A Networked World

More sustainability BS

I can't believe that we are still reading this stuff. We have secret to sustainable paint. Don't get me wrong, there is every reason to try new stuff and push the limits as far as they can go but where the hell was the journalist's mind here?

Resene believes it has identified the secret ingredient that will allow it to produce the world's first sustainable paint.

In August the paint-maker was the inaugural winner of What's Your Problem New Zealand?, a competition set up by the Crown research institute Industrial Research.

The prize was $1 million of research, and Resene has wasted no time in getting its project under way to develop a waterborne paint that is based on resins made up of 80 per cent sustainable ingredients.

Waterborne paints at present use acrylic as a resin, and existing environmentally friendly alternatives contain only 30 to 40 per cent sustainables.

The key is to find a substitute that will allow it to make a paint based on resins made of 80 per cent renewables.

The company will only say that the ingredient will be non-cropping (it won't compete with food crops for space) and is likely to come from existing industrial waste streams.

So lets go through that again shall we?

Resene believes it has identified the secret ingredient that will allow it to produce the world's first sustainable paint.

sustainable - Wiktionary
1. able to be sustained
2. able to be sustained for an indefinite period without damaging the environment, or without depleting a resource; renewable

OK? Simple; at the end of the day we have as much of the same quality of resources as we started with. So, how does it measure up?

The prize was $1 million of research, and Resene has wasted no time in getting its project under way to develop a waterborne paint that is based on resins made up of 80 per cent sustainable ingredients.

Weasel number one. to put it another way, this paint is 20% UNsustainable. Now, unless you can throw out of the formula the 20% that is not sustainable, then as soon as you run out of the unsustainable ingredients, you stop making the paint. Here, take enough food for a walk across the Nullabor plain and 80% of the water you will need. Have a nice trip. There is no such thing as percentage sustainability, your ability to produce anything is absolutely limited to the least available element. When that runs out, you are done.

Waterborne paints at present use acrylic as a resin, and existing environmentally friendly alternatives contain only 30 to 40 per cent sustainables.

See above, it doesn't matter whether your sustainable elements are 10% or 99%, its the non-renewables that will kill you. Now, not adding to the environmental load is in itself a good thing so 80% renewables is better than 30%, but sustainability it isn't.

The company will only say that the ingredient will be non-cropping (it won't compete with food crops for space) and is likely to come from existing industrial waste streams.

More weasels. If the sustainable elements comes from existing waste streams then they are absolutely dependent on the continuance of those waste streams in sufficient quantity to feed the sustainable paint mix. If those waste streams are legislated out of existence, or if they are generated by non-renewables, they too are going to stop and the sustainable paint is wholly dependent on the least renewable constituent of the other company's waste stream.

Furthermore, if the recovered ingredients are themselves composed of non-renewable atoms, Resene has shifted the problem exactly one step and, while they may have reduced some costs by being able to discount the waste content of their providing industries, they have exposed themselves to all the uncertainties that those industries have to deal with. I would bet they have increased their business risk by 50% or more.

I'm all for safer paint, I'm all for products that remove anything from the waste stream that can be reused as something else, but I'm 100% against misrepresenting this as sustainable, it's not even close.

Reality checks and data points

This piece from CIO.com is a nice reality check and the general principles apply to everyone, not just IT people. Retire? How About Never?

Overall, the recession has had far more of an economic impact on late-middle-aged adults. In an April Pew Research Center study of 2,969 adults aged 50 to 64, nearly 75% said the nation's economic problems are making it difficult to afford retirement.
Click here to find out more!

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in that age bracket said their 401(k) accounts or individual stocks have been clobbered, with two in 10 claiming that their investments have lost 40% of their value and another four in 10 saying nearly 20% to 40% of their retirement funds have been erased.

I have never believed that I would be able to retire, not just because I could not save enough to do so, but because I have known half my life that when the moment came to kick back I would be doing it with millions of other boomers whose removal from the "productive" economy would shrink that economy and make it too small to support us.

I've also been pretty much convinced that rule number one of investing is "never give your money to someone else to play with on your behalf, never, ever, no, I really mean it, never"

So I have paid off my mortgage and I'm building an urban homestead where we are aiming to be able to live, not just survive, on about $200 a week in current dollars.

While most of the rest of my peers have spent their lives trying to get rich enough to retire, I've spent mine learning to live poor.

