environment

Oilsands To Blame For Caribou Decline Says Fecal Study

June 22, 2011

THE CANADIAN PRESS — Humans, not wolves, are behind declining caribou populations in Alberta’s oilsands region, an analysis of animal feces shows. The same research also found there may be many more caribou in the region than previously thought, meaning there may still be time for industry to change how it does business without resorting to wolf culls to protect the herds. “Nobody is denying that the trend in caribou decline is alarming,” said University of Washington biologist Samuel Wasser, lead author of a paper published Wednesday in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. “While we still think we need to do something now, we think that there’s a little bit more time than some people have been advocating.” Caribou in the oilsands are considered a threatened species and have been in decline for decades. Balancing oilsands development and healthy herds has proved to be a tough act for the provincial government, which is still trying to develop a caribou policy for the area. Some scientists have predicted caribou will be gone within 30 years, suggesting the desperate measure of a wolf cull could be the only way to preserve them. Alberta does cull wolves to protect caribou, but not in the oilsands area. In 2006, Wasser and his team were brought in by oilsands leasee North American Oil Sands to look for answers. Their research continued when the lease was sold to Norway-based Statoil, which has so far spent about $500,000 on Wasser’s work. Using dogs trained to sniff out caribou, wolf, moose and deer droppings, scientists eventually found about 2,000 samples and carefully marked when and where each was found. Those samples were carefully analyzed for chemicals that revealed how the animal was feeling at that moment. Animals under stress produce hormones that show up almost right away in their feces. Feces can also reveal how well-nourished an animal is. DNA contained in the material can even identify — and count individual animals. After four winters of sampling, the researchers concluded that there seem to be a lot more caribou than previously thought. Government estimates put the number in the area at about 150; DNA in the feces suggest there were about 330 animals. Nor did that number change during the study period. They also found that about 80 per cent of the wolf diet was deer, with only about 11 per cent from caribou. Wolves even seek out deer in preference to caribou. And once they started analyzing scat for stress hormones, they found what really bugged caribou was people. Stress increased the closer the animals got to busy roads and also during times when humans were nearby. Caribou — unlike moose and deer — are so skittish they’d rather hang out somewhere where the food isn’t as plentiful if it’s further from human impact, Wasser concluded. Previous studies have linked human disturbance and caribou declines before. One study released Monday found that, on average, about 75 per cent of the caribou range in the oilsands area is disrupted either by industry or forest fires. Wasser found, however, that caribou didn’t care so much about the road or the wellsite itself. What they cared about was how close it was and how busy it was. “Psychological stress was highest and nutrition poorest when humans were most active in the landscape, but caribou recovered when oil crews left the area,” the report says. That leaves plenty of avenues for humans to change their ways, said Wasser. Now, crews tend to build roads through open, grassy areas because that’s where it’s easiest. But those areas, which provide a clear view of approaching predators, are places caribou like as well. Wasser said roads could be built to avoid those areas. “It’s not the (industrial) footprint, it’s the use of that footprint,” he said. Hoping to encourage caribou by shooting wolves won’t work — and might even hurt them by boosting deer numbers and forcing them to encroach on caribou habitat. “That is really a bad way to approach the situation,” said Wasser.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Stock Pickers Are Picking Your Pockets

June 22, 2011

The top three ranked tennis players in the world are Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. This is no small achievement. The rankings are done based on a complex system that requires them to compete in a number of Grand Slam and other tournaments. They are awarded points based on their performance. If you have seen any matches involving these players (and others on the professional tour), you can only marvel at their skill, endurance and athleticism. Achieving a ranking in the top three among this elite group is remarkable. Let me ask you this question: How likely is it that any one of these stellar players will lose in the first round of every tournament they enter in the next six months? Let’s push the envelope further. How likely is it that all three of these world class athletes will lose in the first round of every tournament they enter in the next six months? Statistically almost impossible you would say, and you would be right. The reason this is not going to happen is because these players have a long record of demonstrating skill superior to their opponents. Maybe there will be an upset here or there, but not for any sustained period of time. If the ATP was ranking stock pickers, Bruce Berkowitz, Kenneth Heebner and Bill Miller would be at the very top of their list. Berkowitz was the 2009 Domestic Stock Fund Manager of the Year and was named as Domestic-Stock Fund Manager of the Decade by Morningstar. Very impressive. Kenneth Heebner is a widely followed stock guru. Fortune Magazine called him “the best mutual fund manager around”, in a 2008 article . Fortune noted that Heebner’s stock picks represented “…the most dazzling run of stock picking in mutual fund history”, providing a 24% annualized return in the preceding decade. Bill Miller is no stock picking slouch. He was named by Money Magazine as “The Greatest Money Manager of the 1990′s” and was selected by Morningstar as “Fund Manager of the Decade.” His near deity status was confirmed when BusinessWeek called him one of the “Heroes of Value Investing.” His greatest achievement was a fifteen year track record of beating the S&P 500 index. Given these impressive credentials, it may seem surprising to read a story in InvestmentNews with this headline: “Berkowitz, Heebner and Miller in tight battle — for last place.” The article noted that funds run by these stock picking rock stars were the three worst performers among large diversified U.S. mutual funds in 2011 to date, based on Morningstar data. Their funds lost 11%-12% through June 9, 2011. The S&P 500 index was up 3.4%. Apparently, Berkowitz and Miller bet big on financial stocks. Heebner placed a big bet on automakers. Those sectors were the worst performers out of 24 groups measured. That’s akin to the top three tennis players losing in the first round of every tournament over a six month period. If you understand the data, this is not as surprising as it may seem at first blush. The success of stock pickers can be attributed to luck. There is no demonstrated skill in this exercise. They can have a lucky streak, but it always comes to an end. While they are doing well, they are anointed by their peers as “gurus” and given the kinds of accolades received by this trio. The future price of stocks is determined by tomorrow’s news. Stock pickers tend to select stocks based on their recent performance, which is a poor predictor of future performance. The future price of stocks is random and unpredictable. The financial media and the securities industry work together to designate “hot” managers. They know that money will flow into the funds they manage, until their lucky streak runs out. When it does, the cycle repeats itself, with different managers who investors are supposed to believe have the power to predict the unpredictable. Through this insidious process, investors are distracted, confused and often disappointed. Many don’t understand that market returns are theirs for the taking, and those returns are vastly superior to the returns earned by the average fund investor, who is paying attention to awards bestowed on those who confuse luck with skill. Stock pickers do have one discernible expertise: They are able to pick your pockets by persuading you they have a skill that doesn’t exist. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Despite New Health Law, Americans To Keep Job-Based Coverage

June 21, 2011

Even though the number of Americans with health insurance through employers has declined, most will continue to get coverage through their jobs after the new healthcare law takes full effect, studies released on Tuesday said. About 61 percent of non-elderly Americans got their healthcare coverage through employers in 2009, down from 69 percent in 2000, according to a study sponsored by the non-partisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Low and moderate-income families employed by small firms were the most likely to be affected by a loss of employer-sponsored coverage. Julie Sonier, a senior researcher at the University of Minnesota who helped write the report, said the erosion in employer-sponsored insurance in the decade before the healthcare law was enacted underscored the need for action. “When people don’t have access to employer coverage, they might get public coverage, they might be uninsured, there might be a higher uncompensated care burden at their local hospital. The costs are in the system somewhere,” she said in a telephone interview. A second study by the centrist Urban Institute said it expects the healthcare overhaul signed into law last year by President Barack Obama to help small businesses provide medical coverage to employees. “Our results show significant health care cost savings (under the law) to firms with fewer than 50 workers, as well as a small increase in the number of people covered by their employer-sponsored plans,” the Urban Institute study said. The law includes some tax incentives for small employers to provide coverage and penalties for large employers with employees who receive subsidized medical coverage on state-based exchanges that will go into operation in 2014. “The evidence suggests the Affordable Care Act may have a stabilizing influence on small firm coverage,” the study said. The studies counter a recent report by Chicago consulting firm McKinsey that said about 30 percent of employers will “definitely” or “probably” stop offering health coverage once the state insurance exchanges begin operation, which are to provide a place for small businesses and individuals to shop for health insurance coverage. That report sparked a fresh round of criticism of Obama’s healthcare law by Republicans who are pushing to repeal it. Democrats demanded an explanation of the methodology, since other reports, including the Congressional Budget Office, said the law would have a small impact on employer coverage. On Monday, McKinsey clarified that its report was a survey of employer attitudes and “was not intended to be a predictive economic analysis” of the impact of the new healthcare law. The two studies sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that were released on Tuesday said most of the erosion in employer sponsored healthcare since 2000 was by small businesses. Four states, Mississippi, Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota saw a loss in employer-sponsored coverage that was twice as large a the national average, according to the studies. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Carlo Cottarelli: Postcard From São Paulo: The Latest Global Fiscal News-and Some of It’s Actually Good

June 21, 2011

In São Paulo, Brazil, last Friday we launched our latest assessment of the state of government finances, debts, and deficits. While many countries are slogging through a tough fiscal time, there is some good news, including in the United States where the deficit will be lower this year than previously expected. I will also give you an assessment of how the new information affects our sense of what needs to be done in the future. Let me start by talking about the advanced economies where, as is well known, the fiscal accounts are generally weaker, reflecting large increases in deficits and debt ratios since the start of the crisis in 2008. Most of these economies were planning to tighten fiscal policy this year, and the good news is that in the bulk of these, adjustment looks to be solidly on track. Most advanced economies, especially Canada and in Europe , are making good progress in reducing their budget deficits. In some cases, such as Germany and Italy , they are even ahead of schedule. Given the evidence that the recovery in Europe has strengthened, these countries should continue with their fiscal adjustment plans. Of course, the situation in some countries in Europe remains difficult, as reflected in rising financial market spreads in Greece , Ireland , and Portugal , as well as Cyprus . In Greece and Portugal, in particular, downward revisions to growth and other factors have implied the need for additional cutbacks. Some good news In the United States , recent fiscal news is good: strong revenue growth and a slower pace of expenditure means that the deficit will actually fall slightly this year, rather than increasing as expected. This means that the amount of fiscal adjustment that will be required to achieve the 2012 deficit target is smaller, and less likely to be detrimental to growth. What remains missing in the United States is political consensus on the tools and targets to bring down debt and deficits, as part of a credible medium-term adjustment plan with objectives endorsed by Congress. Without such a plan, yield on U.S. government paper would sooner or later start reflecting a risk premium, which would not be good for the United States and the world economy. The exceptions to the positive recent developments are in the Pacific: Japan , Australia , and New Zealand ; all countries that were affected by serious natural disasters. The case of Japan is particularly noteworthy: a supplementary budget of about ¾ percent of GDP enacted after the tsunami was already reflected in the April issue of our Fiscal Monitor . A further supplementary budget is now expected that will increase spending next year by about 1 percent of GDP. As a result, Japan will have the largest fiscal deficit among all major advanced economies this year and next. This further weakening of the fiscal accounts makes the definition of a clear and detailed medium-term fiscal adjustment path even more urgent. Many emerging economies are experiencing rapid growth, in some cases fueled by favorable strong capital inflows that are boosting asset prices, and by high commodity prices. Some of these economies are making very good progress in tightening fiscal policy. However, some emerging economies still have sizable deficits, especially India , but also Turkey , Mexico , and Brazil ; even though our sense is that these economies are operating at very close to full capacity. Indeed, in 2012 one would like to see more tightening to reduce the risk of overheating in all four of these countries. Developments in Latin America As I was in São Paulo, there was a great deal of interest in developments in the region. There is certainly much to be pleased about how Latin America has weathered the global financial storm. A great deal has been done, for example, by strengthening fiscal institutions and improving the structure of public debt. As a result, contagion from the crisis in the advanced economies was minimal, which is a welcome change from the past. Nevertheless, it is important to sound a note of caution: as detailed in the Fiscal Monitor , the overall deficit for Latin America remains higher than in the mid-1990s and is not much different from its historical average. Public debt ratios in Latin America remain above those in emerging Asia and emerging Europe. Many countries in Latin America will also face significant spending pressures in the future as infrastructural spending has been cut excessively over time and health care and pension spending are expected to rise. This means that considerable additional work will be required to strengthen fiscal sustainability and lay a solid foundation for the future. From iMFdirect blog

Read the full article →

Steve Mariotti: How to Start a Non-Profit

June 21, 2011

This is the first of four articles on starting a non-profit enterprise. Personal experience will provide the passion and insights needed to build a non-profit social venture. But remember, where money is the overriding motivation, an organization should be established on the for-profit model. If the primary goal of the company is to solve a societal issue, then the company is a “social enterprise” and can be incorporated either as a for-profit or not-for-profit. It is the motivation of the owners/founders that will be the driving force behind the definition, not the legal structure. If the key conception is to address a need that cannot be met by a for-profit model, then the non-profit is the way to go. Often, this will be due to the fact that the individuals who need the products/services in question cannot afford them. As we all know, there are vast numbers of people in the world who fit this category. The problem you choose to deal with must be real to you, and, if practicable, you should try to experience it firsthand. Bring to bear all your energy and passion to effect a solution, but make sure your personal experience can play a role. Picking Your Legal Structure In the United States, the government has created the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit corporation to help address social issues. (This status is granted by the IRS on a case-by-case basis.) A 501(c)(3) can receive donations from individuals, businesses, government agencies, and philanthropic foundations. Just a few examples of well-known not-for-profits include the Boys and Girls Clubs, the YMCA, the Red Cross, and the Sierra Club. People who donate money to these charitable organizations benefit by deducting the contributions from their taxable income. More than a million organizations qualified for 501(c)(3) non-profit status in 2009, compared to about 600,000 in 1993. Donations, however, have declined. In 2008, 315.08 billion dollars were invested in the not-for-profit sector, compared to 303.75 billion in 2009. Competition for resources has increased, making it more difficult than ever for nonprofits to grow, or even exist. Like any business, a not-for-profit needs to generate revenue to cover its expenses; this will be generated through donations. You will need to identify a target market and figure out how best to deliver your product or service to that market, and how to raise the money to do so (to be discussed in the third part in this series). Some important considerations exist, however, and you should be aware of them before you choose the non-profit form of structure: The legal configuration of a social enterprise is not related to its ability to do well. Our culture encourages the belief that a social enterprise has to be a non-profit, which is not only inaccurate but can be harmful. Many people are doing good work in solving larger issues through for-profit companies. A non-profit legal structure does not make a venture more effective, or even more ethical. Non-profits can use up resources that are more valuable then the problems they are trying to solve, and sometimes their efforts can actually make a situation worse. As Carl Schramm of the Kauffman Foundation has stated, profit can be a good thing for solving social problems. The legal structure and the motivation are actually independent of the social value of the organization. Sometimes the for-profit is more sustainable and more effective because it can raise capital more easily and incentivize its staff better. Another factor to consider is that most money given to non-profits comes with restrictions; there are usually strict guidelines for spending the money. Grants can become liability-like; for-profits can be more flexible. Your spending will be a matter of public record, which means your competitors for philanthropic capital will know exactly what your costs are (as you will know theirs). Also, the culture of non-profits is such that its leadership is expected to be “poor”; it would be suspect for non-profit executives to appear prosperous and would make it more difficult to attract donations. The general rule: if you can incorporate as a for-profit, do it. Despite the foregoing negatives, over fifteen million people (including myself) make a living through the one-million-plus American non-profit corporations. For the next three articles, I will talk about my experience with the non-profit company I founded, and give you tips and advice on what to do if you want to start your own. Check back tomorrow for Part 2.

Read the full article →

Planned Parenthood Stops Seeing Medicaid Patients In Indiana

June 21, 2011

INDIANAPOLIS — Medicaid patients are now paying for their own health services at Indiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics or looking for alternatives after the group ran out of private donations that had been paying those patients’ bills. A state law that took effect in May denied Planned Parenthood Medicaid funds for general health services it provides to low-income women, including breast exams, birth control and Pap smears. A federal judge is expected to rule by July 1 on Planned Parenthood’s bid to block Indiana’s new law. Spokeswoman Kate Shepherd says about 9,300 Medicaid patients will see their Planned Parenthood services disrupted under Indiana’s law. She says the group had received more than $100,000 in private donations to pay those patients’ bills, but that money ran out late Monday.

Read the full article →

Andrea Learned: Business Unusual: Living Economies

June 21, 2011

“Living Economies.” Though the phrase is a mouthful, a lot more businesses, and businesspeople, should be seeing themselves as part of them. Perhaps because so much of what we hear and read about business today is reports on bad corporate (or corporate leader) behavior, “business” is getting a nasty reputation, and could definitely use a re-framing. That’s why “living economies,” as coined by the founders of BALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) , is an interesting place to now turn. The way business gets done within this alliance is something so much greater than business as usual. BALLE members are not content with the old-fashioned, silo-ed ways of doing business. The more local, living economies they participate in are interconnected networks of businesses working together to sustain themselves, the environment and all of the people involved (employees, customers, community members, and beyond). The organization itself exists because so many small- to medium-sized business owners believed in the power of bottom-up, networked change. As the BALLE site puts it: “In the age of the Internet and social networking and the emergence of ‘glocalism’ as a new form of social consciousness, we believe that never before have communities possessed as much power to determine their futures as they do today and in ways that are good for people, places and the planet.” So, what do these “glocalists” know that you don’t? After spending time at their annual conference last week, three things seemed key: 1) Women/Diversity: The BALLE take is by no means that women need to be helped or women’s groups need to be formed. Instead, the idea is to see women as a huge market and economy in and of themselves, and to also see them as an incredible resource for your businesses (both as employees and customers). Just ask David Berge from Canada’s largest credit union Vancity , who noted how today’s “women’s economy” will grow at a more rapid rate than that of the combined Chinese and Indian economies in the next five years. He also noted how crucial Vancity’s gender balance was as a support for identifying the true impact loans they’d be involved in (as opposed to those loans that might simply have a pretty business plan). Bottom-line? Women are not an initiative. 2) Communications: Telling stories well; about what the living economy means, what your company has to offer and why it matters, will be key for moving forward. Take for example, how energy efficiency (EE) is still so misunderstood. Even though, as a BALLE presenter from PSE (Puget Sound Energy) put it: “energy efficiency is a very inexpensive resource,” homeowners (and businesses) still seem to fall into this trap of solar panel lust – only to later realize the low-hanging, biggest bang for buck improvement is likely through EE. How do people not get that particular message? Every BALLE member business, including energy assessment businesses, is learning from one another. They are swapping experiences and mistakes about how to communicate challenging stories more effectively – and many are also enthusiastically using social media to help do that. 3) Collaboration: This may be the most difficult for “business as usual” to get to. As Simon Mainwaring puts it in a recent article : ” The corporate world is full of intellectual property and research departments that remain unnecessarily proprietary when they could be helping each other solve problems.” As evidenced by many of the “local first” organizations that have sprung up in communities all over the country – many of which were represented at the BALLE Conference – each business does that much better when efforts are combined. Unforeseen alliances are built. Unanticipated connections emerge. (The Somerville Local First organization in Massachusetts exemplifies this through its web site and social media efforts). So, I’m suggesting you consider things like women, communication and collaboration, because these days, business has to be unusual. The way that BALLE members believe in and contribute to living, and breathing, economies – truly interconnecting and supporting one another on a “glocal” scale – is the light in a dark tunnel.

