Put the pedal to the metals

In Canada, an organization known as the Ethical Oil Institute has been running ads advising businesses and governments to choose oil from Canada’s tar sands over that produced in Arab countries. After all, by buying the latter, you’re fueling governments with highly dubious (to say the least) records on human rights and counterterrorism. Environmentalists aren’t buying it, but if you’re going to use oil at all, you might as well choose the kind that hasn’t been tainted by terrorists. The same argument could be applied to rare earth elements.

Seventeen elements on the periodic table are considered rare earths: the 15 in the lanthanide series, plus scandium and yttrium. While they occur quite often in the Earth’s crust, they are only accessible in a very few areas, hence “rare.” They are used heavily in electronics of all kinds, plus magnets, lasers and metallurgical implements. The city of Ketchikan, Alaska, has been named as a possible location for a very lucrative rare earth mining industry.

Granted, if I were to choose a new American industry myself, mining would not be my first choice, but mostly for aesthetic reasons. While I have never traveled to Alaska (in fact, I haven’t been as far west as California since I was a baby), TV has taught me that the entire state, especially the mountainous parts, are absolutely beautiful. I wouldn’t want to see that marred by mining if we could get away with it.

But the economic counterargument is far stronger. The current world leader in rare earth production is, yes, China. This is one area in which America can compete with the Chinese without using monetary policy or trade revision to do it. More importantly, more private-sector mining jobs in Alaska could mean less dependence on federal largesse for its citizens.

This is how to grow the economy the old-fashioned American way: find something that promises long-term development and future sales (secure as long as we keep needing electronic things), and have private sources invest in it before the government does. That’s what’s poised to happen right now. The only catch worth complaining about is that permits in Alaska can take up to three years to obtain. Any measures that can cut this time ought to be taken, although I would not skip the step of an environmental impact assessment, just to be nice.

With any luck, someone will later find massive deposits of tin and tantalum so America can have a supply of truly conflict-free metal. These aren’t nearly as rare, but are used for many of the same purposes and rely more heavily on slave labor. Someone in Congress can lead here.

Bureaucracy is the crazy aunt of invention

An assignment in my first-year advertising class required us to write a commercial for something that didn’t exist. My group “invented” a reverse microwave: If your food was too hot, it would cool it down to just the right temperature within seconds, so you wouldn’t have to stick it in the fridge and be hungry for another five minutes. Did you come up with that before we did, last October or thereabouts? If so, don’t sue Kevin. (It was his idea!) Congress hates that.

The Senate is considering the House version of a bill intended to stem the ever-flowing tide of patent litigation. It would provide annual dedicated funding to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is an expenditure most of them seem to accept. It would also create a review process for challenges to bad patents before they go to litigation. Finally, it would issue patents to the first inventors who apply, without requiring them to prove the idea was theirs.

As much as I think the backlog of patent and intellectual property litigation can be solved in 30 seconds by locking the Whine-klevoss twits in a closet for all eternity, two out of three elements of this legislation are sound. The only people who like endless amounts of lawsuits, after all, are trial lawyers. The review process would, hopefully, stop that before it starts even more. In addition, consistent funding for patents would be one of the few worthy job creation measures we’ve seen yet.

I say “hopefully” because we can’t expect the review process to be flawless (this is the government we’re talking about), which is why the third element of the legislation is distinctly unsound. Suppose a few bad patents do end up being granted. In fact, suppose a lot of bad patents are granted. Not only does the real inventor sue the recipient, but the office. How much funding will cover a big pile of that?

Even if nobody goes to litigation in this situation, the backlog in the review stage could be even worse than it is at the application stage. The need for efficiency at the patent office should extend to the long term, and not trump the need for applications that are legally solid the first time they’re filed. It’s not too much to ask the inventors of America that they prove their legitimacy. This is an essential ingredient in sustained economic growth.

