Is @BillGates' darker side ‘Energy Miracle,’ a brighter side institutional innovation on #GreatCapitalism? https://t.co/gZ2ol2VBHg #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 24, 2016
Bill Gates Just Wrote a Rallying Cry for Clean Energy. Will it be Enough?, Daniel Roth says that Gates “… explains in the letter, focusing on energy makes all of his other life-improving efforts easier to enact. Get the more than 1 billion people who live without energy hooked to the grid and suddenly, “you can run hospitals, light up schools and use tractors to grow more food.”
Then Roth adds “That’s the feel good side. The darker side of the energy focus is that the energy has to be delivered with absolutely no carbon dioxide emissions, something that will only happen via an ‘energy miracle.’” Then further down and in parenthesis he recalls that “In a clean energy white paper he published last fall, Gates explicitly called out government to play an ‘indispensible role’ in funding energy initiatives.” I guess that’s as much readers need to know to consider my comment (the first paragraph is based on the differences between great capitalism and inclusive capitalism) under Roth post. That says:
The problem is that Bill Gates' strategies are bandwagon, not trendsetter. This is the last paragraph of the "Seventh update. Should elections distract us from Great Capitalism, when politicians are not up to the job?" of the post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’sDilemma?: "Here is a critical example on deregulation. Needing to join information and transportation, to mutually reinforcing each other, as the key upper level drivers of socioeconomic growth, that lift all boats, energy deregulation has been left behind. Is inclusive capitalism ready to help emerge inclusive energy deregulation?"
In the last paragraph of said post (not update), you can see an earlier comment: "While COP21 has been sold as a great success, to drive a slow low carbon transition, there's a disruptive transformation available to cero carbon. In that regard, please consider the post After a million total views in EWPCBlog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21, which have two updates. The 'First update: Can the climate change systemic problem be dissolved with the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework?' and the 'Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital.'"
As The Great Decoupling #COP21 #15M is driven by TNA anti-systems, What about TAA systemic civilization? https://t.co/gZ2ol2VBHg #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) December 30, 2015
Technological progress makes the world better but also brings new challenges, say Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, faculty members at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who have studied the impact of technology on economies for years. Their most recent book, "The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies," took an upbeat view of the high-tech future. But since its 2014 publication, the two academics have been grappling with a problem whose dimensions surprise even them: why digital innovations are contributing to the stagnation in average incomes in the United States and to the disappearance of so many middle-level jobs.
The problem with enabling shared prosperity is that in order to be "in a Time of Brilliant Technologies," we need something which tell us TAA (There's An Alternative) in order to support their "confident prediction," That something we suggest is to create the systemic civilization.
The problem of the current increasing inequality is that the world is still in a Time of Dark Technologies, under TNA (There's No Alternative), which is still driving many anti-systems under industrial civilization management myopia (see more below). As it is introduced in the video, TNA is what is mainly driving the "Problem with Stock Buybacks: Why high corporate profits aren't translating into widespread economic prosperity," which is explained by William Lazonick's Harvard Business Review September 2014 issue article, "Profits Without Prosperity."
To support even further the above conclusion, please consider a post and an anti-system story given at the start of COP21. The post is Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation, whose introduction is as follows:
Here is reported conclusive evidence to answer the question of the blog post Is the VAE-AF the Biggest And Boldest Idea For How To Stop Rising Inequality? It comes, in turns, from conclusive evidence to "the IEEE Spectrum Smart Grid Game update after 4 years" of the post Was the Smart Grid 2025 a transition scenario? Do we need a transformation scenario? In fact, as you will see below there is now no doubt that we need a tranformation scenario on the retail and whosale markets.
I agree with Pamela, but suggest there is just one key policy issue: flawed restructuring that started with a Vertically integrated utilities broken system and resulted in another broken system, as W. Edwards Deming called them.
For that reason, I further suggest we must agree that this is about the energy industry and its regulators strategic myopia. I guess this my most recent contribution: once we recognize that the energy industry is not a system (having big positive synergy where all stakeholders have win-win opportunities) but an antisystem (having big negative synergy, win-lose for sure), what needs to be done is to transform (instead the current process of transition dominated by the statu quo) the industry to enable a system. One example of this antisystem story can be seen in the post Should utilities and solar be finally exposed to the "Law of the Situation"? Japan's example.
In order not to make this longer than required, please take a look at one post well related and a tweet conversation (a long sequence of tweets):
After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21 which now has its "Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital."
Jose A Vanderhorst S @gmh_upsa:Can @CFigueres @UNFCCC @COP21 #COP21 institutions @COP21_News stop fiscal service myopia https://t.co/dbWTK3YxDQ pic.twitter.com/gOqRTP70Zx— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) December 4, 2015
Can @CFigueres @UNFCCC @COP21 #COP21 institutions @COP21_News stop fiscal service myopia https://twitter.com/gmh_upsa/status/672804770982338561