Read the full article →

Sheldon Filger: Greek Debt Crisis Worsens: Prime Minister George Papandreou Admits Another €110 Billion Needed To Prevent Default

June 21, 2011

I was not alone in being skeptical as the first European/IMF bailout package was cobbled together last year when the Greek sovereign debt crisis first exploded. At that time, the European politicians assured their constituents that the 110 billion euro bailout for Greece would absolutely stabilize the situation for Athens, and prevent a sovereign debt contagion metastasizing throughout the rest of Europe, especially to the so-called PIIGS on the southern periphery of Europe (Italy, Spain and Portugal as well as Greece) and Ireland. Now, after Portugal and Ireland have joined Greece in begging for a bailout from European taxpayers and the IMF, Greece is back with its cup in hand. After a year of crippling austerity measures that have thrown the Greek economy into recession, Prime Minister Papandreou has told the Greek parliament that even more severe stringent cutbacks and tax increases are required . The reason; last year’s bailout was insufficient to enable Greece to continue to pay creditors for her massive (and until the crisis surfaced, largely hidden) public debt. The news from Papandreou is dire; another massive injection of European and IMF loans are needed, equaling the already staggering previous bailout package of 110 billion euros (approximately $150 billion in U.S. currency), or else Athens will default on its sovereign debt. It must be pointed out that the second bailout package, as with the first, will necessitate other European nations themselves going further into debt to provide Greece with the bailout, including countries such as Spain and Italy, which are considered only slightly less vulnerable to a sovereign debt implosion than Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Anyone who though that the global economic and financial crisis that began in 2008 ended due to the “brilliant” expansion of public debt engineered by the policymakers is now getting their wake up call. As I predicted in my book, Global Economic Forecast 2010-2015: Recession Into Depression , a global sovereign debt crisis will precipitate a worsening of the global economic crisis. Furthermore, solving a debt crisis with more debt, tied to fiscal policies that retard economic growth, is not a solution but rather an exhibition of economic and financial insanity. With policymaking of this “quality,” it bewilders the human intellect that anyone still thinks an economic recovery is just around the corner. There is in fact something just ahead for the global economy, but it won’t be pretty.

Read the full article →

Labor Regulators Set To Propose New Rules To Speed Up Union Elections

June 21, 2011

(AP) WASHINGTON – Labor regulators are set to propose sweeping new rules Tuesday that would dramatically speed up the time frame for union elections, a move that could make it easier for struggling unions to organize new members, and cut the time businesses have to mount anti-union campaigns. A copy of the planned rules, to be announced by the National Labor Relations Board, was obtained by The Associated Press. The proposal is expected to irritate Republicans and business groups who have complained about the board’s pro-labor actions. Most labor elections currently take place within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition, a time many companies use to discourage workers from unionizing. The new plan could cut that time by days or even weeks — depending on the case — by simplifying procedures, deferring litigation and setting shorter deadlines for hearings and filings. But it does not impose a specific deadline for elections, as many labor leaders had hoped for. Canada, for example, requires such elections to take place in as little as 5 to 10 days. The plan would “better insure that employees’ votes may be recorded accurately, efficiently and speedily,” said the board’s majority, led 3-1 by Democrats. Passage would be a victory for labor unions that have long complained about employers using procedural delays and litigation to hold up elections and intimidate workers. Some employers hire so-called “union busting” consulting firms to produce videotapes, draft talking points or create brochures to deter unionizing. Lynn Rhinehart, general counsel of the AFL-CIO, has called current union election procedures “a very cumbersome process that gets bogged down in litigation.” “If the board is going to try to address some of the reasons for delay in the election process, that would be a positive thing,” she said in an interview before the proposed rule was announced. “Delay in the process has been a perennial problem.” The board’s lone Republican, Brian Hayes, issued a vigorous dissent, saying the proposal would result in the type of “quickie elections” union leaders have long sought. Hayes claimed elections could be held in as little as 10 to 21 days from the filing of a petition, giving employers less of a chance to make their case. “Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize or, rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer’s legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining,” Hayes wrote. The board will take 75 days to review comments and replies before making a decision on whether the rule should become final. Union membership has steadily declined from its peak of about 20 percent in the 1980s to just to 11.9 percent of all workers, and just 6.9 percent of the private sector. Many members blame increasingly aggressive anti-union tactics, but they have tried without success to beef up federal penalties for what they say are growing instances of intimidation and threats against workers. Labor leaders made a major push in 2009 for Congress to pass so-called “card check” legislation that would have increased penalties for such violations and made it easier for unions to organize workers by signing cards instead of holding secret-ballot elections. But the measure failed to garner a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Since then, labor has pinned its hopes for a revival on action at the NLRB, the Labor Department and other sympathetic administrative agencies. The board has not disappointed. It has cracked down on businesses that fire employees during union organizing drives and proposed rules that would require all business to display posters explaining union rights. In perhaps the most prominent case, the NRLB’s acting general counsel filed a controversial lawsuit earlier this year that accused Boeing Co. of retaliating against union workers in Washington state by placing a new assembly line for the Dreamliner 787 in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The proposed rule to be announced Tuesday could be another step in helping unions halt the membership decline and organize more workers. It would: • Allow electronic filing of petitions and other documents to speed up processing. • Set pre-election hearings to begin 7 days after a petition is filed. • Defer litigation of eligibility issues involving less than 20 percent of the bargaining unit until after the election. • Eliminate pre-election appeals of rulings by an NLRB regional director. • Reduce from 7 to 2 days the time for an employer to provide an electronic list of eligible voters.

Read the full article →

A Dirty Gold Rush

June 12, 2011

DELTA 1, Peru — A gold rush that accelerated with the onset of the 2008 global recession is compounding the woes of the Amazon basin, laying waste to Peruvian rain forest and spilling tons of toxic mercury into the air and water. With gold’s price soaring globally as the metal became a hedge against financial uncertainty, the army of small-scale miners in the state of Madre de Dios has swelled to some 40,000. The result: Diesel exhaust sullies the air, trees are toppled to get at the sandy, gold-flecked earth and the scars inflicted on the land are visible on satellite photos. The work is dangerous and produces a fifth of Peru’s overall annual yield of roughly 175 metric tons of gold that make this country the world’s No. 5 producer. The mining also is almost entirely illegal. “Extracting an ounce of gold costs from $400 to $500 and the profit is $1,000 per ounce,” notes Peru’s environment minister, Antonio Brack. In just a decade, gold has more than tripled in value. The situation in the southeastern state of Madre de Dios, which borders Brazil and Bolivia, is mirrored in dozens of the countries where gold is similarly mined, and where the desperately poor often end up working for the most unsavory of opportunists. Government controls are mostly futile. Neighboring Colombia and Ecuador have mounted crackdowns in the past year – Ecuador’s military last month dynamited 67 pieces of heavy equipment – but when authorities depart, the diggers troop back and work resumes. In Madre de Dios, the informal production is unrecorded, untaxed and carried out on public lands where claims are awarded by regional officials, many of them grown rich in the process. As the industry has grown, heavy machinery has moved in bearing Caterpillar, Volvo and other international trademarks into a state the size of Maine or Portugal, whose remotest reaches are believed inhabited by uncontacted Indian tribes. In February the Peruvian navy dynamited 13 dredges which, working in violation of a government ban, were choking the Madre de Dios river with silt, killing plants and destroying habitats. Protesting laborers blockaded Madre de Dios’ only highway, and at least three people were shot and killed by police sent from Lima. “One of the big hydraulic dredges we destroyed could easily harvest a kilogram (worth about $45,000) of gold a day,” said Brack. Rather than try to evict the thousands of protesting informal miners, the government decided to work to “formalize” their operations, which have denuded well over 180 square kilometers (70 square miles ) of jungle in Madre de Dios. “In practice, nothing happened. They moved against a small percentage of dredges that are not necessarily what hurts the environment most,” said Pavel Cartagena, an environmental activist who recently returned to Puerto Maldonado, the state capital, after death threats drove him away for a year. Brack said the crackdown served notice to local politicians profiting from the industry. “We found that nearly all the public officials in Puerto Maldonado were involved,” the minister said. “In 2010, the regional mining director had a mining company. His No. 2 had one. His wife had one. His sister had one (as did) the sister of the No. 2. They were all in it. And you think anyone is going to regulate anything?” The state prides itself on its biodiversity and attracts eco-tourists for its monkeys, macaws and anacondas. Yet its forest is pocked with craters gouged by grime-coated men who tear the earth away with high-pressure water hoses. And that is only the beginning. To capture the gold flecks, mostly the size of a grain of sand, mercury is used because it is the cheapest, easiest method. It then seeps into the air and rivers, an estimated 35 metric tons a year in Madre de Dios alone, slowly poisoning people, plants, animals and fish, scientific studies show. Most of the migrant diggers, who have doubled the state’s population since the early 1990s, arrive nearly penniless. Some are criminals. Some are preteens sold by their parents into servitude, says Feliciano Coila, a lawyer with state child protection services. The goal of the most ambitious newcomers is to gather enough gold to graduate from peon to subcontractor, put together a crew of a dozen or so miners, provide equipment and buy access to a claim. “You need a minimum of 50 grams ($2,200 worth of gold) to be invited into a camp” to work a claim, said Miguel Herrera, a mining organizer. Unskilled new arrivals generally can amass about a gram a day, currently worth more than $40. It is a princely sum for Peruvian highlanders accustomed to $3-a-day wages. Most prospectors live in a string of jungle boomtowns. One of the more established is Delta 1, located on the Puquiri River flood plain. It is reached after a precarious canoe crossing of the Inambiri river, then a wide dirt toll road across a white-sand river basin exhausted by mining and looking hit by a tsunami. Delta 1′s roughly 6,500 residents lack running water, electricity, sewers and police but have ample machine shops, groceries and brothels. An older town, Huepetuhe, is flanked by mountains of gravel mine tailings towering over washes that further disfigure a mining wasteland 1.2 miles wide (2 kilometers) and nearly 20 kilometers (more than 10 miles) long. Huepetuhe, established in the 1980s, just this year got running water but has long had two entire streets of brothels on stilts. They front a brown sea of silt, the accumulated runoff of adjacent mines that is slowly engulfing the red-light district. Other boomtowns, mostly lawless, gunslinging places that do not even have names, have sprouted alongside the Interoceanic Highway that connects Puerto Maldonado, the capital, to the rest of Peru. When finished this year, it will link the Pacific coast with neighboring Brazil, and attract even more fortune hunters. Social worker Oscar Guadelupe, whose organization, Huarayo, runs shelters for child miners and teen prostitutes, counts some 2,000 females working in “prostibars” in the mining corridor, a third of them adolescents. Day and night, the towns are bathed in the eerie glow of blowtorches as welders fix miners’ overworked pumps. Many prospectors say they would be happy to pay taxes and get services. “It’s better to pay the state than to keep suffering abuse and insecurity,” said Leoncio Jordan Paiba, a 39-year-old miner and father of four. He says he gathers 12 grams of gold a day but, in addition to paying for workers, equipment and fuel, he must pay the claim’s titleholder a weekly 20-gram levy and also keep the area’s Amaraukiri Indians happy. “They say this land is theirs. They come pointing guns,” said Jordan. “If you don’t pay them they damage your equipment. They’ve thrown motors into the mud.” As he speaks, three men are hosing a crater’s walls with water when one side collapses, nearly burying them alive. They wait a few seconds and resume work. Such a collapse killed a young digger known only as Martin. His employers dumped his body in Delta 1, so friends cobbled together a plywood casket, painted it black and set it in the town’s dusty central plaza. They lit candles and held a wake, getting drunk on cheap liquor. DREMH, the regional mining agency, has allowed wildcat prospectors to invade buffer zones adjacent to nature preserves and Indian land, and hands out mining permits without first gaining environmental approval. Meanwhile, Madre de Dios state received less than $20,000 last year in revenue-sharing from taxes on mining. A DREMH inspector, Manuel Campo, said he is often denied entry into mining camps, although they are on public land. “The mob arrives and you can’t do a thing,” he said. At one mining camp, Ronny Calcina was on break from one of the 24-hour shifts he shares with three other men. After 18 months of backbreaking work, the 34-year-old native of the poor, neighboring highlands province of Puno said he is ready to go back to the family’s potato fields. He thought he would be earning a lot more, he said. Besides, his wife and 3-year-old son, who live in Delta 1, keep getting sick. All have had malaria. Calcina is worried about being poisoned by mercury, which he is exposed to constantly as it is burned out of the puttylike amalgam it forms when it clings to gold dust. Additional mercury is burned off in open-air storefronts that buy the gold, including a half dozen opposite the main market of Puerto Maldonado. “This is an area where most people shop, eat, work. This is the center of life for most of Puerto Maldonado,” said Luis Fernandez, a Stanford University environmental scientist who studies the mercury contamination. Levels he measured inside the shops were 20 to 40 times above World Health Organization standards, and 10 to 20 times above the maximum outside. “Everyone is being exposed in this area,” said Fernandez. “The people working in the shops are getting dosed with enormous amounts of mercury every day.” The U.N. is among organizations working to educate prospectors about the dangers and get them to switch to cleaner technology. But Peru is South America’s biggest mercury importer and its sale is unregulated. Taming Peru’s illegal mining juggernaut might be possible if gold sales were regulated, but they have been unfettered since 1991, when the government closed what had been the only authorized gold-purchasing bank during a wave of privatizations. Peruvian law requires every buyer of gold to produce certification proving it was mined legally. The law is universally flouted, however, and there is no identification system that would allow it to be tracked. So it is impossible to know whether the gold in a chain or ring bought in New York or Paris was refined with mercury. Organizations such as the U.K.-based Fairtrade Foundation have set standards for certifying suppliers whose gold does minimal environmental damage. Wal-Mart is among several big retailers expressing interest, but production is so far minimal. In February of last year, Peru’s government decreed that all informal mining in Madre de Dios be registered, taxed and regulated. Thousands of prospectors responded by blocking the Panamerican Highway two months later. Some hurled dynamite at police, who responded with bullets, killing six protesters. The decree was suspended, but Peru’s media asked why authorities were not punishing companies that buy gold without certifying its provenance, as required by law. The director of mining in Peru’s Ministry of Energy and Mining, Victor Vargas, said authorities were working on identifying the companies involved. “Various companies have been mentioned. We’re collecting evidentiary documents,” he told the newspaper El Comercio. Asked by The Associated Press more than a year later to name the culprits, Vargas demurred. “Look, when it becomes official, the ministry will do so,” he said. “I can’t talk about what’s still being worked on.” ___ Frank Bajak on Twitter: http://twitter.com/fbajak ___ Associated Press writer Gonzalo Solano in Quito, Ecuador, and Martin Villena in Lima, Peru, contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

How Steve Jobs’ Pixar Experience Helped Lead To Apple’s iCloud

June 11, 2011

The folks at Amazon and Google must have been wringing their hands on Monday when Apple CEO Steve Jobs showed off a new service called iTunes Match. That all-important “one more thing” from Apple’s software presentation is part of the iCloud Web application and storage suite. It was a coup of sorts — and Apple’s win over competitors could be attributed to Jobs’ experience at Pixar Animation Studios, which he co-founded.

Read the full article →

Scaling 150-Feet For Wind Power

June 2, 2011

Chris Bley, the son of an engineer and a school psychologist, remembers what his life was like right after he graduated from college — he sat at his desk, stared out the window and waited for the weekend to come around. “I worked for a computer company,” Chris said. “We manufactured barcode readers.” Having grown up and attended school in California, Chris was always an avid mountain climber and environmentalist. Even while working a desk job, climbing remained an important part of his life. But during one climbing trip at Joshua Tree National Park in southeastern California, he met two East German best friends who had actually figured out a way to make their living climbing on ropes. “They scaled churches and other buildings, and made their money this way,” he said. These guys were also part of a “rope access” team who’d wrapped a German Parliament building, the Reichstag, in fabric, as part of an art project. Chris was intrigued, and in the early 2000s he visited Germany himself to see how it was done. He trained extensively with his friends, learning the ropes (sorry) and seeing them in action, before heading back home to California, where he came up with the idea of scaling wind turbines. “I remembered seeing them all start to pop up around me, and in Palm Springs. And I thought, this could be the perfect opportunity.” So he started attending wind power conferences and shows across the West Coast, getting his name out there, shaking hands, and meeting people. He learned as much as he could about the industry, and eventually companies began to take notice. Chris called his company, ” Rope Partner .” “Rope access can save these companies lots of money on cranes and lifts,” Chris said. “It saves them a lot in energy costs.” Today, Chris and the other team members, many of whom he “recruits” from a local California rock-climbing gym, scale heights of up to 150 feet in order to clean, inspect, or repair wind turbines. Some jobs are as far away as Canada and Mexico, and his climbers live all across the country. It’s kind of the ideal job, Chris says. His freelancers are able to work on a certain project for a few months and then let loose to climb recreationally on their own time. What started as a one-man operation has quickly expanded to a team of over fifty, and he has plans to expand to “offshore” turbines, where the wind is much more consistent. Have there been accidents? “Sure, a few pinched fingers, things like that, but nothing too bad,” Chris said. “We take all that very seriously.” Chris insists that once he clung to his plan and made it his primary goal, he was able to fully realize the future success of his business. “I was very confident with this idea,” he said. “I knew it was something that would last. And help the environment. Both of those things were very important to me.”