That said, excuse me while I stick some of this hot food in the MicroVerse to cool it down before I feed it to the twits. They must be starving in that closet.

But is there a smoking raygun?

With China holding so much leverage over the U.S. when it comes to the debt, and trade between the two countries disproportionately benefitting their economy, I wonder why President Obama is seeking to deepen the ties between the two countries further. That China has gained more from this relationship would continue to be true if those ties are deepened in space. Unfortunately for himself, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) hasn’t proven that this has happened to a concerning extent yet.

Because John Holdren, the White House’s Chief Science Adviser, met with his Chinese counterpart twice in May, Wolf says he has engaged in “technological cooperation”; a clause in this year’s budget legislation prevented this with China, on the grounds that it “steals U.S. industrial secrets and launches cyberattacks against the United States.” His “only response” to this transgression is to cut the Holdren’s budget by 55 percent. Their budget is a grant total of $6.6 million at the moment; the cut would reduce it to $2.9 million. 

Policy-wise, the advantage of collaboration to the U.S. would be the ability to learn more about China’s plans for its manned space program, which happens to be dominated by their military. It would also open up American space-related products to Chinese customers, although widening trade channels in that arena might not be so good for American employees of those producers. And, of course, China would probably expect details of the U.S. program in exchange.

Wolf, “a fierce critic of Beijing,” has not described the particulars of those meetings, thus we’re not sure if actual collaboration has taken place. His distrust of China, for which you can’t blame him, and his party’s desperation for slashable items in the budget, may have melded together into a somewhat shaky accusation. Holdren might want to show us some memos if he wants to prove that Wolf is wasting his time.

In addition, if this is Holdren’s mistake and it has security implications, Wolf’s cause might be better served by transferring this matter to the Oversight Committee. Holdren’s office, small as it is, could be the source of the U.S.’s next biggest success in the science and technology field. While I personally think setting a goal for a cure for cancer would be better than almost anything to do with space, the office would have a role to play in either.

Of course, I don’t think Wolf has a vendetta against technological progress or even the Obama administration – just a vendetta against China that may misdirect him. If anyone in Congress does, it’s this woman.

The most organic synthetic material you’ve ever seen

I realize now is the absolute worst time to be talking about something the federal government ought to invest more money in, but bear with me. I’m tired of the deficit/debt, and this is very exciting. A press release from last week outlined efforts by Sprint and Samsung to use more environmentally friendly plastics in their newest phones. I bring this up because this gives credibility to the economic opportunity that exists in the emerging field of bioplastic.

For those who have never heard of such a thing, bioplastic is a form of plastic made from organic materials, as opposed to petroleum. This allows some, though not all, to biodegrade as opposed to languishing intact for hundreds of years. Most are made from starches such as corn and peas, but others are made from cellulose, and some are made from various polymers that I can’t spell offhand. From 2000 to 2008, worldwide use of bioplastics grew by 600%. 

You have seen me repeatedly endorse green innovation as the cause of America’s next economic boom. Before, I had mostly been thinking in the context of renewable energy and transportation. But that pales in comparison to something that could revolutionize every industry that has ever depended on plastic. A combination of government investment and shareholder advocacy could make it happen, with the right amount of will.

The potential of bioplastic hit me when Adam and I were discussing a book I’d bought for him. I was explaining to him that, yes, Israeli business culture did factor in the environment, but not just out of concern for the planet. If they can take the lead in weaning the world off petroleum, it would cripple the economies of every Arab nation that considers it its lifeblood. For them, it’s as much about national security as it is about the environment.

But what would this do for the all-powerful petroleum industry in the U.S.? No doubt some who benefit greatly from its patronage will accuse proponents of bioplastic of wanting to kill American jobs and businesses. Not so – we just want to add different ones that would compete with oil. I should think the oil industry wasn’t afraid of a little battle every now and again.