My wife is a teacher on a 4 year contract and she has 2 years to go. Here's how I rate that contract.

• Chances of it being renewed on similar terms - 20%
• Chances of being significantly cut on renewal - 40%
• Chances of not being renewed 20%
• Chances of being bought out before the end 20%
• Chances of surviving any of those otucomes, pretty good.
  

Now eher are some more data points.

1. 56 year old family member on contract for a company that provides training to large insurance and financial companies. Unpaid for several months, yesterday asked me for a loan to get through Christmas
2. 58 year old CFO for several medium sized north American companies. Laid off in march, 10 months on global search for new job. Nothing
3. 58 year old former exec and successful business man. Lost his company 3 years ago, still no job and about to run out of money

Just people close enough to hear about their actual problems and 2 of those in the last 4 days. Interestingly, all three are still in denial about their real situation, still looking for the silver lining that tells them all is going to come back to what they fondly believe is normal.

Economic recovery? Not close.

This thing hasn't even cleared its throat yet and as the CIO peives goes on to say, "there is no place to hide in this economy"

Do we still have the leisure to be "creative"?

As usual, Johnnie points to some interesting ideas that kick me off. Change and diversity

Jack Ricchiuto has some thoughts on how change happens in networks.

...the possibility space for change opens up when we connect different people who can begin resonating together around shared stories, opportunities, and dreams. It’s a process of liberating people from the confines of clusters of sameness and ideological colonialism so they can move toward more diverse connections and pragmatic alignments.

The phrase clusters of sameness resonates for me and I think organisations often clog up with those. He continues:

the fusion of difference and resonance is a powerful approach because in that space, people move away from trying to change each other, which opens the space for the possibilities of creating innovative.. changes.. Resonant listening to one another’s differences allows us to join in both-and innovations that could never be possible in an either-or constrained world

I agree about the processes, but I think the crucial thing that gets left out of all this is that there is no way to steer the process towards a "desirable" (for whomever) outcome, nor can we determine the result in advance.

We live in a control-oriented mindset, change that we do not initiate frightens us and we try to reassert whatever control we thought we had, change that we do initiate gets out of control very quickly and we waste more resources trying to get back in control.

In every case we resist any change that we don't think we can determine in advance. But we live in a real world where change is permanent and uncontrolled. Hell I remember writing in an essay in high school something to the effect that "in order to maintain a constant relationship with a constantly changing world, we have to change, constantly".

I thought it was pretty cool then and I still agree with its foundation, the only thing I'd add is that the constant relationship is itself impossible, that changes too.

The whole idea of change management is a crock. Change, like shit, happens. Our biggest problem is that we are not inclined, nor do we learn, nor are we taught as part of our education, to understand, adapt, participate in or benefit from the changes that happen. Still less are we able to abandon changes that are short term wins but long term failures.

For me, this is about opening space so that we can explore experiences fully, without the pressure to problem-solve.

I'd love that to be true but I think we are running out of the lleisure we've had to be purely creative. The number and urgency of problems that we are going to have to solve, on a personal and daily basis, as well as a community and national one, is getting bigger, faster. Those of us, like me, who have had it damned easy all our lives and had the luxury of being able to invent, innovate and think about the world rather than get our hands dirty in it are going to spend the rest of those lives working much harder for much less money and often less return of all kinds.

With dwindling resources, the small problems that we simply threw some money at are going to become harder to deal with and the big problems such as climate change and PO are starting to cause medium sized problems such as landslips and crop failures that just wont go away. We've had 2 generations of cruising on the capital, from here on we will be paddling like hell to stay afloat.

If anything we need tools like open space and theatre sports as a form of rapid prototyping; spaces where we can bring hard problems, trial a bunch of possible solutions and take them away to work on them.

Jim Kunstler asks the question

While he can go over the top a bit, Kunstler is definitely on my team when it comes to the reality-based life. And once again, in Self-jiving Nation he asks the question that nobody else seems to have thought of:

I'd like to know what folks imagine we are recovering to. To a renewed orgy of credit-card spending? To yet another round of suburban expansion, with the boys in the yellow hard-hats driving stakes out in the sagebrush for another new thousand-unit pop-up "community?" For a next generation of super-cars built to look like medieval war wagons? That's the "hope" that our officials seem to pretend to offer.