Read the full article →

Jeffrey Hollender: The Harms of Regulation Phobia

June 2, 2011

Safe food. Seatbelts. Safety on the job. Clean air and water. A functioning financial system. These are all things that we as Americans have come to take for granted in our daily lives. And, though it has become unfashionable to say so, these are all things provided by robust federal regulation. Regulations are getting a bad rap in Washington these days. Despite the collapse of our financial system, financial regulatory reform has been chastised. Despite the continued need for clean air and water, some in Congress are exploring ways to prevent the implementation of rules to stem pollution. And, Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has devoted his time not to finding ways to reduce the deficit through duplicity in federal agencies, but instead by rallying against any and all regulations that large corporations have suggested they would like to see go. These misguided efforts distract from dealing with the real issues impacting economic growth. While over-burdensome government regulations may be harmful, those which Congress is currently focusing on will not strangle job creation. This is a myth repeated by politicians and CEOs who stand to increase profits while decreasing safety if standards disappear — standards that ensure product and food safety, protect our environment, and guarantee the proper regulation of our financial, medical, and legal industries. Though the Obama administration recently identified thousands of non-functioning, or wasteful rules that are unnecessary and can burden businesses or agencies, responsible reform must leave in place and ensure proper enforcement of the many hard-won regulations that protect the health and safety of Americans. The anti-regulation mania that’s swept Washington conveniently ignores the positive impact that common sense regulations have on all of our daily lives, while threatening to harm the basic protections that we have come to expect. For instance: Attempts to protect the public from salmonella in eggs faced years of roadblocks even after President Clinton proposed an egg safety rule that would have saved 1.4 billion in medical costs and prevented 79,000 illnesses and 30 deaths a year. Heavy lobbying by big agriculture interests delayed implementation of these rules from their inception in 1999 to the final enactment in 2010 — but not in time to prevent the 2010 salmonella outbreak that left 2,000 Americans sick and led to the recall of half a billion eggs. In 2004, in response to a request, OSHA drafted a rule that addressed the major causes of construction worker injury and death from cranes and derricks (electrocution, collapse and overturning). The final rule established common-sense standards for operator certification, crane inspection, set up and disassembly. But the rule took six years to clear bureaucratic hurdles — a delay that resulted in an estimated 132 unnecessary deaths and 1,050 preventable injuries at a cost of more than 1 billion. Earlier this year, the House took aim at the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate toxic air pollution. The House bill, designed to “rein in” environmental protection, would block the implementation of the agency’s new mercury emissions rules, designed to prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 130,000 days of missed work due to illness. This, despite the fact that many of those members who voted to prevent implementation of the rule, voted for it in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. There are similar stories to be told about industries that affect all areas of American life. Lax regulatory supervision of Massey Energy allowed the company to get away with safety violations that eventually led to a deadly mine collapse in West Virginia. The financial industry’s long campaign to escape government checks led to an epidemic of profiteering from reckless practices and an unprecedented economic crisis. The absence of stringent off-shore drilling safety regulations, and enforcement authorities that were missing in action, led to a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf that will have repercussions for years to come. The fact is that time and again, the impact of lax regulations is felt more broadly by the country — from the cost of a near depression to the cost of environmental clean-up. This is not good for most businesses, nor the economy. In the short run, regulations require investment, but that does not translate into a drag on the economy — in fact, analyses show that the economic benefits of smart regulation greatly outweigh their costs. The Office of Management and Budget studied all the major regulations issued between 2001 and 2010, and found that compliance costs of $44 billion to $62 billion were dwarfed in comparison to the $136 billion to $651 billion of annual benefits that those rules created. The OMB in part calculates the economic benefits of regulations by assigning monetary values to the human lives saved. We would like to think that the saving of those lives alone would be reason enough to applaud, rather than scorn, the government’s regulatory efforts. Those investments also create jobs. And, if companies began investing earlier, they would reduce overall costs, benefit from early compliance and be in a position to spread out the cost of regulations over a longer period of time, thus dampening any economic impact. While Congress engages in ways to prevent implementation of important health and safety regulations, it is sleeping when it comes to identifying real efforts that can jump start the economy, including: Increasing capital access to small business and entrepreneurs to create jobs; Incentivizing new forms of energy, clean transportation and other technologies that will help us lead in the 21st century instead of lagging behind our worldwide competitors; Passing legislation that would encourage greater use of non-toxic chemicals which help save companies compliance dollars, increase worker safety and reduce costs to state and local governments; and Leveling the playing field by precluding companies from escaping their corporate tax obligations by using tax havens outside of the United States. Too much time has been spent on Capitol Hill arguing over one message or another. When will our elected officials stop the rhetoric, end the charge to implement everything they think their campaign contributors are seeking and start putting Americans first? As supporters and founders of businesses that have proven that we can thrive in a world that encourages a balance in meeting environmental goals, employee goals and profit, we are urging Congress to move away from the lexicon of corporate protection at all costs, and toward the lexicon of protecting the citizens they are supposed to represent. We must work toward this: real, forward-moving regulatory reform that helps to create a new economy — one that values people, planet and profit. David Levine is the co-founder and executive director of the American Sustainable Business Council , a growing coalition of business networks and businesses who represent more than 100,000 businesses and more than 200,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals, advancing a new vision, framework and policies that support a sustainable economy. Jeffrey Hollender is the co-founder and former CEO of Seventh Generation and the co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council. He also blogs about these topics and more at JeffreyHollender.com .

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Why Innovation Needs Big Government

May 31, 2011

Most people realize that the Federal budget deficit and the trade deficit are serious problems. Unfortunately, as I have argued previously, few people grasp the importance of another big deficit in our economy, without which it will be extremely hard to fix the first two: our innovation deficit. Simply put: despite appearances to the contrary, our economy is not innovative enough. And it’s costing us, big-time. Despite our smug self-image as a global innovation leader, the U.S. actually only ranks in the middle of the pack for resources committed to innovation. See the chart below. ( Source .) Of course, spending money on problems isn’t everything. But it is also true that you generally get what you pay for. So unless our R&D is somehow more efficient dollar-for-dollar than that of other nations, we’re not setting the pace here. Our other big problem, of course, is that even when we do succeed in out-innovating other nations, we often can’t hang onto the industries we create. In fact, we have a long record of originating technologies and then “losing our birthright” of commercial dominance in them. To give just a few examples: • high-fidelity sound systems • color television • digital watches • videocassette recorders • semiconductor memories • semiconductor production equipment (like steppers, the machines that “print” computer chips onto silicon) • flat panel displays • robots • lithium-ion batteries • advanced ceramics (turbine blades, not coffee mugs) The weakness of our innovation performance is masked for the time being by the fact that innovations often have long lead times between the stages of the so-called “technology life cycle.” That is, decades can pass between the beginning and the end of the following process: 1. The key underlying science is discovered or key technology invented. 2. The first (exotic and expensive) commercial applications appear. 3. The technology gradually achieves adoption in all uses where it is appropriate. 4. The know-how to build the technology diffuses so much that it becomes a low-cost commodity product that any reasonably competent nation can make. As a result, a nation that was once on the forefront of innovation can still be harvesting technological positions it previously planted years later. We’re coasting. This coasting effect is enhanced by the presence of so-called “standards lock-in” protecting the oligopolies of companies like Microsoft and Intel. Microsoft’s products are, as anyone who uses them knows, in many ways abysmal: its desktop operating system delivers a user experience that is no faster or more reliable than the one sold a dozen years ago. People keep using it because of their need to interface with the installed base of other Microsoft users. Intel is less of a technological laggard, but it still commands a fat market share, and premium prices, based on the difficulty of computer manufacturers adapting to the use of alternative chips. Other lesser-known companies and industries enjoy similar effects. But these effects are a wasting asset which will not last forever. They are vulnerable to both gradual encroachment and to sudden technology shocks that render their existing products obsolete overnight. Another factor masking America’s innovation decline is the short-term gains from offshoring, which can make declining tech companies seem to boom as they ramp up profits by inexorably selling off their crown jewels. When a company offshores the least-productive, and least profitable, parts of its supply chain, both its productivity and profitability must, by definition, go up, in the short run. In the long run, however, this can lead to an insidious logic according to which, in the words of aerospace engineer Dr. L. J. Hart-Smith, who wrote a prescient critique of how Boeing was slowly outsourcing itself to death, the company decides “to outsource everything except a little Boeing decal to slap on the nose of the finished airplane.” So how can we restore America’s innovation engine? As I argued in a previous article , the key bottleneck in America’s innovation system isn’t, as many Republicans seem to think, that the government hamstrings would-be innovators with excess regulation or taxes their profits to death. Outside a few industries with big risks to the environment (nuclear energy) or public health (pharmaceuticals), the regulatory burden is, in fact, relatively light. Neither does our government impose confiscatory taxation on successful innovators. Instead, the key bottleneck in our innovation supply chain is what we can call useful unpatentable ideas . (The more sophisticated term is “infratechnologies.”) These are technological innovations which cannot themselves be commercialized. But innovations that can be commercialized and sold for profit cannot take place without them. As a result, the private sector tends to neglect them. To take one example: nanotechnology is probably the first major technology since the steam engine in which the U.S. is not the dominant player, research in this area being divided roughly equally between the U.S., Europe, and the Far East. And commercial nanotech companies depend, according to Greg Tassey of the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, upon the following infratechnologies: • Techniques for measuring the shapes, dimensions, and electrical characteristics of the various molecules making up nanoscale devices. • Techniques for manipulating and measuring the spin of individual electrons. • Scientific and engineering data for characterizing the fundamental physical behavior and long-term reliability of new nanoelectronic materials. Note that the words “techniques” and “data” figure prominently in the above descriptions. As noted, these are not (usually!) things that can be directly commercialized or patented. Nor are they academic pure science that the National Science Foundation will fund. Reigning neoclassical economics assumes (often without realizing it) that new technologies grow automatically from advances in pure science. It also assumes that these new technologies automatically commercialize themselves. But if, as noted, there are important gaps in the “innovation supply chain,” this isn’t true. Pure laissez faire doesn’t work well in technology any better than it does in other areas of economics. Back in the golden age of the American economy , the Federal government used to fill these gaps much better than it does today. In 1965, it funded 65 percent of all American R&D. But it has been walking away from this task for decades, as the chart below makes clear. ( Source .) One big problem for the U.S., as opposed to other countries, is that our publicly-funded R&D is dominated by mission-oriented agencies–NASA, the Defense Department, the National Institutes of Health, etc. These are fine institutions, but none of them is organized around the economic objective of increasing our GDP. They are all organized around non-economic missions: explore space, defend the nation, cure illness. Other nations tend to focus R&D funding on what will improve their economies. For example, Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute has one mission: technology development and commercialization. (One consequence is that private industry contributes about a third of its budget; leveraging money this way is key.) It is no accident that while our Defense Department produces 0.1 patent (an imperfect measure for infratechnology research, but it’s what’s available) per million dollars, ITRI generates twenty times that. ( Source .) Proposals have been made to remedy America’s shortfall in this field. In 2008, the liberal Brookings Institution and the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation proposed a National Innovation Foundation along the lines of the existing National Science Foundation. Beyond this, what else could we do? Here are some suggestions: • Raise the average level of research and development (R&D) in manufacturing to six percent. This would be roughly a fifty percent increase from today. It wouldn’t push the entire manufacturing sector into the ultra-high R&D category characteristic of true high technology, but it’s a good benchmark of what level we need for the sector to be innovative across the broad range of categories we need. • Shift American R&D more towards long-term “breakthrough” research, as opposed to short-term research oriented to next week’s product launch. • Because long-term research is, by its nature, more speculative, encourage a “portfolio” approach in which many projects are pursued, only a few of which will reach fruition in any given time-frame, as opposed to a “bet the house” approach on one or two things. • Increase the efficiency of America’s R&D spending by supporting a number of policies to this end, like regional technology clusters, supported in part by state governments. Some states are already doing this part on their own.

Read the full article →

EU Rushing To Complete Greece’s Second Bailout Package

May 30, 2011

BRUSSELS/ATHENS (Jan Strupczewzki and Harry Papachristou) – The European Union is working on a second bailout package for Greece in a race to release vital loans next month and avert the risk of the euro zone country defaulting, EU officials said on Monday. Greece’s conservative opposition meanwhile demanded lower taxes as a condition for reaching a political consensus with the Socialist government on further austerity measures, which Brussels says is needed to secure any further assistance. Moves to plug a looming funding gap for 2012 and 2013 were accelerated after the International Monetary Fund said last week it would withhold the next tranche of aid due on June 29 unless the EU guarantees to meet Athens’ funding needs for next year. Senior EU officials held unannounced emergency talks with the Greek government over the weekend, an EU source said. Greece took a 110 billion euros ($158 billion) rescue package from the EU and IMF last May but has since fallen short of its deficit reduction commitments, raising the risk of a default on its 327 billion euro debt — equivalent to 150 percent of its economic output. The tax cuts sought by conservative New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras could aggravate the revenue shortfall, but he argues they are essential to revive economic growth. EU officials said a new 65 billion euro package could involve a mixture of collateralized loans from the EU and IMF, and additional revenue measures, with unprecedented intrusive external supervision of Greece’s privatisation program. “It would require collateral for new loans and EU technical assistance — EU involvement in the privatisation process,” one senior EU official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Extra funding for Greece faces fierce political resistance from fiscal conservatives and nationalists in key north European creditor countries — Germany, the Netherlands and Finland — complicating EU governments’ task. Greek daily Kathimerini said finance ministers of the 17-nation single currency area may hold a special meeting next Monday on a new package. European Commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj dismissed the report as “unfounded rumours, once again.” The next scheduled meeting of euro zone finance ministers is on June 20 in Luxembourg, having been pushed back a week from its original date. It will be followed three days later by a summit of EU leaders to assess the 18-month-long debt crisis. MARKETS RATTLED Mass unemployment and wage and benefit cuts due to the EU/IMF austerity plan have triggered spontaneous youth protests in Greece as well as a series of one-day strikes by powerful trade unions. Weekend comments by an Irish minister that Dublin too may need a second rescue package may also fuel opposition to further bailouts among lawmakers in Berlin, the Hague and Helsinki. Transport Minister Leo Varadkar told The Sunday Times newspaper that Ireland was unlikely to be able to return to capital markets next year as foreseen in its EU/IMF program. “It would mean a second program (of emergency loans),” he was quoted as saying. Irish central bank governor Patrick Honohan acknowledged at a news conference on Monday that debt market conditions were worse now than when Ireland took an 85 billion euro bailout last November but said they would improve. Uncertainty over whether Greece will receive the next 12 billion euro aid tranche required to meet 13.4 billion euros in funding needs in July continued to rattle financial markets. The Greek 10-year bond spread over safe haven German Bunds rose by 20 basis points to 1,387. Two-year yields were up 58 bps to 26.23 percent. The European Central Bank maintained a drumbeat of pressure against any attempt by EU politicians to restructure Greece’s debt mountain, even by asking investors to accept a voluntary extension of bond maturities. ECB board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said in an interview published on Monday the idea that debt restructuring could be carried out in an orderly way was a “fairytale,” saying it was the equivalent of the death penalty. “If you look at financial markets, every time there is mention of a word like ‘restructuring’ or ‘soft restructuring’ they go crazy — which proves that this could not happen in an orderly way, in this environment at least,” Bini Smaghi told the Financial Times. He also warned against a debt ‘reprofiling’, or voluntary extension of Greek bond maturities, saying it would be hard to get investors to agree to such a deal without the use of force. Euro zone governments are actively studying options for changing the maturities on Greek debt, officials say, although German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble acknowledged in an interview last week that it was very high risk. “The Eurogroup is doing research for reprofiling — what can you do on reprofiling? Is it possible without a credit event?” Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees De Jager told reporters on Saturday in Cyprus. “It’s an investigation, and we have to wait for the outcome of it. EU officials contend that Greece could do much more to help itself by selling off a treasure trove of state assets. ECB executive board member Juergen Stark told Welt am Sonntag newspaper that Athens could raise as much as 300 billion euros from privatising state property. Greece currently aims to raise 50 billion euros from privatisations by 2015 to help stave off a fiscal meltdown, but the country lacks a proper land registry and ownership of many potentially lucrative assets is legally uncertain. Athens is setting up a sovereign wealth fund to pool real estate assets and state stakes in companies such as telecom company OTE, Post Savings Bank and ports. Top EU officials have asked Greece to step up privatisations urgently and suggested creating a trustee institution to help the process similar to the body that privatised East German firms after the fall of communism. (Additional reporting by Angeliki Koutantou and Ingrid Melander in Athens, Marius Zaharia in London, Luke Baker in Brussels; writing by Paul Taylor, editing by Mike Peacock) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Why Medicare Will Be The Issue Of 2012

May 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — The 2012 election found its defining issue on Tuesday night, with an insurgent Democrat upsetting a well-financed Republican in a deeply red district in New York state. The GOP paved the way for the Democrat’s victory by voting earlier this year to end the current Medicare program that guarantees health coverage to seniors and replace it with a voucher system that provides premium support for the elderly to purchase private health insurance. The Republican in the race, Jane Corwin, fully endorsed the GOP plan to alter Medicare, while the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, defended the social safety net. The race’s polling trends point to Medicare as the defining issue, while the conversation has played out on a national level. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) summed up the Democratic position: “We have a plan –- it’s called Medicare.” With some exceptions, Democrats have ranged from reluctant defenders of government spending to outright hawkish assailants of social funds. But nothing focuses the mind like political calculation, and the upset in upstate New York has sent a message so clear that not even the highest priced Democratic consultant could miss it. “Kathy Hochul’s victory tonight is a tribute to Democrats’ commitment to preserve and strengthen Medicare, create jobs and grow our economy. And it sends a clear message that will echo nationwide: Republicans will be held accountable for their vote to end Medicare,” Pelosi said in a statement after the election. The race began turning toward the Democrat when Corwin embraced the GOP’s Medicare plan in mid-April. The campaigns had already been communicating with voters, airing television spots for nearly a month. Corwin attacked Hochul on the airwaves in late March for having sought property tax increases and attempted to link Hochul to Pelosi, following the playbook Republicans applied with success during 2010. Hochul responded with a series of ads beginning in early April, but none mentioned Medicare. That changed on April 26 when the Hochul campaign began airing an ad that hit Corwin for saying “she would vote for the 2012 Republican budget that would essentially end Medicare,” that would have seniors “pay $6,400 more for the same coverage” and would “cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.” WATCH : Just before Hochul’s television campaign shifted to Medicare, a Siena Research survey showed Corwin leading Hochul by a surprisingly narrow margin, 36 percent to 31 percent. But ten days later, an automated survey conducted by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling and sponsored by SEIU showed Hochul leading by four points (35 percent to 31 percent). And in the final week, two more surveys, one from PPP and one from Siena College, both showed Hochul leading by similar margins. Jef Pollock, Hochul’s pollster, told HuffPost that the numbers showed the Democrat winning among seniors and independents, two groups that broke heavily for Republicans in 2010. “This race was won, in a significant way, because of the disastrous decision by the GOP to dismantle Medicare as we know it,” he said. “Kathy Hochul was a great candidate. And credit is due to her for running a great race as well as credit to the campaign for making Medicare a central issue — that’s why Hochul was winning 74 percent of the voters who said that Medicare was the most important issue to them in the most recent Siena poll conducted just a few days ago,” he said. Steve Murphy, Hochul’s media consultant, argued that his candidate persuaded voters she was concerned about the deficit without needing to cut Medicare. “A Democrat in a competitive district can win on the Ryan budget and Medicare issue as long as they first demonstrate to voters that they are tough on spending and serious about the problem of rising deficits,” he suggested. “Five of our seven ads had a strong fiscal component, not just Medicare.” Democrats highlighted the serious money the Republicans put into the election. “Today, the Republican plan to end Medicare cost Republicans $3.4 million and a seat in Congress. And this is only the first seat,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), head of the Democrats’ House campaign arm. House Republicans pinned blame for Corwin’s loss on a quirky third-party candidate, Jack Davis, who ran under the Tea Party despite an eclectic and sometimes liberal political past. “Republican Jane Corwin ran a hard-fought campaign against two well-funded Democrats, including one masquerading under the Tea Party name,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), head of the House GOP campaign operation. “Obviously, each side would rather win a special election than lose, but to predict the future based on the results of this unusual race is naive and risky.” American Crossroads, a GOP group that spent heavily in the race, said that the race indicates a resurgent Democratic party, whether the third-party candidate tipped it or not. “The debate over whether Medicare mattered more than a third-party candidate who split the Republican vote is mostly a partisan Rorschach Test,” said American Crossroad’s Jonathan Collegio. “What is clear is that this election is a wake-up call for anyone who thinks that 2012 will be just like 2010. It’s going to be a tougher environment, Democrats will be more competitive, and we need to play at the top of our game to win big next year.” The GOP can’t and won’t retreat from the Medicare valley it has occupied. “We know that bell can’t be un-rung, and we wouldn’t want to,” said a well-placed GOP aide. “We’re on the right side of history. If President Obama wants to be ‘the grown-up in the room,’ he’s going to have to grapple with grown-up problems. We have.” Indeed, the GOP has been doing plenty of grappling lately, but it’s been mostly with constituents and members of the party. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was browbeaten by his party for calling the Medicare plan “right-wing social engineering” and endorsing Paul Ryan’s budget, which includes Medicare reform as its signature component and has become a litmus test for candidates. At home, Republicans have faced hostile town halls with seniors questioning how they’ll be able to purchase private insurance with a voucher that doesn’t rise at the rate of health care costs. At a recent town hall, a constituent of Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) raised a practical obstacle to obtaining coverage in the private market within the confines of an employer-based health insurance system: What happens when you retire? “The private corporation that I retired from does not give medical benefits to retirees,” the woman told the congressman in video captured a local Patch reporter in Dacula, Ga. “Hear yourself, ma’am. Hear yourself,” Woodall told the woman. “You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, ‘When do I decide I’m going to take care of me?’” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) pounced on the remark, telling the Washington Post that it typifies Republican ideology. Tuesday’s special election was held to fill the seat of Chris Lee, who resigned after topless photographs he sent of himself to a woman on Craigslist surfaced.