When the U.S. is in a position to resume strategic investment for the purpose of job creation (10 years? 20?), they ought to take a good, hard look at bioplastic. Any state with a lot of agricultural waste and manufacturing space would certainly reap its rewards.

A price above carbon

This week, Adam and I discussed an outline I wrote, on the spur of the moment, for his first book. The environment is his primary interest – when it comes to politics, he’s a specialist whereas I’m a general practitioner – and that’s what the as-yet-untitled book will cover. His thesis statement is that green energy and technology will be the basis of the next economic boom worldwide, which I definitely agree with. He will also endorse carbon pricing, which the Breakthrough Institute does not.

Proponents of carbon pricing will tell you that doing so, in the form of either a straightforward carbon tax (which Adam prefers) or a much more complex cap-and-trade program, will create national Superfunds that can be used to fund various green projects. Opponents say this wealth redistribution is no way to spur nations to act on climate change, and they must instead focus on technology innovation and investment. Of course, with so much residue from the recession, what will they have to invest? It’s essentially a chicken-egg debate when you boil it down.

As I see it, no responsible company would refuse to, literally, clean up its act if its operations have any negative externalities. By doing so, they’d likely save money in the long run, and it would improve their reputation. Companies that do not do this would be most at risk of a carbon tax. If we become able to measure any possible environmental damage in a unit, they can truly be held accountable for harming land, water and air.

That’s the kind of carbon tax I can see more people supporting. At this point in time, simply using fossil fuels is pretty tame when you consider that clean energy is still very costly. Using them cavalierly is something else, as the Alberta oil sands continually demonstrate to us. A general externality tax would go beyond carbon to protect the environment. Of course, in the United States, it would only be implemented by states.

Even then, an externality tax without providing the framework for new methods would be the worst unfunded mandate. The BI writers propose subsidizing research instead of “uncompetitive” technologies, competitive bidding for green projects and allowing the relevant intellectual property to be shared. They also claim the UN is the wrong starting point for this. I haven’t seen much evidence to the contrary.

If governments succeed in spurring demand (and thereby lowering prices) for green energy and making it status quo, we can start talking about carbon pricing. Until then, it will likely be seen as too punitive to bother with. But Adam remains optimistic.

The nation needs the intarwebz

While a few members of Congress debate overhauling an FCC fund originally designed to provide universal landline telephone service, first-year students in my communications program have been informed that they will be the first-ever class to require a smartphone and an external hard drive for their assignments. Clearly, this program in a vocational college in Winnipeg, which is only 150 students strong at a maximum, is way ahead of the curve.

The FCC itself has recommend overhauling the National Service Fund to the extent that it would develop broadband access as opposed to landline access. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, wants to take it a step further by providing wireless phone service, which he says would have aided in the aftermath of this year’s mine explosion and would be especially useful for natural disasters. I’m always comforted when I see corroded wooden phone poles being taken down during a storm.

The Internet, meanwhile, continues to grow in importance. Going back to our program, we PR students have never proposed anything that doesn’t involve some use of the Internet, especially social media. Not only is it good for businesses, specifically those who cannot afford professional PR services, it’s good for politicians who need to prove that they are willing to connect with their constituents. It is especially helpful in poorer rural and tribal areas of the country.

By all measures, overhauling the National Service Fund for these purposes is the wise course. So why are we discussing it?

. . . [the FCC's] ability to remake the fund unilaterally is in doubt, especially since a federal appeals court ruling in April upended the commission’s legal rationale for regulating broadband access.

That ruling also stated that the FCC has no authority to establish net neutrality principles, which would prevent cable companies from charging extra for specific websites. Advocates for net neutrality believe that broadband is a “common carrier” network that should fall under the same rules of nondiscrimination as landlines. Indeed, the World Wide Web was created to be a free, fast, and open exchange of information for individuals. Cable companies ought not have more control over what they can see than they do, especially not for the sake of profits.

