So much for the great American Capitalistic system. This kind of environment is no more no less than the same economic mine field that was created around the sub prime mortgage fiasco and no one even wants to discuss it.
What has to happen is that a completely new means of funding has to be created to support viable technologies that are waiting in the wings. This could be done on the same level as what was done in the oil and gas industry with the “Royalty Trust Agreements” or some other financial instrument along those lines that reward the investors based on “PRODUCTION” derived from the process output and the effectiveness of the product in the market place"

"Wow, you really hit the nail on the head. Entrepreneurs like me who have risked so much to create a new technology are being hung out to dry by the more comfortably situated. Real entrepreneurs who risk their own money and careers (not the cushy kind who step right into a paid position with a startup) are treated as irresponsible and reckless"

"Of course oil companies are going to try to stomp out greentech... it is very much hitting them where it hurts...their money. The greentech companies have to infiltrate by really selling themselves with the saving money pitch. I know this may sound like it goes against what greentech is about but you need to speak in the language of big business. If you can go into a hotel chain and tell them your innovation will save them big bucks they will listen and in fact they just might invest in your greentech company"

"Cheap fossil fuels"

"You are correct the decision makers do not have enough information to define what is green or what is brown...they have a lot of hype...and perceptions that are incorrect"

"The Greentech bank is an interesting idea. The US has the resources to become a world leader in the alternative energy space"

"I love it. And it’s even worse if you are not developing a widget. My Energy Credit Card has a business method patent. My customers will be electric utilities and the closer I get to those "decision makers" the more entrenched they are and/or just plain scared of the simplicity of the Energy Credit Card.
For the curious, here is a short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBDZUQQLRBs"

"It is not just the credit markets that are holding Greentech back. Two other candidates are government and the consulting engineering industry"

"Maybe the answer is to learn to do a better job of educating the current crop of money people about the value of taking risks in such areas and/or doing a better job of demonstrating long-term benefits"

Until next time: SHALOM!