Read the full article →

Robert Greenwald: Sec. Clinton Has a Choice: Protect Americans or Profit the Kochs

May 24, 2011

There is a raging battle going on in this country over whether we use our resources to benefit the haves or to protect those who don’t have as much as the most wealthy among us . We see this where tax cuts for the millionaires are required in order to continue giving unemployment benefits to the out of work. It took place around the attempt to reform Wall Street. We see it in cuts to education, and attempts to bust unions. The latest battle over whom our country chooses to protect goes straight to the heartland, in the form of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, currently under review by Secretary of State Clinton. Tell Secretary of State Clinton to say No to the Keystone XL pipeline here! Benefiting The Koch Brothers And Friends Whenever such a harmful project is en route to approval, it needs to be asked who stands to benefit from it. Unsurprisingly, two of the key people positioned to benefit from this pipeline are the notorious Koch brothers . As ClimateProgress writes about a recent SolveClimate reports: The two brothers together own virtually all of Koch Industries Inc. — a giant oil conglomerate headquartered in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenues estimated to be $100 billion. A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports. A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers. Flint Hills Resources Canada also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The company’s website says it is “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters.” Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum properties. We’re not the only ones asking how much the Koch brothers stand to gain. On Monday the House Energy and Commerce Committee GOP is holding a hearing on the pipeline, in an attempt to push through approval even quicker than the present process allows. This act of political theater is another attempt by conservative elites to push through the pipeline’s approval, against the wishes of American homeowners, farmers and ranchers. On Friday, House Democrats wrote a letter sent to committee Republicans stating. “We are writing to request that in preparation for the hearing on and markup of this draft legislation, the Committee request documents from Koch Industries relating to the company’s interests in Canadian tar sands and the extent to which it will benefit if the Keystone XL pipeline is constructed.” Keystone XL is only the latest political fight where the Koch brothers hope to keep secret their involvement and financial interest. The Kochs have been exposed as being willing to cause any degree of harm to our country that would increase their profits. And now they’re going after Midwest land, the property passed down through generations of family, and the safety of our drinking water and air. Keystone XL and “Dirty Oil” The proposed Keystone XL pipeline deals with what is called “dirty oil” tar sands . Tar sands production carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher that those of conventional oil. The amount of oil Keystone XL would carry is equal to the pollution level of adding six million new cars to our roads. Tar Sands mining operations involve a vast drilling infrastructure, open pit mines, and toxic wasteland ponds up to three miles wide. The extraction process involves strip mining and drilling that injects steam into the ground to melt the tar-like crude oil from the sand and requires a massive amount of energy and water. In addition to pollution and harm to the environment, Keystone XL directly puts at risk the land of families across a full stretch of our country. The pipeline would cross through six states and several major rivers, in addition to the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies clean water to two million Americans. The present Keystone pipeline has already experienced 7 leaks, making the question when, not if, Keystone XL will also have a disastrous spill. As if all of that wasn’t reason enough to call this a bad idea, Keystone XL would actually raise the prices of oil in the Midwest, and not bring it down in the rest of the country. Secretary of State Clinton’s Decision, And The Pipeline’s Lobbyist – Questions Unanswered What happens next rests with Secretary of State Clinton . And that’s where the power of wealth and connections continue to serve the rich. Just last week, environmental and ethics groups sued the State Department to gain access to possible communications between a lobbyist for Keystone XL and the State Department. The TransCanada lobbyist in question is Paul Elliott. Elliott formerly worked as the national deputy director for Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Friends of the Earth, Corporate Ethics International and the Center for International Environmental Law filed a Freedom of Information Act request last year, seeking to uncover any possible communications between Elliott and the State Department, to review whether Elliott’s former position is resulting in bias in the granting of the permit for Keystone XL to be built. The State Department initially refused to fulfill the request, before reversing that decision, and have delayed on releasing the information since then. Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers in the pipeline’s path have criticized the rushed nature of the State Department’s review process for approving the pipeline. Hearings have not been held on the department’s latest draft analysis. And questions still have not been answered about why the State Department has refused to release their correspondence with the lobbyist, and what information is held within those records. Americans Left In Limbo: How To Stop The Pipeline As political battle among the wealthy continues in DC, landowners throughout our heartland wait to hear their fate. Secretary of State Clinton has said that a final decision will be made on Keystone XL by the end of 2011. The cards of power and access may be stacked against those concerned about the health of our country, but it is not too late to fight for the protection of Americans. Brave New Foundation has made the above video to raise attention to this call to action. We are also asking those who oppose Keystone XL to sign our petition to Secretary of State Clinton, expressing why they want her to say no to the Koch brothers and big oil, and to protect Americans who can’t afford lobbyists. We need to keep the pressure on and get the word out. Secretary of State Clinton, the country is watching. And we’re not going to stop organizing around this issue until you side with the American people and say no to the Koch brothers.

Read the full article →

Gary Liberson, PhD: Social Engineering Medicare

May 23, 2011

This week Newt Gingrich, as is his way, is at the epi-center of the brouhaha over his comments about Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to replace Medicare with a voucher system. Let me say right now, I like vouchers. I like the idea of allowing a broad array of solutions for a problem and letting the marketplace determine the best solution. I now have to caveat this statement: I only like vouchers if they are not designed at the outset to place the burden of Medicare on the elderly (i.e., a voucher needs to have a fair market value). The whole Newt-Voucher thing started me thinking about how confused I am about government and political identity. I don’t know about you, but I want to go back to those good old days when government expanded and the USA was King of the Mountain. Bill Clinton was Alan Greenspan’s favorite Republican when it came to fiscal conservancy. My favorite Democratic president is Richard Nixon. You know the Richard Nixon who created the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as opening up China. Sure he had some frailties, but I don’t talk about Clinton’s foibles; why belabor Nixon’s? All this said, I know when Nixon was alive, I did not recognize his contributions. I particularly like the following June 4, 1971 special message to Congress from Nixon: We believe that part of the answer lies in pricing energy on the basis of its full costs to society. One reason we use energy so lavishly today is that the price of energy does not include all of the social costs of producing it. The costs incurred in protecting the environment and the health and safety of workers, for example, are part of the real costs of producing energy — but they are not now all included in the price of the product. Makes you want to cry when you think Nixon was really a closet liberal. Republicans (Newt aside, well, Newt prior to his numerous mea culpas) like vouchers but do not like insurance exchanges. They think insurance exchanges are socialism. A recent news item in The Denver Post noted: House Democrats on Wednesday had to rescue a Republican-backed bill to set up health insurance exchanges in Colorado, legislation blasted by Tea Party activists as furthering “Obamacare” and “socialism” but roundly supported by businesses. The Republican Party has not always been the Party of NO. Eisenhower’s party wasn’t no. Nixon was certainly not no. Reagan wasn’t no (he actually raised taxes). Bush 42 was noblesse oblige. But now the definitions of socialism and capitalism have been warped to such a degree that our vocabulary is unable to provide clarity for a politician’s opinions. Seems like today’s Glenn Beck Republican is about anti-socialism, pro-capitalism and an Ayn Rand philosophy of Me FIRST and You NEVER. Here’s the strange part about it, none of this has anything to do with what the majority of Americans believe — even the majority of voting Independents and Republicans. What would happen today if some ranchers or farmers joined together to form a coop to gain better market force? The nerve of those pinkos: Coops are definitely socialism. Yet, what is the difference between an insurance exchange and a coop? Nothing. Forty years ago, I worked on school vouchers for the Office Economic Opportunity (OEO), a predecessor to the Department of Education. School vouchers made strange bedfellows. The religious right banded together with disenfranchised minorities; both seeking a better choice, in their eyes, for their children’s education. Charter schools are now the result of people seeking empowerment and by all metrics a good solution. Vouchers for Medicare may have the same peculiar base of support. AARP, unions and employers may end up banding together to reap the same billions of dollar windfall that insurance companies see in vouchers. Yet, their motives may be very different. Those billions of funding dollars can be the basis for the creation of insurance exchanges, employer self-insurance and new insurance companies. More companies are self-insuring and using insurance management firms to provide accounting and claims administration. These firms provide claims management as a fee-for-service (i.e., a fixed cost per claim versus a percentage of the claims). Medicare vouchers offer the possibility of transforming the insurance landscape. So which is the Republican proposal and which the Democrats? Medicare vouchers can ignite market forces through insurance exchanges that Tea Party members label as socialism. Vouchers can also be priced so retirees face an increasing financial burden. It’s confusing. Newt was right; social engineering is hard to explain.

Read the full article →

‘Giving Pledge’ Billionaires Gather For First In-Person Meeting

May 9, 2011

What do dozens of American billionaires talk about when they get together? Their topic this week was of course money; not how to make it, but how to give it away. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Friday that a private gathering was a great chance for the billionaires who have pledged to give away at least half their wealth to meet each other, compare notes, eat and laugh. The media was banned from Thursday’s first meeting of the group that has accepted the giving challenge by Buffett and his friend Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. Since last June, 69 individuals or couples have made the giving pledge. Buffett knew only about 12 of the 61 people at the dinner at the Miraval Resort in Tucson before the famously gregarious Berkshire Hathaway CEO worked the room and made 40 new friends. “They all more than fulfilled my expectations,” Buffett told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said she was delighted by the openness of the virtual strangers. At one point, conversation at her table drifted toward the biggest mistakes people had ever made as philanthropists. “One of the things about being a philanthropist, in many ways it’s rather a lonely job,” said Tashia Morgridge, a retired special education teacher. She works with her husband, Cisco Systems chairman John Morgridge, to give money to improve U.S. education through the Denver-based Morgridge Family Foundation. George Kaiser, a Tulsa, Okla., philanthropist who aids early childhood education and social services programs, said the giving pledge helps philanthropists who don’t want to just throw money at causes and instead want to explore the best ways to invest money to tackle the world’s biggest problems. “Being able to share with other people who are agonizing about the same decisions is extraordinarily useful,” said Kaiser, the chairman of BOK Financial Corp who has been an oil and gas industry executive for four decades. He led a session on applying analytical business practices to philanthropy. The goals of the organization do not include working together to pool philanthropic dollars. Still, the meeting in Tucson that ended Friday included sessions where different philanthropists shared their passion to improve education, the environment and other causes. Philosophies of giving and ideas for collaboration among the billionaires were also shared throughout the event, said Jean Case, CEO of the family foundation started by her and her husband, America Online founder Steve Case. “There’s a strong desire in this group to learn from each other,” said Jean Case, who offered to host the event at their Tucson resort after Melinda Gates talked to her about the possibility of the meeting. The mother of five children also led a session on children and families in philanthropy. Steve Case gave a talk on using social media to encourage giving. All the sessions at the meeting were led by members of the group. Some common themes emerged from the event. The participants are looking to do more impactful, more effective philanthropy and to inspire average people to give money away, Jean Case said. Sharing ideas about giving also took place informally. Melinda Gates said she talked to two people who were devoting money for work on state pension issues and criminal justice – problems Gates had previously not thought about. Chuck Feeney, a New Jersey philanthropist Buffett called the spiritual leader of the group, spoke about his plans to give all his money to charity. “He wants his last check to bounce,” Buffett said. ____ Online: The Giving Pledge: http://givingpledge.org/

Read the full article →

Dorie Clark: How to Change Anything

May 4, 2011

I ran across VitalSmarts — a corporate training and research behemoth — when I was teaching a course on social marketing at Tufts University. Their book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything quickly made it onto my syllabus, as they detailed innovative strategies from across the globe that had successfully reduced HIV transmission in Thailand and reformed gang members in San Francisco. Now they’ve turned their sights inward — after all, if we can reform society, shouldn’t we be able to change ourselves? In the recently-released Change Anything: The New Science of Personal Success , Kerry Patterson and his compatriots have created a roadmap for individuals to gain mastery over their weight, their careers, their exercise habits, their interpersonal relationships, and more. This is a book you can put to immediate use at work. My top five takeaways: 1. Identify Crucial Moments Sometimes you’ll finish a day and feel completely unproductive. You know you worked 8 or 9 or 10 hours — but what did you actually accomplish? Patterson and company encourage us to identify specific “crucial moments” where we may have gotten derailed. Perhaps it’s our obsessive e-mail checking (which can quickly lead to putting out random fires) or getting too caught up chasing an article citation online (when we could have simply asked a colleague). Noticing these moments is key to controlling them in the future. 2. Find the Right Team . Some people truly want you to succeed, giving you sage advice and encouraging your efforts. And others may be dragging you down the path of extended coffeebreaks and carping about the boss (see my recent BNET article Are Your Friends at Work Holding You Back? ). It can be a challenge, but you’ve got to cut the naysayers out of your life. We respond to our environment, and you don’t want them polluting yours. 3. Structure Your Life to Succeed . We like to think success is a matter of willpower — but more often than not, it’s actually a matter of structure. I always thought it was a good idea to bike more, but I’d usually be in a rush … and I wasn’t sure if my tires were pumped … and I wasn’t sure where I’d put my helmet … so I’d invariably take my car, instead. All that changed when I moved to Boston years ago for graduate school, and parking rates close to school hovered between $20-$30. Thanks to the structural incentive, I quickly became a bicycling convert. 4. Proximity is Your Friend . Studies have shown that — despite the much-vaunted interconnectedness of the Internet — distance and proximity matter to us greatly. Scientists are more likely to collaborate with peers who work on the same floor; you’re more likely to work out if your exercise equipment is in your bedroom (as compared to the basement); and you’ll eat more Tootsie rolls if they’re on your desk instead of in the break room. So think carefully about the workplace behaviors you want to encourage, make them proximate, and watch yourself succeed. Having a professional journal on your nightstand instead of Sports Illustrated could make all the difference. 5. Don’t Accept Lame Feedback . I wish I’d had Change Anything a decade ago, when I worked as a reporter. It seemed like my editor disliked me more and more each week, because I clearly wasn’t writing articles the way she liked them. Her profound advice to me? “Make it different!” Sadly, my mind-reading skills were lacking, so she continued to harrumph and redline every piece. Patterson and friends urge us to insist on specifics, because that’s the only way we’ll get better. We should ask for particular, recent examples until we identify the “vital behaviors” that are sought. What are your top workplace success strategies? Dorie Clark is a strategy consultant who has worked with clients including Google, Yale University, and the National Park Service. Listen to her podcasts or follow her on Twitter.

Read the full article →

Renny McPherson: Tech Startups: Turn The U.S. Military Into Your Client

April 26, 2011

This post was co-written with Matt McKnight and Brett Gibson. The U.S. defense and intelligence communities have traditionally been difficult markets to engage. For this reason, most early stage entrepreneurs know very little about these organizations as potential partners or clients. This need not be the case. Today, there are changes on the horizon that endeavor to make government markets more accessible and easier to understand. As a country, we are entering an era of flat security budgets which will drive a necessity for less-expensive commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions, thereby benefitting innovative young companies. There is a significant effort underway to modernize the IT acquisition cycle, and the government is reevaluating the rules governing the purchase of items like Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) products. Procurement officials are working hard to ensure that new products are not treated in the same manner as big-ticket items like ships and airplanes as many are now. Further, defense and intelligence organizations are focusing massive resources on the persistent and growing cyber-threat, and this will require continued engagement with best-in-class private sector companies. With all that said, and despite potentially positive changes on the horizon, government work can be difficult and dangerous for small businesses who don’t understand the risks that will still exist. As military and intelligence officers and entrepreneurs, we submit this series of notes as a short starter guide for approaching military and intelligence markets in a way that can effectively turn the government into your client. This project is built on our frustration with the lack of access to technology innovation during our time in the military. We wanted to better understand this challenge so we conducted over 25 interviews in the past few months with industry experts to develop recommendations for innovative companies to approach these markets and design and deliver better products to servicemen and women. Based on these conversations with entrepreneurs, government acquisition officials, intelligence and defense professionals, venture investors, and the private equity community, we draw out areas that are most pertinent to entrepreneurs as they begin to look into working with the government. These topics, discussed in detail below, are: Know what is happening in the macro defense/intelligence environment and apply those dynamics to your organizational approach; Target specific user communities and understand what they need; Know what “color” of money you are best positioned to receive; Understand how the government thinks about acquisitions and; Realize you must dedicate resources to this effort. The government really does want to help entrepreneurs. Government acquisition programs can be disorganized and difficult to engage with and contracts are sometimes written by a government customer that does not know the technical scope of the service they are requesting, there is high turnover within the system as military and government personnel work in two to five year intervals in most jobs, and funding is largely dependent on fiscal year cycles. All these factors can contribute to inconsistent and unpredictable contracting cycles. The defense and intelligence communities are aware of these problems, and they are working hard to fix them. Being sure to understand the risks, we believe change is coming and that it is worth the effort for small companies to begin thinking of the government as a clear distribution channel. Even today, a variety of innovative technology transfer organizations funded by the U.S. government are seeking to reduce the friction involved with the traditional contracting structure. We will highlight some resources in the appendix to this article, but entrepreneurs should research In-Q-Tel, OnPoint, the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grant programs, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Intelligence Advanced Research Products Agency (IARPA) to seek opportunity in this space. Now is an opportune time for entrepreneurs and technology firms to engage with the government customer. In response to increased demands for innovative technology, the defense and intelligence communities are beginning to work more quickly to develop solutions that are flexible and agile. This shift is changing the way defense and IC companies serve their customers, collaborate with partners, and take ideas and solutions to market. Further, a relatively untapped market for Silicon Valley firms, the environment for large strategic defense contractors making purchases of small companies active in these emerging growth areas will likely heat up over the next two to four years. Technology start-ups that have traditionally avoided the government as a market are potentially missing a huge opportunity to leverage an important distribution channel that provides both access to funding and an immediate stamp of legitimacy for emerging products. We will soon post an in-depth explanation on the first five things to know when you start looking for government funding. This post was co-written with Matt McKnight and Brett Gibson. Matt, a former Marine Corps intelligence officer, is currently attending the joint degree program at the Harvard Business School and Kennedy School of Government. Among other pursuits, he consults for the Mayflower Strategy Group. Brett, a former Army officer and second-year student at HBS, will be joining LivingSocial in Washington DC after graduation.