I wrote earlier in the year that the FCC would be taking too much authority by mandating an increase in Internet speeds. These elements of its broadband plan should be given the utmost support, with a small expansion of their authority of necessary.

Supremacy in spaaaaaaaace!

When I last wrote about space exploration, I made two points that are relevant to today’s column. 1. “Dominance” of this exploration is irrelevant if interplanetary migration is being considered. 2. The private sector cannot take on the spending commonly needed by NASA for launches.

Apparently I was incorrect on the second point, at least according to President Obama. He wants to see more private companies building rockets and ships whose primary purpose would be flights to the International Space Station. As much as I like the idea of the government getting to spend a little less, I’m highly skeptical that more than one or two companies can do this without the knowledge and manpower enjoyed by NASA. And $6 billion seems like a paltry amount for all of them to share. But I bet the country’s best math students would rather do this than work in finance.

Obama’s plan will also pour an unspecified number of billions into government rocket ships – I’m sorry, but that term just sounds funny to me. Imagine the White House Press Corps traveling around on Space Force One or whatever they’d call it. But, no, these ships would be used for trips to places other than the moon: asteroids, Mars, Mars’s moons. You know, the universe beyond what this planet owns.

Let’s face it, the above places are much more worth exploring than a place American astronauts have already visited six times. If migration is a factor in this at all, you can’t rely on a single moon that is considerably smaller than the Earth. And what would they really be doing on the moon these days? According to my dad, who has followed space missions since he was five, it’s like going to Vegas once a year and never bothering with the rest of the world.

Perhaps the most important element of the plan is an extention of the International Space Station’s life (where all the really important stuff is happening) by five years. Nobody appears to be arguing with that, and why should they? But a trio of famed American lunar explorers – Neil Armstrong and two other guys – is arguing primarily against the cancellation of the moon mission. You wonder if anyone, besides Buzz Aldrin himself (and my dad, shockingly enough), would side with the president over them.

I’m ambivalent about the private rockets, but if Armstrong and the two other guys are serious about keeping the moon mission, could they explain why it would be better than leadership elsewhere? There’s more to space than a dead rock.

The fuel and the proud

In yet another illustration of how the U.S. economy ever became a superpower, the Obama administration is setting aside $187 million to fund research into new models of fuel efficiency. I speak of the U.S. economy in comparison to that of Canada, whose attitude toward such efforts can be summed up as “Duuuuh, what’s research?”

But that’s not the only reason this program is unique. Maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but it feels like it’s been a while since any project of this nature, in Canada or the U.S., has been only partially funded by the government. The collective investment in nine fuel efficiency projects is $375 million: $100M (27%) from stimulus funds, $87M (23%) from Energy Department appropriations, and the remaining $188M (50%) from the companies who are getting the money. Well, colour me impressed.

Best of all, the majority of the money will be going to Michigan and Indiana, and 5,600 total jobs (500 for research, the rest for manufacturing) are estimated to be created because of it. The only immediate caveat I can find in the above article is a mention of three of the nine recipients: Chrysler, GM, and Ford. I’ve hammered them relentlessly about not getting into fuel-efficient manufacturing earlier, but I think they’ve gotten it now and will pour their many, many federal bucks into that. If they have any retention, anyway.

So everything is looking pretty good for this program; I’ll give it a mark of 80%. There is one consideration, though: Haven’t we spent enough time talking about fuel-efficient vehicles? After years of touting their benefits and seeing them move steadily into the auto market, I feel like it’s time for something newer and bigger. Once these grants go through, I expect to hear no more about it.

Since the Bush administration, modest government investment has gone into the research of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Its impact on consumers is obviously minimal compared to that of gas-sipping cars, but with the addition of the above-noted grants, consumers will have seen their share and then some of positive impacts. While I can’t authoritatively predict the benefits of CCS, it at least merits discussion. It sounds clean, at least.

So, while it’s well and good for the government to (responsibly) pursue any research project that could reassert U.S. dominance in a well-known market, it would be even better for them to spearhead the creation of a new one. Everyone in the world already gets it about their cars.