Exactly, the talking heads all talk about this recovery, but its always a recovery "from" the crash and never, ever, about what our lives and communities and economies will look like once we have "recovered".

It's completely inconsistent with any reality-based trend-lines, by the way.

When the Australian Government commissions a report that says nearly a million homes are in direct danger of rising sea levels and that it should consider compulsory acquiisition and demolition of some homes as an option, the destination of the recovery looks a lot less sunny than most of the discuission would have us assume.  Make evacuation plans

Urgent action to cope with the impact of rising sea levels needs to start now, including improving evacuation routes for coastal communities during extreme storms and flooding.

As well, a sweeping federal parliamentary report calls for an overhaul of the building code to make homes more resilient and for the legal liability for future property losses to be sorted out.

Warning that ''the time to act is now'', the bipartisan report brought down last night states that thousands of kilometres of coastline have been identified as at risk from the threat of rising sea levels and extreme weather events caused by climate change.

The only note of compulsory cynicism I can muster for this one is that, coincidentally, the coastline is disproportionately owned by the wealthiest members of society who would probably be handsomely bailed out by such legislation.

A few years ago they were squawking about their properties being protected and told they would have to suck it up and take the hit because the community could not afford to protect coastal landscape to that degree. Looks like they may have found a good fairy after all.

Towards the new normal

Whenever I'm with Steve barnett, he's usually drinking and I'm the designated driver. Mostly because he and my wife are members of a wine club and when they go on high-class pub crawls (or winery tours) and I of the cardboard palate drive the people mover. When he talks about business he reminds me a lot of Johnnie Moore and Rob Paterson; and me. Learn fast: things aren’t (ever) returning to “normal”.

National Bank (NZ) Chief Economist Cameron Bagrey... confessed he’s embarrassed that his profession’s consistently got it wrong: failed to predict the current recession and doesn’t have a clue how to fix.

He says only one thing’s for certain: we can’t go back to the way it was. Anyone who thinks that things will return to “normal” is stupid. The policy makers are determined it won’t; determined we figure out new ways to do, manage and teach business and the economy. Previous answers are wrong.

[...] I seriously doubt NZ Business Education can change from its prescriptive right-answer model any time soon, hobbled as it is by administrators and their anti-professional, centralised rules and controls, and know-no-better student and employer market.

I’m sceptical too that NZ business managers can abandon their manager-knows-best, right-answer approach any time soon: go deeper than recite the superficial lists of “secrets” peddled in popular business management literature.

Actually, if Steve thinks its only NZ managers, he's dreaming. The managerial class is global, its largely responsible for the problem and will cling to its paycheque till the collapsing businesses they parasitise crumble in their hands.

[...] Here’s the guts: (really) involve everyone; confess ignorance (starting at the top); spend time together generating a long term goal that everyone’s passionate about but not sure how to achieve; get very clear on the medium term strategy and short term goals that stand to take you towards the long term; openly generate and agree clear individual and collective accountabilities in achieving the change; openly measure progress to keep individuals and groups (at all levels) openly accountable for their contribution; continually review and revise in the light of individual and collective experience; take every opportunity to talk about the long term goal and the actual action and progress towards it.

I think he's optimistic here.

In the new normal, we have so little idea of what will work that the idea of goals and strategies may be a waste of time as well. As our energy and financial resources are decimated we will gain new appreciations of those resources that are left.

I think there might be some new parameters that will have more power in the future.

• We will demand much higher value returns for any of those irrecoverable resources that we expend, especially if we hand them to someone else.
  
• We will increasingly trade time for goods and services. Where we have invested a lot througout my lifetime in "saving time" we will now "spend" or invest, that time ratrher than use a resource like energy.
• Things will slow down in some areas such as travel and material flows
• Information shipping will speed up as we reduce even further the documentary exchanges and rely more on electronics (saving paper, energy etc)
• Discretionary spending will evaporate and the industries based on them will disappear. If we spend more time waiting, travelling or producing things we will have less liesure time and less money to spend in it.
• Energy and material flows at a personal, community and business level will become a critical part if every economic model and activity.
• The idea of waste will disappear, we will be much more conscious that we can't 'afford" it any more. The idea that we should pay for packaging, then pay to have it taken away and pay again in opportunity costs merely to have a wrapper will become laughable, if not criminal
• Product design, durability, ease of use and fitness for purpose will become absolute criteria for everything
• We will all need to try many, small actions that may or may not succeed. We will need to be deadly honest about the outcomes and rethink those that fail while iterating those that seem to succeed.
• We will need to acknowledge that, at a time of paradigm shift, nothing will be reliable for quite a long time; what worked yesterday may not work again tomorrow. That is why small, iterative actions will be the only safe ones, there will be no more going large.
  