Read the full article →

An Intraday CAD/JPY Sideways Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

April 26, 2011

An Intraday CAD/JPY Sideways Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

Brett Caine: How To ‘Green’ Your Business

April 22, 2011

With Earth Day upon us, sustainability is a term we hear a lot but rarely as it relates to business economics. For most, the perception still remains that sustainability practices are at odds with financial realities. The recent data released by MIT Sloan and Boston Consulting Group in its Sustainability & Innovation Survey of global corporate leaders, certainly supports this point. Less than 9% of SMBs surveyed were classified as “embracers” of sustainable business practices, and only 34% of companies with more than 10,000 employees. However, sustainability is essential to helping today’s companies achieve many of their major business priorities, including attracting and retaining great talent and reducing capital expenses. In honor of Earth Day, I’d like to challenge the view that ‘green’ is incompatible with running a business by sharing the return on investment (ROI) we see achievable with four basic and “modernizing” changes to your business operations. Let’s face it, soaring gas prices and the stress of a challenging economy add a huge burden on today’s business owners. Adopting business practices that are good for your company’s long-term welfare as well as our global community is certainly a step in the right direction — not only on Earth Day, but every day. Here are some suggestions for consideration. Implement a telework program . You couldn’t have a greener commute than from your bedroom to your home office! Did you know that if most of the Americans that were able to telework actually did so just half the time, we could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by about 51 million tons – the equivalent of taking the entire New York state workforce off the roads – and reduce Persian Gulf oil imports by almost half? These are a few of the findings from a new report our company commissioned called State of Telework in the U.S., which was conducted with the Telework Research Network. The report highlights the growth of U.S workers using telework, or workshifting as we call it, as a method of commuting. Happy workers make for a happy business. Flexible working can boost your company morale and be an attractive enticement for potential new recruits. Furthermore, why compromise the quality of the employees you are able to recruit by leashing them to a physical building? With so many amazing, easy-to-use, and affordable online collaboration and business tools, there are countless ways you can ensure remote employees are fully engaged and productive wherever they choose to work. Our research has found that workshifting actually increases productivity by some 27% and it turns out that workshifters are typically 55% more engaged than their office-bound counterparts (statistic courtesy of Right Management). Rethink your office space . In a 2010 Second Quarter “Facilities Snapshot” survey from the International Facility Management Association, sustainability ranked high on managers’ priorities. Almost half increased their sustainability efforts, actively seeking ways to conserve energy and reduce their carbon footprint. With the way we work evolving as the workforce becomes more distributed and mobile, there are key changes you can make to your office design that will go a long way in helping the environment. These changes include reducing square footage, not allocating full-time desk space to employees who workshift, and evaluating lighting, carpeting and air conditioning needs. For further insights please see here . Reduce costs associated with unused physical space and free up funds that can be directed to critical investment opportunities for the company. According to a study we conducted last year, if the 64 million Americans who could workshift did so just half the time, U.S. business would save $124 billion in office costs alone. This is a staggering statistic and one which should make all leaders take note. Increase energy efficiency . By giving employees more flexible work options, you can also install heat and motion detection lighting systems that will decrease energy consumption in the office and save money. Other ways your IT manager can increase energy efficiency is by replacing hard disk drives with solid-state drives in PCs, energy efficient chips in laptops, and switching from Alternating Current power to Direct Current power. Reducing facility operations costs and adding energy-efficient technology can chip away at unnecessary business expenses that could be better applied to investing in your business strategy and growth. For example, it has been calculated that virtualizing 100 servers could save $38,271 in energy costs per year. Use modern waste management techniques . When throwing away that paper coffee cup you picked up on your way into the office or the plastic container your sandwich came in, have you ever stopped to think about how much this adds to landfill? Perhaps it’s time for your company to consider reducing its waste and helping employees to do the same. Recycling paper is great, but there’s a lot more you can do. Composting, for example, not only reduces waste, it also enriches the soil. For small businesses on a budget, the costs of recycling and composting onsite may be a barrier. In that case, look for other companies in the area to start co-op recycling programs with or check into participating in a municipal composting program. From our own experience at Citrix Online, a robust recycling program has allowed our Santa Barbara headquarters to divert 42% of our waste from landfills in 2010; this increased to 58% in Q1 of this year. That’s good for the planet, can help improve sustainability processes and potentially reduce operating costs, not to mention giving employees an opportunity to participate in sustainability causes. And if you need any more evidence, the MIT Sloan and Boston Consulting Group survey mentioned at the beginning of this blog also found that the “embracers” were the highest performing businesses in the study, based on employee engagement, innovation, stakeholder appeal — and, yes, profitability.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Why Trump Gets Traction From Trade

April 20, 2011

Donald Trump is getting traction. He is talking about trade, jobs, China, manufacturing, China, jobs, China and China — and it is resonating with a public sick of being told to ignore what they can see in front of their faces. “Nobody, other than OPEC, is ripping off the United States like China,” he says. And he climbs in the polls. Why is blowhard Donald Trump getting such traction from talking about trade problems with China? Self-funded, Trump doesn’t require the support of the multi-national corporate/financial elite to be heard. He is able to use his own money to push his way into the conversation. So unlike politicians captured by the cabal that runs our politics, who have to get past the corporate-journalism gatekeepers to raise money and be heard, he is able to give voice to things that are right in front of our faces. Poll After Poll After Poll Shows Public Wants… Trump can read polls and poll after poll after poll shows that Americans are concerned about jobs, and are especially concerned about how our economy is sending the good jobs and factories out of the country. They are asking why they can’t buy things here that are made here. Whether Trump believes what he is saying or not is irrelevant, he understands what the people are thinking, and is giving voice to those sentiments. Polls show the public wants tax increases on the rich, a focus on jobs not deficits, and more investment in infrastructure, education, transportation and alternatives to oil. A recent Alliance for American Manufacturing poll found that “We have lost too many manufacturing jobs” is the top concern among independents and working-class voters. Other highlights from the poll include: A majority believe the U.S. no longer has the world’s strongest economy — a title they want to regain Voters are anxious about the economy — specifically China debt, spending and loss of manufacturing 86 percent of voters want Washington to focus on manufacturing, and 63 percent feel working people who make things are being forgotten while Wall Street and banks get bailouts Two-thirds of voters believe manufacturing is central to our economic strength, and 57 percent believe manufacturing is more central to our economic strength than high-tech, knowledge or financial service sectors Across all demographics, voters’ economic solutions center on trade enforcement, clean energy, tax credits for U.S. manufacturing and replacing aging infrastructure using American materials, a surprising overlap between Tea Party supporters, independents, non-union households and union households. People are sick of their factories being packed up and sent out of the country to places where people and the environment are exploited . They understand this is done to pit them against workers with no right, in order to lower wages, benefits and rights. They want something done about it. Trump is giving voice to these sentiments. He is saying what people are thinking. Trump says, “We tell China, that if you don’t stop manipulating your currency, we’re going to put a 25 percent tax on your products that come into the United States.” But Turn on Your TV And… But turn on your TV or open a newspaper and you get pundit after pundit saying we need to cut taxes on the rich even more, and cut the resulting deficit by cutting back on the things We, the People (government) do for each other and for our economy. The Elite Are Threatened Here is a typical elite-media response to Trump’s message: CNN Money: ” How ‘The Donald’ could incite a trade war ” Donald Trump’s call for a 25% tariff on Chinese goods is winning him a lot of attention as he weighs a presidential run in 2012. “They have manipulated their currency so violently towards this country, it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies,” Trump told CNNMoney in January, during which he laid out plans for his 25% tariff. Trade wars could arise : Imposing a tariff on China would do little more than irritate the world’s second largest economy, economists say. … China could also respond by closing its increasingly important market to U.S. exporters, which would be a major blow to American jobs and manufacturing. China has become the No. 3 market for U.S. exporters, with sales jumping 31% from the previous year. And that doesn’t even count the goods being made in China by U.S. companies. General Motors sells more cars in China today than it does in the United States, for example. “The sad story is we don’t have much leverage,” said Lardy. “But a tariff certainly would not advance our interests.” This response to Trump shows why Trump is resonating. In a piece that appears to be an ad for the Chinese Exporters Assn, CNN worries that responding to China’s manipulations could “irritate” them, which could lead to a trade war, and says there is nothing we can do to get our jobs back so we should just accept anything China does. We have already in a trade war with China for some time and everyone can see that we are losing. But this story takes the pro-China position typical of Wall Street and DC insiders. Filling the Vacuum The media gatekeepers won’t allow the voice of working people, and working people respond when they finally hear a voice speaking up for them. When the corporate/media elites ignore issues like China and trade, you get blowhards like Trump moving up in the polls. The corporate/financial gatekeepers have engineered the information channels to such an extent that blowhards like Trump can gain traction by filling the vacuum and voicing what the polls say the public is thinking. Examples Here are a few more examples of Trump on China and trade: Dire Warning From Donald Trump – China Will Destroy Our Country Conservative News Media on YouTube : “The Obama administration isn’t equipped to negotiate with and handle the Chinese. … Donald Trump said the Chinese are ripping us off and the Chinese can’t deal with it. … Donald Trump says the Chinese aren’t playing fair. … We need to trade with everybody but we need to be sure it is fair.” And, finally, Frank Sobotka: This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Lynn Jurich: The Rise of the Pocketbook Environmentalist

April 18, 2011

While the down economy has left millions of families feeling battered, Americans aren’t taking it lying down. They are looking for ways to cut back, save money and make ends meet. In this new consumer landscape, saving is in vogue and bargain purchases warrant bragging rights. As the co-founder of a company that addresses this money-saving need by bringing affordable solar power to homeowners, I’ve also noticed that bargain purchases and “green” purchases have finally become one and the same. There is a new wave of environmental consumers I like to call Pocketbook Environmentalists. They’re going green primarily because it makes good financial sense, but the fact that it benefits their families’ health and the environment also makes them feel good. More often than not, they no longer have to choose between their pocketbooks and the planet. The most important values for shoppers — cost, quality, and convenience — haven’t shifted. But, increasingly, green products and services are the superior option in all of these categories. For example, companies like Walmart have stocked their shelves with organic foods comparable in price to non-organic products at mainstream supermarkets, making the decision easy. The Food Institute found that while grocery industry sales grew only 1.8 percent overall last year, organic grocery sales were more than twice that (4.4 percent). Going green is cost-competitive with other products and services, and easier than ever. Another example is Zipcar’s convenient and cost-efficient car sharing service. With Zipcar consumers avoid the upfront cost of buying a car, not to mention gas, insurance, and repairs. Plus, they reduce the number of polluting vehicles on the road. Suddenly the planet-smart carless option is also the convenient money-saving option. What’s more, while Americans battle the recession they also have to deal with rising gas prices and ever-increasing electricity costs. Not surprisingly, soccer moms from the Midwest are trading in their SUVs for hybrids. Sales of Toyota hybrids, including the Prius, have now topped 3 million, while increased demand for fuel-efficient vehicles has inspired nearly every car company to get into the hybrid market. Higher home energy bills have also spurred families to look for alternatives to their utility companies. I’ve met and spoken with them first-hand because they come to solar providers like mine to relieve the burden on their wallets and take control of energy costs. We own, install, insure and maintain the solar panels and all the homeowner does is pay monthly for the power with little or no upfront costs. It’s Pocketbook Environmentalism in a nutshell. Russell Gold of the Wall Street Journal summarized it well recently: “Falling solar-panel prices, generous government subsidies and rising power costs are creating a new breed of solar enthusiasts: people who are installing panels on their roof because they see it as a good investment, not because they are out to save the world.” As a result, new solar panels are showing up in a more economically and politically diverse range of cities. For every family in liberal San Francisco that went solar with SunRun in 2010, nearly eight families in more conservative Fresno made the switch to our solar power service . And New Jersey is now second only to California in the growing nationwide solar market. For Pocketbook Environmentalists, financial savings are the primary motivator. However Pocketbook Environmentalists are changing the face of the market and the planet for the better by demanding that going green saves you money. And that’s a new Earth Day motto we can all get behind. Lynn Jurich is the president and co-founder of SunRun.

Read the full article →

Judge: Citgo Doesn’t Have To Pay For Cleanup Of Third-Largest Oil Spill In U.S. Waters

April 15, 2011

PHILADELPHIA — Citgo does not have to pay $177 million in cleanup costs stemming from the massive 2004 spill of crude oil from a tanker nearing its dock on the Delaware River, a federal judge has ruled. The judge cleared Citgo of liability in the third-largest oil spill in U.S. waters, which occurred when the single-hull Greek tanker struck a rusty anchor long submerged in the riverbed. Nearly 265,000 barrels of heavy crude oil gushed out as the tanker neared the Citgo dock in Paulsboro, N.J., near Philadelphia, after a six-day journey from Venezuela. The spill hampered shipping and polluted more than 45 miles of shoreline in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. At the time, it ranked as the second-worst oil spill in U.S. waters. The total bill for the cleanup topped $267 million. The lawsuit involved efforts by the U.S. government and Frescati Shipping Co., which owned the Athos I, to try to recover their costs from Citgo. Frescati sought about $90 million and the U.S. government $87 million. Frescati argued in part that Citgo had a duty to maintain the area around its dock. However, Senior U.S. Judge John P. Fullam rejected their claims, blaming the spill on the person who abandoned the anchor. That person’s identity remains unknown because the portion of the anchor that contains identifying marks was broken off. “There is no evidence that any party to this litigation – Frescati, (Citgo) or the government – knew or had reason to believe that the anchor was in the river, although it is well-known that all sorts of objects that present a potential danger to navigation lurk beneath the surface of the waters,” Fullam wrote Tuesday. The Athos I had traveled 1,900 miles after picking up its Venezuelan crude and was 900 feet from the Citgo asphalt refinery’s dock on Nov. 26, 2004, when it started to list. Evidence at the 41-day bench trial showed the anchor had been submerged in approximately the same spot since at least 2001, when it appeared in a scan of the riverbed. Fullam said Citgo had no responsibility to maintain the site, which was in a busy public waterway. “Although the docking pilot was aboard the Athos I, the ship was in an area of the anchorage open for the passage of all ships, not an area used exclusively, or even primarily, by vessels docking at the Paulsboro refinery,” Fullam wrote. Rich Whelan, a lead lawyer for Citgo, said the ruling confirms that marine terminal operators are not liable for the maintenance of public waterways. “We think it’s an important decision for marine terminal operators, because the judge limited their responsibility to the immediate berth or dock area, and refused to extend the responsibility into public waters,” Whelan told The Associated Press. A lawyer representing the shipping company in the case did not immediately return a message late Thursday. Under laws in place at the time, the ship owner’s liability for the cleanup was limited to $45 million. Frescati, in its lawsuit, said it paid $35 million in related interest and $10 million in accident-related damages, for the $90 million total. The Coast Guard assumed much of the additional cost. The Justice Department, whose maritime lawyers pursued the government claims at trial, did not immediately return a call for comment. At the time, the Delaware River spill ranked as the second worst in U.S. waters, after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989. The Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last summer has since surpassed it. In its wake, Congress passed a law in 2006 designed to encourage the use of double-hull tankers by tripling fines for single-hull vessels. Proponents of the bill said that 19 of the 20 largest U.S. oil spills from 1990 through 2006 were from ships without double-hulls. The law, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, also requires anyone with knowledge of possible river obstructions to report that to the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers. Numerous government agencies responded to the spill, with mixed success, given the damage to wildlife and the environment in the three-state area. “The testimony of the witnesses was compelling with regard to the complexity and difficulty of the oil spill response, and that costs were monitored to the best extent possible under the circumstances,” Fullam wrote.