Star Wars ’09: The People’s Republic Strikes Back

I had some trouble figuring out how to categorize this entry; space doesn’t really count as part of “the world,” but the other way around. Maybe one day I’ll have a new category marked “Universe.” I could be writing from the moon.

Anyway, the House subcommitee on Space and Aeronautics heard yesterday from a “panel of experts” that the U.S. is in danger of losing its prominence among nations that are participating in space launches. It has fallen to second place, between Russia in first (the more things change, huh?) and China in third. The panel attributed this drop to three factors: budgeting difficulties, changes in the top brass at NASA, and the end of the rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Kind of late for that last one.

Space exploration is not 100% irrelevant, especially if we’re going to consider mass interplanetary migration to any extent. But I can’t see the importance of the U.S. or any other nation asserting dominance over space until we know exactly if there’s anything up there worth dominating. For now, wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to coordinate exploration efforts? We’d all be sharing the land there, anyway.

One could make the argument that this rivalry among nations hearkens back to the time when everyone wanted to launch missiles from space. Aeronautical technology hasn’t yet gotten to the point where you can track missiles outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. That could make for an incredibly cool but extremely risky preemptive strike, and there’s no chance of anyone getting one of those. OK, maybe one. Maybe. But Israel didn’t need space the first time, and I doubt they’ll need it at all.

A more domestic concern is what cuts in the space program will due to business. Most members of the aforementioned House subcommittee represent districts in which aerospace manufacturers reside; it would certainly be in their best interests to secure some more money. But it boils down to whether the country can afford it right now (doubt it) or should bother to afford it later (maybe?). And this isn’t the sort of expenditure that can be taken on by the private sector, somewhat to my chagrin. Well, maybe Richard Branson.

New launchers include Algeria, Venezuela, and Turkey, so I doubt that a higher number of competitors will pose much of a threat to its 15% market share. It’s more likely to be the same competitors (China, India, and Japan) becoming higher in strength.

Smart grid, not-so-smart energy billing

President Obama announced yesterday that $3.4 billion of stimulus money will be going toward the construction of “smart grids” across the U.S. Besides obvious environmental and economic benefits, he is convinced that it will make the U.S. the world’s leader in green energy. I can assure you that he will have no competition from Canada; our government is too busy giving out tax credits for home renovations.

So far, the only discouraging words I’ve heard about this have come from The Economist. It’s not because they dislike the idea of green tech investment, but because they’re worried because “technology is not a substitute for policy.” (A magazine after my own heart.) They sum up the technical aspects of smart grid investment like this:

. . . adding all kinds of information technology, such as sensors, digital meters and a communications network akin to the internet, to the dumb wires. . . . a smart grid would be able to avoid outages, save energy and help other green undertakings, such as electric cars and distributed generation.

As The Economist sees it, smart grids and other forms of green tech are great, but they will ultimately be rendered meaningless if public utilities don’t update their business models for the digital age. After all, a more efficient source of energy means less for these utilities to charge (no pun intended).

To remedy this, The Economist recommends putting a price on each unit of carbon consumers use, however big or small that unit turns out to be, and charging them on that basis. This would not be quite the same thing as a carbon tax – it would replace the current energy billing system. Sure, maybe the government on one level or another will decide to tax those units one day, but that’s not on the immediate horizon. 

And, sure, they do admit that those bills would probably go up, but my outlook is that consumers will spare a few extra bucks in order to boost the economy in a way that green tech, possibly only green tech, can. With the jobs and investment opportunities that will be created out of this trend, they have the potential to afford it and then some.

But one major concern, at least for me, is that smart grids and its green-tech counterparts will form a singular economic bubble, which will inevitably burst. Therefore, we can’t give all our attention to investment in this sector. I expect that certain educational and medical technologies will be big in the coming years. Stay tuned.