• Your turn. What other geenral rules do you think might fit here and does this make any sense at all?

I'm planning some renovations to my house - we have been since we moved in 2 years ago - and the other night I was using Google Sketchup (a brilliant bit of software) to turn the 2D plan into a 3D model so we could try stuff out.

I put in a work bench for building things and a wet area for wine making and a pot still for recovering essential oils from the flowers and herbs and plenty of space for creating stuff and storing it and for tools and consumables like glues and screws and so forth.

And then I stood back and realised that I am making not just a workshop a small artisanal factory that would fit in the 19th century or earlier. I'm doing it because it is the logical outcome of thinking about local production andtrying to close the energy and material flow loops as tightly as possible.

When i build stuff, I use screws not nails so that everything can be dismantled and used again in something else. More rules.

• Low energy dismantle-ability
• Repurposing all manner of manufactures
  
• Building things that can be applied to new uses
• Shared spaces, shared tools, shared skills
  

What else?

Peak everything

Now diamonds
Diamonds aren't forever, the pipes are running dry

A CUT diamond is the ultimate in discretionary expenditure. So when the global financial crisis hit last September, it was no surprise global demand for sparklers collapsed.

But it isn't all gloom for diamonds. In fact, the world is short of new mine supplies. According to Rio and BHP Billiton analysis, most existing mine resources for rough stones will be gone within 15 years.

This is because new diamond discoveries are becoming increasingly rare. According to Rio, annual discoveries of kimberlite ''pipes'' - kimberlite is a host rock for diamonds - have fallen (on a five-year moving average basis) to little more than 100. And history shows that only one in 10 kimberlite pipes contain diamonds and only one in 100 of those are economic to mine.

The lack of new discoveries since the mid-1980s means the world's mine reserves of rough diamonds have fallen from 80 years' supply to the 15 years that Rio now forecasts.

The squeeze on new mine supplies comes as Rio forecasts 4 per cent compound annual growth rates in rough diamond demand out to 2020 - as supply contracts at a 1.6 per cent rate.

Unlike most things that have peaked and are now in decline, diamonds are, mostly, optional and discretionary.

It will be interesting to see whether the diminishing possibility of owning diamonds increases the desire for them or causes it to wane. For a while it will drive the desire even higher, along with prices, but I'd bet that, once they are all gone, like Tuna, we will discover that we didn't really need them after all and our desire for them will disappear.

Except, of course, for those things for which they are a commodity, like drill bits, and a black market will open up where drillers sneak around back alleys buying up stolen necklaces and bracelets for their bits and grinders.

Illargi does it again

The Automatic Earth: is one of my favourite hangouts and has been for a long time. They have been ahead of the economic game for years and right now they are coming under fire because they refuse to resile from their hard line of "it ain't over, not by a long shot".

But in defending their position Illargi touches on something so fundamental that it gives me the shivers to read it. I once suggested to my niece that there is a serious question whether our species is amny smarter than yeast and so far the outlook is not good. But this one nails it. The one fatal trait

People are by nature so hugely biased against the possibility of bad things happening to them, they'll all sign up for the first soothsayer with a story that uses the appropriate words. They’ll choose short-term gratification over the prospect of long-term hardship any time, any day. It matters little to nothing what tomorrow brings, as long as tonight the booze and the music's good enough to make them forget, and to evoke memories of better days.

And the morning after, they'll go look for another smooth voice. If it weren't like that, no-one could ever sell a second-hand car again. Or a good book. Or a detergent or a president. Regardless of the limits the world around us places on us, our hopes and dreams know no limits. That is a beautiful thing, as long as you put it in the right (re:smooth) words.

It also means, however, that we cannot put limits on ourselves, on what we do; maybe as individuals, but not as a species, not as a force of nature. The same need for comfort and redemption that makes us follow the circus, is the one that makes us penetrate ever deeper into the few corners of the world we haven't seen yet, and drag out of those corners what could make us belive that the clown, Bernanke, is our savior.