Read the full article →

An Intraday AUD/NZD Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

April 14, 2011

An Intraday AUD/NZD Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

Gold Prices Hit Record High On U.S. Dollar’s Decline

April 8, 2011

NEW YORK (Frank Tang) – Gold rose to a record high for a fourth straight day and silver surged on Friday, as a weaker dollar, the prospect of a U.S. government shutdown and inflation worries lifted precious metals in a broad commodities rally. Gold was set for its biggest weekly gain in four months, drawing support from renewed euro zone sovereign debt fears amid Portugal’s financial crisis and inflation jitters as crude oil and corn hit new highs this week. Bullion broke above key resistance on technical charts and could target above $1,500 an ounce. The metal has risen more than 10 percent since late January when political unrest began to flare in the Middle East and North Africa. “With the expected future inflation being higher in this low interest rate environment, investors are more inclined to have some contributions to commodities as an inflation hedge,” said Hakan Kaya, commodities portfolio manager at Neuberger Berman, which manages about $190 billion client assets. Spot gold rose as high as $1,474.19 an ounce and was later up 1 percent at $1,472.20 an ounce by 12:36 a.m. EDT. Bullion was on track to rise 2.5 percent this week for a fourth straight weekly gain. U.S. gold futures for June delivery gained 1 percent to $1,473.60. Gold remained far below its all-time inflation-adjusted high, estimated at almost $2,500 an ounce set in 1980 as a result of heightened geopolitical pressure and hyperinflation. (Graphic: r.reuters.com/ren88r ) U.S. futures activity was sharply below average for a second consecutive day, but analysts said low volume is not detrimental to the bull run after a strong price rally. Silver rose 2.3 percent to $40.42 an ounce, just off the session high of $40.49. The gold-to-silver ratio — the number of silver ounces needed to buy an ounce of gold — fell to a 28-year low near 36 on Friday. “One would expect silver to outperform in this environment because it bears a higher risk than gold on a volatility basis,” Kaya said. DOLLAR WEAKNESS UNDERPINS The dollar slide against the euro, supported by widening interest rate differentials after ECB’s rate hike, and crude oil’s surge to 2-1/2 year high added fuel to a rally that has already taken gold to a series of record highs this year. Gold also benefits from dollar weakness as Democratic and Republican congressional leaders said on Friday there was no overall deal on government funding for the rest of the fiscal year that ends September 30, and could not even agree on what disagreements remain ahead of the midnight Friday deadline. The looming U.S. government shutdown was “simply a minor problem of far greater problems,” said Camilla Sutton, chief currency strategist at Scotia Capital. The issues with the U.S. dollar are not temporary and the dollar is expected to remain weak this year, she added. On charts, gold breached important technical resistance at $1,466 an ounce near Thursday’s high, said Rick Bensignor, chief market analyst at Dahlman Rose. If bullion could hold above $1,466 early next week, it should next target an area between $1,500 and $1,510 an ounce, Bensignor said. Among other precious metals, platinum gained 1.3 percent to $1,803.74 an ounce, while palladium jumped 2.2 percent to $791.97. Prices at 12:36 p.m. EDT (1636 GMT) (Additional reporting by Julie Haviv in New York, Jan Harvey in London; Editing by David Gregorio) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: Sustainability’s Faustian Dilemma

April 8, 2011

We all remember the SunChips Episode of 2010 . Frito-Lay introduced bio-degradable packaging for SunChips in March, and was surprised to see sales of the chips drop by 11% over the next six months. The reason: Consumers felt that the new bags were too noisy, prompting an onslaught of YouTube videos and Facebook groups bemoaning their high decibel levels. In October, Frito-Lay switched most of the SunChips brands back to quieter plastic packaging. Only last month — a year after the initial launch — did the company start reintroducing ( very slowly ) a new, quieter version of the biodegradable bag in some grocery stores. In light of this “curious case of the cacophonous snack pack,” I find that many people see sustainability as a version of a Faustian dilemma ; they often knowingly make choices that have immediate personal benefits , but in the long run are disastrous for all of us. Their reasoning goes like this: “While I’d like to save the planet in the long-term, if it means that I have to give up my currently comfortable lifestyle in the short-term, I probably won’t do it.” Lifestyle resistance to the wind energy industry — a clean alternative to fossil fuels — is another example of this dilemma. One New York Times article documents noise complaints from a number of communities across the U.S., Canada, Britain, and France. As one neighbor of a newly installed wind farm in Maine said, “… we are prisoners of sonic effluence.” Other wind energy projects, such as the proposed turbines off the coast of Cape Cod and Hawaii , have been slowed or stopped by residents who do not want their view of the ocean disturbed. Similarly, makers of all-electric cars are facing resistance from “range anxiety,” or the fear of getting stuck somewhere when the batteries run out of juice. It stems from the hesitancy to give up that limitless freedom of gasoline-powered vehicles, despite the knowledge that electric cars will significantly reduce tailpipe emissions. To counter this anxiety in a somewhat ironic way, for a time Nissan considered giving its all-electric Leaf customers free access to gasoline-powered rentals whenever they needed them (essentially defeating the purpose of having an electric car). The correlation between these examples is that they reinforce and even amplify the notion that sustainability requires a trade-off: In order to improve the environment, we’ll have to sacrifice something (e.g., peace and quiet, view, freedom of travel, or inexpensive transportation). And while some people are willing to accept this trade-off, many others are not. As a result, the idea of sustainability — which should be a perfectly sensible notion in a world of finite resources — is often viewed with suspicion or skepticism. To counter this resistance in the coming years, more companies may need to embrace what Cisco’s Inder Sidhu calls “doing both.” The idea is that instead of thinking about tradeoffs between equally good alternatives — such as innovation vs. core business or discipline vs. flexibility — to creatively try to achieve both. In other words, more companies should be acting like Frito-Lay. By developing a package that is compostable and quiet, they are working to save the environment while still delivering a quality product that will please consumers. For the wind industry this would mean developing silent and more attractive turbines; and for automobile manufacturers it will mean developing electric cars (or supporting infrastructures) that provide range as well as zero emissions. I’ll admit that this may be blindingly obvious. But if we’re going to make progress with sustainability, we’ll have to accept the fact that many people are like Faust — they will sell their souls (or at least their planet) to the devil in order to maintain their current standard of living. Until we give them a better choice, and prove that sustainability doesn’t require sacrifice, we’ll be fighting an uphill battle — and putting our snack packs in landfills instead of compost heaps. What are your suggestions for overcoming sustainability’s Faustian dilemma? Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online

Read the full article →

An Intraday USD/CHF Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

April 7, 2011

An Intraday USD/CHF Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

Roberto Ramos: The Dora Generation: How Kids Helped Latinos Win the Census

March 30, 2011

In my last two HuffPost entries I addressed the stellar showing of Hispanics in the 2010 Census: 50 million strong, accounting for more than half the population growth in the United States over the past decade, and making staggering gains in crucial states like Texas and California as well as traditionally non-Hispanic states like North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana. Leading this growth are Latino children and youth, a segment that is not even yet old enough to vote, but who have a remarkable impact on today’s trends, pop culture and economy. Kids under 18 have accounted for a significant portion of Hispanic growth, and a large chunk of them are 5 and under: In California and Texas alone 90% of new births can claim Latino heritage. I like to call them the “Dora Generation,” after the popular Nickelodeon cartoon character Dora the Explorer. The show was devised over a decade ago and soon took off and became one of the most popular children’s icons in history, spawning a multi-million dollar empire of products (books, dolls, clothing, games, CDs, backpacks) marketed equally to Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents and children. The Dora phenomenon continues unabated today with a new generation of kids following perfectly bilingual Dora and her sidekicks Boots, Diego and others in their adventures, being inspired by their curiosity, and taking on her Latino culture as their own. Dora’s original audience is now composed of tweens, and they represent an even more crucial market for brands. Not only are they much more digitally savvy and media saturated than any generation that came before, this group is also much more likely to be multicultural. They were also raised with stories and trends that were more likely to draw from diversity: like Dora, of course. The Dora phenomenon, like this Census itself, signals an important threshold for the growing Latino influence in the mainstream. What The Dora Generation Can Teach Business • Kids marketing and multicultural marketing have become one, as most kids come from a multicultural background, especially Latino. Brands should tap into the unique experiences of these kids growing up in two worlds as fodder for product innovation; a new Dora might be next in line. • Rethink your marketing strategies when speaking to moms. Ask yourself whether your brand is incorporating Latina cultural insights into your product development given that Latinas are the main growth pillar in the mommy segment. • Dora is a smart girl and she knows there’s money to be made by knowing other languages, especially in this tougher inter-connected global economy. This presents some product opportunities in the creation of bilingual educational toys for the kids, as well as language and cultural products for adults. • Think of ways of incorporating Latin culture into the mainstream to engage both your Latino customers as well as mainstream audiences. • For the media industry, Dora’s success is a wake-up call to create more properties that are culturally rich and diverse, especially to reach U.S. born young Latinos — many of them original Dora Generation kids — looking to both connect with their culture and share it with their peers. • Go green. Generation Dora has been raised to respect the environment and its inhabitants. Brands should expect to continue this engagement by coming up with cool and inspiring ways to tap into respect and curiosity for our planet. The growing Dora tweens will also challenge companies in the next generation of green marketing. • Dora and her friends like to visit Latin America and the world. While the Census points a strong multicultural picture in the U.S., the global kids market is even stronger and growing faster. Companies should rethink how they approach international markets, and how these markets can also serve as product innovation fodder for what we promote back at home. But perhaps most important, a focus on los amigos: While the Census numbers fueled by the Dora Generation present a market that is growing, the Latino community and its children still face strong social obstacles including poverty and lack of access to education. As companies and brands engage Latino families, they must find ways of giving back and promote the full development of Latino kids. They represent the future of the Latino community and our nation. It is only by investing in Latino kids that the true power of Generation Dora will be felt and we can all enthusiastically say “Vámonos.”

Read the full article →

American Business Media Announces New Business Plan and Management Team

March 29, 2011

Enhanced Member Services Add Impact in Evolving Media Environment

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Economists Are Hopelessly Naïve About International Trade

March 28, 2011

The economics profession, or well over 90 percent of it according to polls , continues to support free trade. Above all, most economists remain stuck in a cheery “win-win” fantasy of how trade works and are unable to see the brutally adversarial dynamics of trade in the real world. The basic justification for their delusion, of course, is David Ricardo’s venerable 1817 theory of comparative advantage. However, economists do not consider free trade justified today simply on the strength of the original 1817 theory alone. Ricardo’s ideas have been considerably elaborated since then, and they generally use sophisticated “computable general equilibrium” (CGE) computer models, built upon his work as the foundation, to assign actual dollar amounts to the purported benefits of free trade. As a result, it is well worth looking at problems with these models a bit in order to understand why economists remain so mistaken. These models are called “computable” because, unlike economic models that exist purely to prove theoretical points, it is possible to feed actual numbers into them and get numbers out the other end. They are called “general equilibrium” because they are based on the fundamental idea of free market economics: that the economy consists of a huge number of separate equilibria between supply and demand and that all these markets clear, or match supply with demand, at once. The most obvious problem with these CGE models is that they often make rather implausible assumptions. For example, they often assume that government budget deficits and surpluses will not change due to the impact of trade, but will remain fixed at whatever they were in the starting year of the model. Hmm… Worse, they assume that trade deficits or surpluses will be similarly stable, with exchange rates fluctuating to keep them constant. Yeah, right. And they assume that a nation’s investment rate will equal its savings rate: every dollar saved will flow neatly into some productive investment. O-kay. These assumptions are understandable, as devices to simplify the models enough to make them workable. They are, however, both clearly untrue and serious objects of controversy in their own right. That investment will equal savings is basically a form of Say’s Law, “supply creates its own demand,” named after the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832). This basically makes both underinvestment and unemployment theoretically impossible. (This is a recurring problem in free trade economics: ideas long discarded in other areas of economics recur with alarming regularity.) Furthermore, these models often assume that nations enjoy magical macroeconomic stability: the business cycle has been mysteriously abolished. I wish. And, of course, their financial systems enjoy unruffled tranquility, without booms, busts, or bubbles. I want to move to this country! Many of these assumptions are pre-Keynesian, and are thus at least 70 years behind mainstream domestic economics. That is to say, they are innocent of the thinking of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), the great British economist who revolutionized economics by explaining why economies do not naturally reach an equilibrium of full employment (and thus why deficit spending can help economies climb out of recessions.) These models also generally leave out transition costs. These sound temporary, but such transitions can take decades. Consider the pain experienced by the Midwestern manufacturing areas of the U.S. as their industries have gradually lost comparative advantage since the mid-sixties. Given that the world economy is not static, but constantly moving into new industries, there are always new transitions being generated, which means that transition costs go on forever as an intrinsic cost of having a global economy based on shifting patterns of comparative advantage. Somebody will always be the rustbelt. This does not of itself mean that economic change is a bad thing, but it does mean that these costs must be factored in to get an accurate accounting. Arbitrary accounting for trade in services (AKA offshoring) is another big flaw in CGE models. The root problem here is that this trade usually isn’t regulated the same way as trade in goods. Due to the fact that, prior to cheap long-distance telephony and the Internet, many services were rarely internationally traded, there are actually few outright tariffs or quotas on them. Instead, there is a crazy-quilt of hard-to-quantify barriers, ranging from licensing requirements to tacit local cartels and linguistic differences. As a result, when these barriers come down, they rarely come down in a neatly quantifiable way like reducing a tariff on cloth from 28 to 22 percent. So economists must, to put it bluntly, guess how to quantify nonquantitative changes in order to model them. (The standard term for this is “tariff equivalent” numbers.) As a result, the conclusions generated by many CGE models of trade in services are so dependent upon arbitrary guesses as to border on arbitrary themselves. Another caveat: because these CGE models are predictions about the future, they are of necessity somewhat speculative under the best of circumstances and are notoriously susceptible to deliberate manipulation. It is easy, for example, to generate inflated predictions of gains from trade by extrapolating calculations intended to apply only within certain limits with back-of-the-envelope calculations that go far beyond these limits. (These are known in the trade as “hockey stick” projections due to their shape when graphed.) As a result, as Frank Ackerman of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University puts it: The larger estimates still being reported from some studies reflect speculative extensions of standard models, and/or very simple, separate estimates of additional benefit categories, not the core results of established modeling methodologies. ( “The Shrinking Gains From Trade: A Critical Assessment of Doha Round Projections,” 2005.) Similarly, the standard way for free traders to play down the damage done to the victims of free trade is to count only workers directly displaced from jobs as its losers. Unfortunately, these workers crowd into the labor market of everyone else with similar education and skills, dragging down wages for other people, too. Even if all statistical gamesmanship is removed and other reforms made, there is a deeper problem with CGE models: no such model can predict what choices of trade strategy a nation will make. For example, none of the models used in the 1950s predicted Japan’s ascent to economic superpower status. Quite probably, no model could have. Indeed, no model based upon purely free-market assumptions will ever readily predict the outcomes from such strategic choices, as free-market economics, with its insistence that it is always best to just do what the free market says, rules out a priori the possibility that most such deliberate economic strategies can even work. It is high time policymakers stopped deferring to these weak intellectual constructs. The reality is that free trade is an exceedingly dubious proposition for America and many other nations.

Read the full article →

Venture Capitalist: ‘Entrepreneurs Have A Lot Of The Power’

March 28, 2011

Ann Miura-Ko is known for using the term “ninja assassin” in describing the kinds of technology entrepreneurs she likes to invest in as a venture capitalist and co-founder of Silicon Valley’s Floodgate Fund. Reuters recently caught up with one of the country’s up-and-coming VCs , after Miura-Ko attended at a Washington, D.C. conference addressing financing options for small companies. Q: You’ve said you are concerned about impending regulatory restrictions on small investment firms as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act takes effect. Why? A: This comes out of the result of some bad behavior on the part of investors. But what they’re (government is) trying to do is mitigate risk for the whole economy by having smaller investment firms also register with the SEC. As a small fund myself, that doesn’t have a lot of overhead, we don’t have a lot of back-office people working for us. The amount of reporting that is required relative to the amount of risk it de-risks for the entire economy, I think that the cost benefit doesn’t really make sense to me. We as a really small fund would have to start registering with the SEC pretty soon, and the amount of back-office work that would be required is kind of ridiculous. Q: You’re interested in easing residency restrictions for foreign-born entrepreneurs. Why? A: One of the topics I love to talk a little bit about is the concept of the startup visa, which would enable founders to be able to stay in the United States longer and be able to start their companies here. I recently did a study on some of the top (startup) exits that have happened over the course of the last five years. What’s really outstanding is the number of founders who come from outside the United States. I’d like to foster that. I look at fellow graduate students from Stanford and where they ended up. I see really a lot of technical talent staying here even after they get graduate degrees and I think that’s also going to work for a competitive advantage. Q: What is the environment like for early-stage companies seeking funding options? A: Over the last five or ten years, the amount of information for entrepreneurs on how to work with investors, the amount of information is huge. There are blogs out there now. There are resource centers like Venture Hacks. The transparency in the industry has increased. For entrepreneurs who want to find that information, there is plenty of information to be found. This kind of information didn’t exist even three, four, five years ago. I think that’s why you find people talking about the democratization of entrepreneurship and innovation. It’s really a time in which entrepreneurs have a lot of the power. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Andrew Reinbach: Fracking Tide Turns — Frackers Get Mean

March 28, 2011

The PR tide seems to be turning against fracking, and predictably, the political rhetoric from the gas industry and its allies is turning nasty. In upstate New York, for instance, Richard Downey, director of a local landowner’s coalition that hopes to lease its land to drillers, recently published an opinion piece in the Oneonta Daily Star playing the class warfare card — claiming pro-drillers are good, truck-driving local folk, while the antis are Volvo-driving, brie-eating NIMBY elitists against anything ruining the view from their estate. Downey himself is a retired New York City teacher, and while his rhetoric seems less than measured, it’s typical of the posture displayed in letters to the editor columns across the state, many of which read like pieces in right-wing blogs — vitriolic, largely fact-free, and wrapped in the flag, A recent editorial in The New York Post , for instance, did everything but claim anti-frackers are led by former Weatherman Bill Ayers, calling anti-frackers “Hard-core lefties and environmental groups” that include the Working Familes Party and MoveOn.org. This characterization of the anti-frackers isn’t even true; in New York’s Marcellus Shale region, for instance, the anti-fracking forces include local families farming the same land since the Revolution. The same is becoming true in states as far apart as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Wyoming, where concerns about the effect of hydro-fracking upon ground water supplies are getting more pronounced everyday — together with lawsuits over the same. But the rhetoric is a good indication of how defensive the frackers have become, as a rising tide of media stories about the dangers of fracking to the environment appear alongside reports of serious environmental accidents, and local governments banning fracking within their precincts. Pittsburgh, for instance, passed an anti-fracking ordinance last November. Since then, local townships across upstate New York have done the same — recently joined by Ontario, Canada. And last May in Flower Mound, Texas, no-fracking candidates swept a recent municipal election. In fact, the tide of public opinion is visibly turning against hydro-fracking — and not just in the Marcellus Shale region that begins in northern Alabama and ends near Utica, New York. Generally speaking, early industry assertions that hydro-fracking is perfectly safe have collapsed under a flood of facts about the procedure, leaving deep suspicions about the industry’s intentions and reliability. Enter a Philadelphia PR firm, Gregory/FCA, which charted the turning tide in a recent article it published in its blog, displaying data that made it clear that public opinion is turning against fracking. “Since the beginning of 2010, the positive sentiment in traditional media for Marcellus Shale has fallen dramatically, from a high of +3.1 to a low of -0.3 in January 2011,” wrote Gregory Matusky, the company president, in the report. Matusky follows up that polling data — he says he analyzed millions of media reports to come up with the downward trend — with what amounts to a memo on how to counter media reports like the one from Moundsville, West Virginia that the municipal water supply temporarily ran dry because local gas drillers withdrew so much water from it. Matusky’s main heads: • Publish an ocean of information about the Marcellus Shale. Matusky, who says he has no energy company clients, claims that the Marcellus Shale gas play is generally a good thing, but that the anti-fracking forces “…aren’t under the same time constraint as gainfully employed Americans [and] have…idle time to plant falsehoods, raise suspicions, and demonize the oil and gas industry.” • Never respond to the supposed negatives. Constantly focus the conversations on how domestic reserves of clean energy of natural gas that will reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, says Matusky. • Make it about people. “The people of Marcellus Shale are fierce, noble individuals who have been ignored for generations. The industry needs to…make their stories of economic renewal a mainstay of the storytelling.” How? “The industry should underwrite a [reality] show,” he says. • Dominate the online discussion. “The industry needs to dominate online conversations as a way to positively impact consumers, regulators, influencers, and ironically, the traditional media….” • Connect the dots for the public [about the benefits of natural gas]. • Language is important. Find a better term than fracking, says Matusky; “The very term “fracking” has a negative connotation. Much of what Matusky recommends is already finding its way into the public realm — Downey’s op-ed piece being only one example. Missing from Matusky’s analysis? Whether allowing hydro-fracking in the Northeast is a good business deal. People fighting to keep gas drilling out of their backyards like to point out, for instance, that the West and Midwest are running out of fresh water, and will eventually lead people and industry back to where it is — the Northeast. These people then say that looked at this way, swapping the region’s plentiful supplies of clean water for the money gas drilling will bring is, to all intents, trading its birthright for a mess of pottage. Whether notching up the rhetoric will save the gas industry’s bacon is uncertain at best. Pennsylvania and West Virginia may have already made their deal with the industry, but New York hasn’t, and aside from signs that new regulations covering fracking may be delayed almost indefinitely, two recent bills were introduced in the state legislature that would keep the fracking wolf from the door for some time: Assembly Bill A06541 proposes a 5-year moratorium on hydro-fracking, and Senate Bill S4220 would ban it altogether. Also muddying the water for the energy industry: The Environmental Protection Agency, under fire for having exempted fracking from the Clean Water Act in 2004, is conducting a wide-ranging analysis of all the environmental impacts of hydro-fracking and isn’t expected to issue a report for several years. The newly installed Commissioner of New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, Joseph Martens, has made conflicting statements that, when parsed, suggest little may be approved in New York until the EPA issues its own regulations. Delay, though, may not turn out to be the best outcome, since it gives the energy industry plenty of time to follow Matusky’s advice and slap some new reality show on the airwaves. Maybe it’ll be called Gas Driller Angels.

