e3regenesis

2011-02-07T14:27:00.000-08:00

How Green Are China's Cities?
The document below is very powerful by itself and by the fact that McKinsey has provided a platform and has a deep grasp of the various issues that we are addressing.
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_green_are_Chinas_cities_2734

They are providing a solid data-based analysis with reports from multiple perspectives. This is no "single factor analysis" that the basic principles of science warn every researcher against.
There are too many variables to draw simple conclusions and even those who are multidimensional (such as McKinsey) cannot do it alone. This is too big for any one company.

Those who pick up one dimension alone and try to parlay it into a business pitch, distort reality and thus contribute to failures and setbacks. For example the "corn ethanol solution" to the fossil fuel energy problems.

The key is to bring together the solid research, data and technologies with those who can implement geometric improvements through collaboration.

That is our challenge.

Those who identify the "ecocity" projects that have failed on one dimension or another in China (or elsewhere) are impeding progress as much as those who try to hide their mistakes to "save face" and avoid embarrassment.

A basic advantage of a true scientific method is the ability to learn from one's mistakes and find better solutions. How many times did Thomas Edison "fail" to discover the light bulb before he eliminated methods that did not work and found one that did? Now we we have followed his example and discovered ever better models such as Compact Florescent Lights and now we are moving on to LED lighting.

Chinese people are moving into cities at the rate of 11 Million per year, on average. If they move into overcrowded and inefficient cities, they will contribute to pollution and reinforce an energy economy that is already broken. Instead, they are encouraged to move into new cities that are better planned (at least that is the intention).

Will there be more mistakes? Absolutely! The key is whether they learn from these experiments and create breakthrough solutions to the the largely dysfunctional cities of the "industrial age."

Our consulting practice, our connections, our ability to introduce perspectives and technologies from Asia, the USA, Europe, and Australia have taught us to understand various technologies well enough to explain them across communities of practice and cultures. Since we know many key players, this enables us to provide considerable value as we bring together global experts and technologies for mutual benefit.

The potential for Chinese, American and global cities is phenomenal. Together we can revive all of our economies and grow them substantially as long as we work for a comparative understanding of general benefits and the unique benefits in each location.

2010-10-22T13:51:00.000-07:00

Wal-Mart building local supply chains - Food Systems Insider

Update on Wal-Mart sustainability and social responsibility in supply chain management. By supporting local growers and suppliers they reduce transportation, get fresher foods and provide some income to local business.

There is a common perspective on big box stores and small business that may be overly simplistic. Certainly some do damage local business, including Wal-Mart historically, but it does not have to be that way. In some cases this may be a good example of "coopetition." On the other hand, one must be vigilant because no system will work optimally without constant fine tuning.

I welcome different perspectives In your experience is this just green washing or is it a workable approach to combining the best of both forms of organization?

2010-09-20T23:10:00.000-07:00

Thomas L Friedman's NY Times article Aren’t We Clever? made a very provocative statement:

"Some of America’s Republicans turned “climate change” into a four-letter word — J-O-K-E — China’s Communists also turned it into a four-letter word — J-O-B-S."

While there is truth in this statement, the real truth, and the point he made, is that the future depends on cooperation between the US and China, Republicans and Democrats, Businesses and Green Activists.

This quote is a deliberate oversimplification to drive home the critical point that ideological and nationalistic arguments prevent us from understanding, and from solving, the serious problems that threaten to undermine both our countries and the planetary system.

Even "climate change" is only one symptom among many of the poor health of our planetary economic, ecological and social systems. It is like saying that a sick person with a fever "has a fever."

Medical doctors are trained to treat causes and restore balance in our bodily systems, not to simply treat symptoms. Yet, sometimes even medical professionals become so specialized that they do not treat us as whole people. When they do that, we do not fully get well under their care.

Likewise, politicians, economists, engineers, businesses, farmers and urban planners do not make our communities healthy unless they examine the full context in which they operate and collaborate to solve problems. We all experience life through our own eyes, experiences and education. Fighting over our different experiences is like "the blind men and the elephant" story. It actually prevents us from understanding the larger reality and deprives us of the insights each observer and stakeholder has to contribute.

There is wonderful progress being made in America and in China toward creating healthier economies and communities even while there are terrible disasters created when opportunities are pursued and problems solved without understanding their impact on other parts of our social, economic and ecological systems.

As Friedman said: "And because runaway pollution in China means wasted lives, air, water, ecosystems and money — and wasted money means fewer jobs and more political instability — China’s leaders would never go a year (like we will) without energy legislation mandating new ways to do more with less. It’s a three-for-one shot for them. By becoming more energy efficient per unit of G.D.P., China saves money, takes the lead in the next great global industry and earns credit with the world for mitigating climate change."

He also recognizes that there are things American companies and local governments do better than their Chinese counterparts. When we work together we all benefit. Let's stop simply pointing fingers of blame and suspicion; instead, let us praise one another for things done right and help each develop innovative solutions that will benefit each other and the planet.

In my paper on Green Building Standards in California and China you will see that while California is leading the US in setting green building standards that will benefit our citizens with cheaper energy and healthier buildings with CALGREEN standard which will take effect in January 2011, the Chinese National Ministry of Construction transformed itself into the Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Development (MOHURD) and established a "Three Point" national standard in 2006 that promotes efficient and clean energy, water, air, and comfort in an integrated urban-rural context and yet is adaptable to local conditions. Neither is perfect, but like ISO (International Standards Organization) standards, they are appropriately flexible so they can be applied in different contexts. They not only set strict minimum requirements for safety and health but also encourage continual improvement.

Of course, the Chinese have more people and a less developed economy so they experience the problems of poor planning more deeply. They also better understand the urgency of reform more readily than some American leaders because they deeply experience the impacts of planning errors.

They, like us, have businesses that will take shortcuts when they can get away with it. Therefore, as we work to collaborate, we all must be vigilant to guide all those who are prone to take shortcuts as a result of ignorance or greed. This is the only way to secure greater benefits for all stakeholders.

2010-09-10T20:31:00.000-07:00

Whole Building Energy Efficiency:

Proven Building Energy Efficiency is not new! Do you know the story of Adobe Headquarters building efficiency breakthroughs? The result of one year of retrofits was reported in Fortune Magazine, October 16, 2006:

“To date, the company has invested about $1.1 million in 45 energy efficiency projects, yielding nearly $1 million in annual savings, including about $350,000 in energy rebates.”

While this is old news, and it is not the first such project, it proves that adopting a whole building approach enables huge savings with a quick payback: Full "ROI" was one year and savings were “gravy” after that.

But Adobe did not stop there. They continually monitor their building systems to identify wasteful processes and discover new opportunities. This year they added 20 vertical axis wind turbines above their garage. Due to the wind tunnel effect between office buildings they expect to generate 50,000 kWh per year.

The whole building approach to energy efficiency also works for buildings that do not have such large utility bills. The key is to map and measure energy use throughout the building, discover opportunities, make changes, then measure and report the results to make sure the changes were properly made. Then by continually monitoring energy use and emissions we can quickly discover and fix wasteful processes.