We can't help it, it’s what we are. There are exactly zero species on the planet that have been outfitted with an inbuilt limiter, and we are no exception. We will continue until the planet, the system, whatever you want to call it, imposes such limits on us. There has never been a need for nature to make species stop themselves, it's the one fatal trait that would destroy the driving force behind evolution.

The driving force behind evolution is the acceptance of species' extinction as the environment changes and the ecological niches shift. As we refuse to confront climate change, as we choose to squint at peak oil and especially as we sprinkle pixie dust on the economic blunders its disheartening in an existential way, to consider that this mad rush at the wall is hard wired.

The linearity problem

Yet another great link from Johnnie that triggers something. No straight lines

I enjoyed Alan Moore's slideshare from Reboot Britain, No Straight Lines. It's worth taking a good look.

Al kicks off with a very funny story about a train journey and an iPod that I won't spoil by summarising. And goes into a passionate diatribe against the limits of linear thinking.

Its not just the lack of linearity that we need to accept, its the lack of sequence. Also not wanting to screw up the joke.

But we almost never learn anything in a stepwise, linear fashion. We grab bits of it passing by, and fiddle with our understanding of them, and sometimes for a long time we "just don't get it" because even when we have all the bits they are like a jigsaw puzzle in a bag, the picture is there but we can't 'see" it.

And some people never do. Especially, paradoxically, those who are best at stuff like computer programming where sequence and excruciating detail is critical. Then one day, apparently without any relevant input, we "get" it.

And I suspect that is where, god help me, real innovation occurs. Someone has most of the bits, but can't make them fit so they create a bit, a new bit that didn't exist before but which connects the thing in an entirely different way

And because the world is NOT a jigsaw puzzle, what happens is that the new bit makes all the old bits fit together in different ways as well. Which is why change can be so disorienting.

We recognise that many of the old bits are there but they are somehow distorted in ways we don't understand. So the response of those who were comfortable with the old ways things worked try to pretend that the old bits still work in the old ways, that its just their perception that is wonky; because to accept that the whole world is wonky is just too much of a challenge.

We are, in effect, betrayed by the proximity to familiarity that wouldn't happen if we, say, suddenly moved to Tanzania and had to learn Swahili to survive. When we shift our entire domain we recognise its foreignness, but when that shift happens around us it takes time to adjust to that suspiciously familiar but actually completely different reality.

That seems to me the problem with peak Oil, with Climate change, with the end of western financial capitalism, it all still LOOKS the same, or closely enough to fool us into believing that we don't have to change anything to deal with the problem.

Wrong.

And one more point about non-linearity, it entails outputs that are grossly inconsistent with the inputs and apparently disconnected from them.

More sunshine and fresh air

The people I have been reading for nearly the last decade have been sayin g exactly this. Economist's warning: Oil supplies are running out fast

Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.

In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years - at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.

But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago.

On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.

In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil - mostly in the Middle East - would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010.

"One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day," Dr Birol said.

"The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously," he said.

The only question I have is why, when they have had the best possible information that anyone could have, it had taken so long to acknowledge this.

Stall the recovery? The very least of our problems. By far.

Roubini's yellow weeds of stagnation

Nouriel Roubini has been too right, for too long, for this not to be a clear warning. He taps 9 points to think about in Roubini Sees Yellow Weeds, Not Green Shoots but this one does it for me

Second, this is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has not really started, because private losses and debts of households, financial institutions, and even corporations are not being reduced, but rather socialized and put on government balance sheets. Lack of deleveraging will limit the ability of banks to lend, households to spend, and firms to invest.

We have a public reserve at the end of the street which is a reserve because it is essentially a watercourse and in winter it gets sodden for weeks on end. Like now.

The grass is starting to turn yellow because there is just too much water and it is drowning. To me its the perfect symbol for what is happening in the global economy, as governments try desperately to pump some life into it with massive injections of adrenaline.

But it doesn't make any difference when the size of the global economy is only X, giving it enough food for 2X is not only meaningless, it could be drowning it.

And if, as Roubini says, the deleveraging has not, in fact, begun but the leverage has just been moved to the whole economy, we have not moved an inch beyond the original problem. There is a huge amount of theoretical value that has to be extinguished and until it is we will have no valid way to set real prices in the economy. Until we can set reral prices we have no way of knowing whether we can pay them.

We haven't started the work yet. Meanwhile, get a look at the latest from Dmitry Orlov