Read the full article →

Steven Crandell: A New Strategy for Business Success in the 21st Century

March 25, 2011

A small Atlanta design firm is attempting to redefine success for corporate America. Unboundary , which lists companies such as FedEx, Coca-Cola, AT& T, IBM, HP and Charles Schwab as clients, believes the way to change the world is to re-think and broaden business strategy. The Power of Purpose In the 20th century, business success was often defined in terms of profit and growth. Ironically, such a limited definition in the 21st century can constrain potential profit and growth and worse yet, endanger a company’s ability to stay in business. Unboundary — which often works with companies in the midst of change — believes that society expects more of business today, that firms with true loyalty and support are those who pursue purpose as well as profit. Unboundary says this new world demands a new business standard for success. They call it significance. By that unboundary means significant to society as a whole. In other words, companies must consider creating and maintaining a meaningful relationship with everyone effected by the company’s operations, not just shareholders. “We’ve seen the power of companies when they pursue a well understood purpose. Our aim is to use our talents for the greatest good, on behalf of our clients and everyone whose interests and lives they touch. ” – From the unboundary website If the quote above sounds to you remarkably similar to something you might hear from civil society, then you have picked up on a key point. Unboundary’s new focus on significance rejects last century’s for-profit/non-profit dichotomy. It suggests that good business in the 21st century will be business that is good for humanity. Constant, Conscious Evolution Tod Martin is the CEO of unboundary. He’s the lead the company for 12 of its 24 years, always with the aim of pushing the leading edge of design, strategy and communications. Martin says unboundary chose to stay small and resist being put in a niche. Somewhere along the way, probably in 1997 or ’98 , we were this mustard seed-sized company [16 people] which had had a pretty amazing impact — on the turnaround at IBM, helping [ Roberto] Goizuetta quadruple the market value of Coca-Cola — so some fairly significant things. And lots of people were attracted to our work, so opportunity was ripe and yet we were trying to figure out… what is it that we’ve created and how do we make sure we don’t lose it. And I think it was a great moment of reflection, conscious introspection, but also a recognition that it wasn’t about trying to stay what we were. It was about trying to know what was valuable about what we were and how would we evolve with that… And that’s an important part of the operational story internally here — that we can and should constantly, consciously evolve. The Path to Purpose & Significance Martin gave me an insight into how unboundary found its current business approach. Here are some of the key points: Where Businesses Get Stuck — Umair Haque, who blogs on the Harvard Business Magazine, wrote: Most companies have only ever conceived of themselves as being in business.” This may sound self-evident, but Martin says it’s very important. “They’ve never really thought of themselves as citizens. They have citizenship programs, and corporate social responsibility and philanthropy but … most companies never deliver on what really counts — making people, communities and societies tangibly better off. This is where businesses get stuck . Declaration of Purpose — “There is a need… to be declarative about what it is you’re trying to create — a sense of purpose,” says Martin: There is probably no greater example than the Constitution of the United States of America which is actually a document created out of a certain bit of anarchy. The Constitutional Congress was actually an illegal meeting, done in a backroom. Ratification was a fairly crazy part of the life of the country where you had Federalist against anti-Federalist … This whole sense is that purpose doesn’t necessarily come about in a completely orderly fashion, that someone has to … push for something more and defend why it might be good. The Great Re-Think — We believe there is a great re-think going on in the world, that people are questioning lots of things and that the questioning is driven by technology… People once thought [they had] isolated or individual opinions. They’re now discovering that actually lots of people think like them and it’s driving a conversation about capitalism, education, health care, transportation, energy, right down the line. And in that context, there are a lot of companies who are beginning to say we have a conventional way of doing things, but we either see that things are changing or we believe that there’s a better way of doing it. “Spear Through the Chest Epiphany” — The InterfaceFlor Example Martin tells the story of an unboundary client, InterfaceFlor, the world’s largest manufacturer of carpet tile, to illustrate how purpose can transform a company. In this case, the epiphany of a CEO turned InterfaceFlor into a leading green manufacturer. What does that mean? Well, InterfaceFlor has promised to ensure its operations have no negative impact on the environment by 2020. “A group of InterfaceFlor’s sales people were starting to get asked about their policy on the environment. This was back in the late 80s. And they set up a meeting with CEO Ray Anderson where they wanted him to tell them, a group of sales people, what Interface’s position was on the environment. And he’s thinking, I don’t know what to say except compliant. Compliant with whatever the government tells us we need to be… Somebody leaves on his desk a copy of Paul Hawken’s book The Ecology of Commerce . He reads it through the weekend and describes it as this spear through the chest epiphany. He realizes that what Hawkins is talking about is a company like his, a take-make-waste, entirely petroleum-based business. And literally in that weekend, he comes to [the realization] … that I’m robbing from my grandchildren. Comes in on Monday and everybody’s a little floored [no pun intended] at what he starts saying … which is that InterfaceFlor is going to become the first sustainable manufacturing company in the world… What he started doing then was sharing the epiphany with everybody.” — Tod Martin TedxAtlanta Tod Martin loves evolutionary ideas and the sharing of those ideas. So when Chris Anderson announced the Tedx concept in 2009, Martin jumped at the chance to create it in Atlanta , becoming the first city in the Southeast to do so. He says he did it for three reasons: To enable his staff to enjoy TED’s stimulating experience of ideas and people. To create “one of the most unique audiences in Atlanta,” a “cross-pollination” of business leaders and local creative folks. To give back to his community. “I worry about whether our thinking is agile, modern, forward-thinking enough ,” Martin says. He wants to provide the stimulus to consider new ideas, solutions and innovations so Atlanta can be a “great, brilliant, wonderful, sustainable place to live.” Martin says the latest one, focused on creativity and featuring singer/songwriter India Arie and others on March 16, was an “amazing success.” Not surprisingly, Martin talks about the event as a true believer, with conviction and passion. Oh, and with purpose, too.

Read the full article →

Ohio Funeral Home Stopped From Liquefying Bodies

March 23, 2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio funeral home that is the first in the nation to use a cremation alternative that dissolves bodies with lye and heat has effectively been blocked from using the procedure by state regulators. Edwards Funeral Service in Columbus is the only U.S. funeral business offering the procedure called alkaline hydrolysis to the public, according to Jessica Koth, a spokeswoman for the National Funeral Directors Association. The process is touted by proponents as being better for the environment than cremation. While funeral homes in other states are moving toward the method, Edwards’ owner, Jeff Edwards, told The Columbus Dispatch that he has used the method on 19 bodies since January. But a memo issued last week by the Ohio Department of Health has left Edwards unable to continue using the procedure. The health department’s memo directed local officials not to issue permits required for disposing of bodies or accept death certificates when bodies are to be disposed of through alkaline hydrolysis. Edwards told the newspaper he is considering legal action. “There’s no law that says you can’t do this,” he said. The health department cited a Feb. 16 statement from the Ohio Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors that alkaline hydrolysis “is not an authorized form of disposition of a dead human body.” The health department directive was based solely on the statement of the board, which advises the department on what methods of disposal are approved, spokeswoman Jennifer House said Wednesday. She said the department has reviewed the process and found that it does not pose any risk to public health. An official with the funeral directors board did not immediately return a message seeking further information. Alkaline hydrolysis was developed in the U.S. in the early 1990s as a means to get rid of animal carcasses and has been used to dispose of human cadavers at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Also known as resomation, alkaline hydrolysis uses a solution of water and lye, 300-plus degree heat and 60 pounds of pressure per square inch to destroy bodies in big stainless-steel cylinders. Left behind is a coffee-colored liquid that has the consistency of motor oil and a strong ammonia smell. Proponents say in most cases it can be safely poured down the drain and that, unlike cremation, the process does not involve fossil fuels or emissions. The remaining bone and bone fragments can be ground into a powder and given to a family, similar to the remains left from a cremation, the funeral directors association said. New Hampshire in 2008 reversed a two-year-old law that allowed the process. State lawmakers upheld the ban in 2009. The procedure merely speeds up the body’s natural decomposition process into a matter of hours, James Olson, chairman of the National Funeral Directors Association’s green burial work group, told The Associated Press. Olson said alkaline hydrolysis gives families who’ve lost a loved one another option and said anyone feeling squeamish about the method need only think closely about what’s involved in cremation. “I think burning a body at 2,000 degrees has more of a ‘yuck factor’ to it than putting it into a solution where it’s just naturally going to break down,” said Olson, owner of the Lippert-Olson Funeral Home in Sheboygan, Wis. Olson said his funeral business is relatively small and is not using alkaline hydrolysis because it would not be cost-effective to buy the equipment. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus has not studied Edwards’ use of alkaline hydrolysis, but it would appear that flushing away the liquid would go against church teaching that persons should be handled respectfully after they die, said Deacon Tom Berg Jr., a diocese spokesman. “We don’t call for the separation of a person’s remains, that they should all be kept together and buried together,” he told the AP. ___ Associated Press writer Kantele Franko in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: The Imaginary World in Which Washington Lives

March 23, 2011

It is a beautiful spring day in Washington. This is a nice respite from the horrors taking place in Japan and the ever-growing nuttiness of D.C. politics. Enjoying the weather provides a nice alternative to listening to the news or reading the newspaper. The flood of nonsense in the traditional news outlets just continues to grow. At the top of the list is the steady stream of senators or members of Congress whose response to higher gas prices is to insist on drilling in every square inch of environmentally sensitive territory in the country. This is supposed to reduce our dependence on imported oil and lower the price of gas. Both sides of this assertion are absurd. According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States has proven reserves of 22.3 billion barrels of oil . Given our current rate of consumption of 6.9 billion barrels a year , U.S. reserves could meet our demand for oil for less than 3.5 years. That means if we could somehow drill here, now, and everywhere, we could be energy independent until the middle of 2014 and then we would be 100 percent dependent on imported oil. Of course, we cannot suddenly suck all the oil out of the ground at once, it takes time to explore and drill wells and then the oil must be drilled out over time. If we decided that we want to destroy every last national park and coastal region, we may be able to increase production by 1.0-1.5 million barrels a day in 5-10 years. At the high end, this would be a bit less than 2 percent of world supply. Given normal assumptions about how demand responds to price, we would be very lucky to see a 6 percent decline in the price of oil. This means that in the most optimistic “drill everywhere” scenario we would save less than 20 cents from our $4 a gallon gas. More likely the savings would be less than half this size. In other words, when a politician says that they want to end environmental restrictions on drilling in order to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil or bring the price of gas down, they are speaking utter nonsense. The correct response of a reporter to such assertions would be to say something like: “Senator, you know that the United States does not have nearly enough oil to be energy independent or to substantially reduce the price of gas.” However, you won’t hear this response from outlets like National Public Radio or the Washington Post . Instead, they will just allow politicians to make absurd statements about energy independence and lower prices and treat them as though they are reasonable positions in the public debate. They will often add their own framing comments explaining to their audience that the issue is one between concerns over energy independence and concerns over the environment. When major news outlets make wrong and damaging statements about a company like General Electric or Microsoft, they can count on angry and threatening phone calls from company lawyers. Unfortunately, there is no one in Washington with a comparable interest in protecting the environment, so these absurd statements get passed along in major news outlets unchallenged. Politicians routinely make similarly absurd statements about Social Security, implying that the program and the country are about to go broke. Of course both claims are obviously untrue. According to the Social Security trustees, the program can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 26 years with no changes whatsoever and even after that date can always pay close to 80 percent of scheduled benefits . Instead of our children being broke, average wages are projected to be more than 40 percent higher in 2040 than they are today. This means that when a politician whines about Social Security or the country going broke, the correct response from a reporter should be “Congressman, you know that the program is fine for more than a quarter century into the future,” or “Congressman, you know that our children and grandchildren will on average be far richer than we are today.” Unfortunately, you won’t hear reporters making these corrections either. Fortunately, there are groups like the Social Security Works , the Campaign for America’s Future , and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research that do correct bad reporting on Social Security, so there is at least some limit to how bad it can get. However, the country is unlikely to see competent reporting on these and other topics that are central to national political debates until new media outlets, like Truthout, The Huffington Post and ProPublica, mature further and displace the traditional outlets. The latter still play far too large a role in setting the bounds for acceptable political discourse. The sooner we see the transformation of the media the better. Until then, maybe we can at least enjoy the weather.

Read the full article →

Christine M. Riordan: It’s a Matter of Mindset: Ten Principles for Unleashing Critical Thinking

March 21, 2011

“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.” — Albert Einstein Recently a product manager at a leading financial services company organized a team meeting to talk about a product launched over two years ago, whose sales fell significantly short of initial projections. Comments about the shortfall from the product team members in the meeting ranged from saying the initial sales projections were set too high (even though the product team had been involved in setting those goals and projections), the market for this product just wasn’t there, we have done everything we can to sell the product, to why aren’t there higher goals for other products that the organization carries, and we simply can’t meet the goals set. Other company staff attending the meeting and who weren’t part of the product team saw a complete lack of critical thinking on the part of the product team on how to increase sales or even frame the problem. The product team offered no data that indicated the market had vanished for the product or that the initial sales forecasts were inaccurate. Worse, they summarily dismissed suggestions for improvement by others. Rather than approaching the failure to meet sales goals as a “challenge” to solve, the product team resigned itself to sub-par sales because of alleged factors beyond its control and hoped the rest of the organization would carry the load. They refused to think differently about the problem, their approach to sales, and changes they needed to make immediately to try to bolster sales. In short, the product team did not have a critical thinking mindset for solving a significant problem. It Requires Skill And Mindset In 2011, the business world is changing at an astonishing and complex pace. Companies need critical thinking skills to not only thrive but also survive in this environment. High performance firms require people that capture opportunities, make sound decisions, create new revenue streams, expand their customer base, and create strength for the future. While much has been written about how to develop employees’ skills around critical thinking that include diagnosing and defining problems, gathering data, testing assumptions, infusing creativity, and generating solutions – the real key to success is to have a critical thinking mindset or attitude as a foundation. It’s simply not enough to have the critical thinking skills. A critical thinking mindset is required – it is a way of doing business, an attitude, a behavior, an approach, an inclination, a disposition, a confidence, a frame of mind, the drive, or motivation to solving big problems. Individuals with a critical thinking mindset believe they can solve any problem and no challenge is too great. They approach problems with the attitude of optimism, persistence, confidence, and resolution to improve the situation. This is in sharp contrast to a defeatist attitude, which accepts status quo or failure as a natural consequence of the situation or of others and believes that not much can be done to improve the situation. Bill Gates is the epitome of a leader with a critical thinking mindset both in the workplace and in solving the world’s big challenges. In 2005, Gates said , “I’ve always been an optimist and I suppose that is rooted in my belief that the power of creativity and intelligence can make the world a better place. For as long as I can remember, I’ve loved learning new things and solving problems. I believe that progress on even the world’s toughest problems is possible — and it’s happening every day. We’re seeing new drugs for deadly diseases, new diagnostic tools, and new attention paid to the health problems in the developing world. I’m excited by the possibilities I see for medicine, for education and, of course, for technology. And I believe that through our natural inventiveness, creativity, and willingness to solve tough problems, we’re going to make some amazing achievements in all these areas in my lifetime.” Ten Principles Underlying a Critical Thinking Mindset There are at the very least ten fundamental principles underlying a critical thinking mindset. 1. View problems as an exciting challenge. The willingness to solve tough problems is at the very core of a critical thinking mindset. People with a critical thinking mindset respond to new demands and challenges by maintaining a constructive, positive outlook about change. New challenges and problems excite them. In fact, they thrive on tackling problems. When presented with organizational change, they see an opportunity not a threat. Seemingly unsolvable problems thrill them, and they find the time and energy to solve the big issues of the day. Author, inventor, and entrepreneur Jock Brandis is such a person. On a 2001 trip to Mali, West Africa to fix a water treatment plant, Brandis noticed women shelling peanuts by hand – a very slow process. Before he left, he promised to send them back a peanut sheller but found upon returning to the U.S. that no such thing existed. So he invented one, now called the Universal Peanut Sheller. One sheller can serve 5,600 people or 731 homes. Brandis is now a part of the non-profit group, the Full Belly Project, exploring other technologies to help improve living conditions in some of the most poverty-stricken areas of the world. As quoted in an interview, Brandis said, “there are many problems that can be solved with an oil drum and a few spare parts.” 2. Act courageously and take risks . Fear of risk or failure inhibits a critical thinking mindset. Additionally, many people fear pointing out new ways of doing things or flaws in current methods for fear of retribution or being thought of as someone who “rocks the boat” rather than a “team player.” Nevertheless, it’s imperative to gauge when to speak up, suggest creative new ideas, or take on a risk. LivingSocial is a company formed in 2007, offering daily deals at restaurants, and other enterprises, using social media to tap into local business advertising. During an interview (2011), CEO Tim O’Shaughnessy stated that part of the company’s culture is to take risks. “One of the things I like to say around the office is, if you’re not making at least one decision a month where you are genuinely nervous about it, you’re probably not trying hard enough,” he says. Asked for an example, O’Shaughnessy says, “We actually started to go and advertise, and promote our service, in markets that we weren’t ‘live’ in.” The gamble paid off — LivingSocial quickly added markets and signed up more members. And the company’s fast growth attracted more venture capital, to help level out its balance sheet. “We took our [cash] burn rate from about a 12-month time frame to about a month-and-a-half time frame — in the span of about a week,” O’Shaughnessy says. These courageous and risk taking tactics worked well for the young company that now employs hundreds of people and is in more than 100 cities. Amazon also just invested a cool $175 million in the company in December 2010. 3. Don’t use excuses. How much easier is it for people to use excuses for lack of success or results and blame factors such as market, inadequate resources, organizational barriers, or other people rather than working to figure out ways to solve problems? Companies and people embracing a critical thinking mindset learn from failure and mistakes, with the ability to rebound from setbacks and/or changes. And when things do not go well, they work to make them better. Case in point: many financial investment firms find that they are transforming themselves through extensive changes due to failures. Late in 2010, Marsico Capital Management, LLC Denver restructured $2.7 billion in debt as they now fight for their company survival. In November 2010, assets were 54% of the high value base – losses had been significant over the last year or so. Currently analysts from S&P and Moody’s remain skeptical about the survival of Marsico Capital. Marsico company executives aren’t providing excuses, but solutions and a concrete game plan. With a steadfast commitment to maintaining a strong investment process and commitment to clients, they work to move forward and build back their asset base. While problems at Marsico mirror those of other boutique equity firms, the executives at Marsico have a strong reputation for their creativity and critical thinking mindset and some analysts believe they will rebound and thrive. 4. Blink. Many times inadequate information exists or there is a lack of awareness of what is really happening in the environment to identify problems, much less solve them. In these situations, executives must act with incomplete knowledge. If they wait until the information is complete, they could miss key windows of opportunity. In some cases, executives must learn to use their hunches, gut reactions, and intuition because they don’t have access to complete information. They have to simply make a decision and move forward. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink , makes the case for times when using “thin-slicing” or just a few pieces of critical information suffice to make fast decisions. As Gladwell notes, sometimes it is essential that we pay attention to those short moments of first reactions, impressions, and conclusions when we confront complex situations and problems. 5. Learn and question. Individuals with a critical thinking mindset often frame difficult challenges as learning opportunities, with an innate concern to know the business and stay well informed, to gain clarity in questions, to seek relevant information and to be open to learning about new ideas. As an example, the onslaught of social media tools, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter among others, creates opportunities and challenges for companies and employees to learn new ways of marketing, think differently about their products, and interact with consumers. Those with a critical thinking mindset open themselves to new ideas; new ways of viewing issues, and constantly ask relevant questions. 6. Think at the organization-environment level. Organizations need people whom are “active stewards” and think of ways to help the organization achieve its overall goals. This contrasts sharply a mindset that focuses solely on oneself or one’s unit. While understandable, viewing an organization’s needs through the lens of a particular unit or oneself often hinders critical thinking. Defensive and protective thinking is probably one of the biggest disasters with internal organizational interactions, and unfortunately, it is part of a normal thought pattern that exists within many organizations. People sometimes spend way too much precious psychic energy endlessly guarding their own ego or their own area, and it’s especially easy to fall into this type of mindset while under pressure. Yet, organizations need executives who put their own feelings and needs aside to think about issues from an organizational perspective towards accomplishing the greater goal. 7. Push through roadblocks. Too often people hit a roadblock and simply stop trying to develop a new idea or new way of conducting business. A research development executive at Microsoft shared that often as he pushes out a new idea at first, he is thought of as crazy for a few months, then he becomes a hero as the idea gains acceptance, and then goes back to being a nobody as the product takes traction. And so the cycle goes – generation of idea, perseverance through roadblocks to gain buy-in, to implementation – to final results. In contrast, I often see executives suggest great ideas in meetings, but if not acknowledged by others, they withdraw from the conversation, never to mention the idea again. People with critical thinking mindsets continue to think of new ways to communicate, gain buy-in for ideas and push through the roadblocks. As noted by Warren Bennis, “innovation– any new idea–by definition will not be accepted at first. It takes repeated attempts, endless demonstrations, monotonous rehearsals before innovation can be accepted and internalized by an organization. This requires courageous patience.” 8. Be open to new __________ (fill in the blank). Often, problems require a paradigm shift – a new way of thinking about the business. Many people can’t conceptualize a new paradigm for their business or industry. What we often don’t hear in solving problems is a critical reframing of the questions to address root causes. Individuals and companies with a critical thinking mindset open themselves to new ways of doing business, new ways of thinking about product lines and customers, and to business model paradigm shifts. Questions such as, “if you could start with the blank sheet of paper, how would you design the solution to your business problems” must be asked. Pay attention to the directions that the trends and data suggest. Starbucks recently launched a new instant coffee product called Via. CEO Howard Shultz was criticized by others saying that the launch of Via was an act of desperation and that Starbucks was driving sales simply through promotions. However, sales reached $100 million in just 10 months and Starbucks just launched another flavor of the instant coffee mirroring its most popular brewed product. As Howard Shultz noted in an interview, “it wasn’t a desperate move. It was really finding an opportunity that we could create, and bring something to the market that our customers would embrace. We have created a business that will exceed $100 million in its first year. That category of instant coffee has not had any innovation over 50 years, and we’re going to build a major business.” 9. Be optimistic. When thinking about significant issues, it is important to be realistically optimistic and anticipate positive outcomes. Martin Seligman’s research on learned optimism demonstrates that optimism allows a person to be proactive and productive in the face of the possibility of failure, to lead and encourage others. Optimism inspires and inspiration is often needed for success. 10. Create an environment that supports it. Executives should create an environment conducive to a critical thinking mindset. Often the size of the organization can influence the development of a positive mindset. Large organizations may have more difficulty being nimble and flexible around their thinking due to complexity and communication. In organizations with a deep history and culture of maintaining the status quo and not promoting innovative thought, it is much more difficult to move quickly to a critical thinking culture. Lack of rewards within the organization limits how much people engage in a critical thinking mindset. If critical thinking is not rewarded within the organization through praise, promotions, merit increases, it simply won’t happen as often. 3M is a corporation highly regarded for its innovation. In Century of Innovation , a 3M book about its history, it points to “four key ingredients that foster a culture of innovation at 3M: attracting and retaining imaginative and productive people; creating a challenging environment; designing an organization that doesn’t get in people’s way; and offering rewards that nourish both self-esteem and personal bank accounts.” Unleashing a Critical Thinking Mindset To succeed in our rapidly changing business environment, leaders, employees, and organizations must place a critical thinking mindset on the top of the agenda. The big issues facing organizations today require dramatic change that is bold, optimistic, innovative, and courageous. Leaders need to approach all sectors with a critical thinking mindset, not just those traditionally known for innovation such as technology, biotech, and space science. Energy, health care, transportation, education, financial markets, non-profits, among many others are going to need to take on the next decade with a new lens… an attitude and persistence to solve the big problems and move forward in bold, courageous, and new ways. In the words of Albert Einstein, “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Read the full article →

Regulators Knew Of Understated Seismic Risks To Nuclear Plants For Years

March 18, 2011

By Jim Morris and Bill Sloat The Center For Public Intergrity Nearly six years before an earthquake ravaged Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, U.S. regulators came to a sobering realization: seismic risks to nuclear plants in the eastern two-thirds of the country were greater than had been suspected, and engineers might have to rethink reactor designs. Thus began a little-noticed risk assessment process with far-reaching implications despite its innocuous-sounding name: Generic Issue 199. The process, which was supposed to have been finished nearly a year ago, is still under way. It is unclear when it will be completed.GI-199, as it is known, was triggered by new geophysical data and computer models showing that, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put it in an August 2010 summary document, “estimates of the potential for earthquake hazards for some nuclear power plants in the Central and Eastern United States may be larger than previous estimates.” Data from the U.S. Geological Survey and other sources suggest, for example, that “the rate of earthquake occurrence … is greater than previously recognized” in eastern Tennessee and areas including Charleston, S.C., and New Madrid, Mo., according to the NRC document. There are 11 reactors in Tennessee, South Carolina and Missouri. GI-199, a collaborative effort between the NRC and the nuclear industry, has taken on new urgency in light of the crisis in Japan. “Updated estimates of seismic hazard values at some of the sites could potentially exceed the design basis” for the plants, the NRC document says. NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said the exercise was never meant to provide “a definitive estimate of plant-specific seismic risk.” Rather, he said, it was done to see if certain plants “warranted some sort of further scrutiny. It indicates which plants we may want to look at more carefully in terms of actual core damage risk.” The information collected under GI-199 has been shared with operators of all 104 reactors at 64 sites in the U.S., Hannah said, and NRC officials are in the process of determining whether any plants require retrofits to enhance safety. He added that the assessment indicated “no need for any immediate action. The currently operating plants are all safe from a seismic standpoint.” Every proposed nuclear plant in the U.S. already must undergo an extensive environmental review that examines the site’s seismology, hydrology and geology, NRC spokesman Joey Ledford said. The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group, said in a statement this week that nuclear plants “are designed to withstand an earthquake equal to the most significant historical event or the maximum projected seismic event and associated tsunami without any breach of safety systems.” The U.S. Geological Survey updates its seismic hazard analyses roughly every six years, the institute said, and “the industry is working with the NRC to develop a methodology for addressing” newly recognized hazards. Asked why GI-199 has taken nearly six years, Ledford said, “These are very complicated issues. We’re talking about 64 plant sites. It’s not a small task.” According to a January 2010 NRC document, GI-199 was to have been completed last April. An agency document dated January 2011 says the completion date is “to be determined.” The NRC blamed the delay on issues relating to the release of a copyrighted Electric Power Research Institute report to an NRC contractor and on “the desire for internal and external stakeholder agreement.” Over the years, the NRC often has been criticized for taking too long to resolve important safety issues. One example: what’s known in the industry as a loss-of-cooling accident, regarded as the most serious event that can happen at a reactor. Since the 1980s, the NRC has been looking into the problem of clogged emergency core cooling pumps in boiling water reactors. The issue has not been resolved. The Fukushima Daiishi reactor and 35 reactors in the U.S. are boiling water reactors. Japanese regulators, too, recognized that they had understated seismic risks to their nuclear generating facilities, and were pushing utilities to engineer plants better able to resist tsunamis. At a previously scheduled NRC conference in suburban Washington last week, just days before the 9.0 earthquake that crippled Fukushima Daiichi, Japanese officials briefed their American counterparts on four quakes in Japan since 2005 that exceeded design standards for some nuclear plants. In no case was the damage severe. Nonetheless, the Japanese were re-evaluating seismic data and moving to buffer the plants. At the conference, the Japanese delegation said that tsunamis were a particular concern for coastal plants located in seismic zones. The officials said the industry should build upon “significant progress in tsunami hazard assessment, tsunami warning and mitigation and tsunami resistant design.” EVENTS GET AHEAD OF THE REGULATORS Earthquakes can occur in all sorts of locales. In January 1986, a late-morning quake measuring 4.96 on the Richter scale was blamed for cracks in the Perry Nuclear Power Plant on Lake Erie near Cleveland. At first, people thought it wasn’t a quake; speculation focused on an explosion somehow related to the Challenger space shuttle disaster or an attack on New York City. The newly licensed plant’s reactor was to be fueled for the first time the next day. Officials and the public were caught by surprise; few suspected Northeastern Ohio was in an active seismic zone. But it is. Experts determined that the quake’s epicenter was 11 miles from the plant, which has been dogged by controversy ever since. A previously unknown fault line also runs near the Indian Point plant, 24 miles north of New York City. Indian Point’s two units are up for relicensing by the NRC in 2013 and 2015, respectively, and a fierce battle is expected. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, while campaigning last year, called for Indian Point to be closed. Now he has ordered a safety review of the plant. In a 2008 paper, four researchers from Columbia University reported that “Indian Point is situated at the intersection of the two most striking linear features marking the seismicity and also in the midst of a large population that is at risk in case of an accident at the plants.” Indian Point’s two reactors, the researchers noted, “are located closer to more people at any given distance than any other similar facilities in the United States.” The plant’s operator, Entergy Corp., issued a statement saying all its nuclear plants “were designed and built to withstand the effects of natural disasters, including earthquakes and catastrophic flooding. The NRC requires that safety-significant structures, systems and components be designed to take into account the most severe natural phenomena historically reported for each site and surrounding area.” Even where nuclear plants have been built in established zones of potentially severe earthquakes, such as California, scientists are often far ahead of the regulators in raising questions about the safety of the plants. The California Coastal Commission, for example, has been sparring with the NRC over what the commission claims are under-appreciated seismic risks at the San Onofre plant, on the Pacific Ocean south of Los Angeles. After a review several years ago, the commission said “there is credible reason to believe that the design basis earthquake approved by [the NRC] at the time of the licensing of [San Onofre Units] 2 and 3 … may underestimate the seismic risk at the site.” Mark Johnsson, a geologist with the commission, said GI-199 suggests that the NRC is taking such risks more seriously. “In California, we’ve had our differences with the NRC,” Johnsson said, “but they are saying there is credible evidence the earthquake risk in large portions of the country may have been underestimated for decades. We have objected to things they have done. We have not particularly relied on their work here in California. But in this instance they are trying to get it right, I think. They are looking at the new science and are open to it. Right now, there is insufficient data to understand how these faults work at great depths under these power plants.” The Coastal Commission has accused the NRC of trying to weaken safety regulations for spent fuel storage sites in areas prone to tsunamis and quakes. It said the most likely incident on the West Coast would involve a major earthquake “immediately followed by inundation of the damaged facility by a tsunami.” That is exactly what happened in Japan. In a 2002 letter to the NRC, the commission’s executive director, Peter Douglas, said the storage areas should have safety standards “consistent with the requirement for nuclear power plants.” He said the NRC hadn’t offered any logical explanation for trying to weaken the rules. Douglas wrote, “It is especially important that an appropriate standards for … tsunamis be applied because perhaps the most likely scenario for release of radiation to the environment is damage to an [independent spent fuel storage installation] or [monitored retrievable storage installation] during a major earthquake, immediately followed by inundation of the damaged facility by a tsunami.” The NRC rejected Douglas’s complaint and lowered the seismic standards for spent fuel storage. Joe Litehiser, a Bechtel Corp. researcher, has studied the implications of earthquakes on licensing of proposed new nuclear plants in the central and eastern U.S. Litehiser said there is more seismological information available now than there was decades ago, when the existing plants were built. Scientists now believe, for example, that major earthquakes occur around Charleston, S.C., every 550 years instead of several thousand years apart, as industry models had assumed. This is relevant not only because South Carolina has seven active reactors, but because four more units are planned for the state. Applications filed by the proposed operators, Duke Energy and South Carolina Electric & Gas, seek NRC permission to build Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) reactors in Fairfield and Cherokee counties. In a March 7 letter to NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., wrote that one of the agency’s own experts believes the AP1000’s shield building could “shatter like a glass cup” in the event of an earthquake or a similar disaster. Aaron Mehta and Susan Stranahan contributed to this story. What are the risks of an earthquake beneath a reactor near you? This image combines a 2006 map by the United States Geological Survey showing varying seismic hazards across the U.S. with locations of nuclear reactors. Reactors in black are active; reactors in blue are proposed sites for the new model known as the AP1000. Probability of strong shaking increases from very low (white), to moderate (blue, green, and yellow), to high (orange, pink, and red). Credit: Kimberly Leonard/Center for Public Integrity. For more information on each nuclear reactor in our map, d ownload the list. ” target=”_hplink”> map by the United States Geological Survey showing varying seismic hazards across the U.S. with locations of nuclear reactors. Reactors in black are active; reactors in blue are proposed sites for the new model known as the AP1000. Probability of strong shaking increases from very low (white), to moderate (blue, green, and yellow), to high (orange, pink, and red). Credit: Kimberly Leonard/Center for Public Integrity. For more information on each nuclear reactor in our map, d ownload the list.

Read the full article →

Japan Crisis Highlights U.S. Nuclear Safety Issues

March 18, 2011

The nuclear crisis in Japan has prompted a re-examination of the safety net for nuclear power in the United States, with former regulators and safety advocates warning that gaps in the nation’s regulatory armor could leave Americans similarly vulnerable to disaster. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal oversight body tasked with licensing and inspecting civilian nuclear facilities, too frequently relies on reports from the industry itself in monitoring for trouble, and is too lenient in meting out sanctions when it encounters violations, these critics say. Though the commission posts inspectors at every plant, several independent and government reports note that these on-site observers document only a fraction of the events they observe on a daily basis. “This co-dependent relationship between the industry and the NRC is stronger than the SEC and their relationship with Wall Street,” said Robert Alvarez, a former advisor in the Department of Energy, and now a senior scholar on nuclear policy at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) is oft-blamed for failing to adequately police the financial system in the years before the recent banking crisis. A report released Thursday by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental safety group, documents a series of inconsistent approaches used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when encountering major problems at plants over the last year, making enforcement appear haphazard. In one case, at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York, NRC inspectors allowed a leaking water containment system to persist for more than 15 years despite documentation of the problem, according to the report. A spokesman for Entergy, the utility that runs Indian Point, said the leaking is not “ideal,” but that the water stays on site and does not pose a risk to the environment. At the Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland, a leaking roof that workers had known about for eight years caused an electrical short in 2010, forcing a shutdown of two reactors. A spokeswoman for the NRC said that officials at the oversight agency were aware of the report, but had not been able to review it in depth because of attention to the events in Japan. “The NRC remains confident that our Reactor Oversight Program, which includes both on-site and region-based inspectors, is effectively monitoring the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants,” the spokeswoman wrote in an e-mailed statement. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that the NRC is only able to audit about 5 percent of activities at nuclear plants across the country in any given year, and that regulators are often too focused on the minutiae of individual violations instead of addressing systemic problems at a plant that may have led to deficiencies. “The NRC must draw larger implications from narrow findings for the simple reason that it audits only about 5 percent of activities at every nuclear plant each year,” wrote David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who authored the report for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Each NRC finding therefore has two important components: identifying a broken device or impaired procedure, and revealing deficient testing and inspection regimes that prevented workers from fixing a problem before the NRC found it.” The report looked at 14 “near-misses” over the past year – events that required a special investigations team from the NRC to do a detailed inspection after a problem occurred. Many of the issues involved electrical shorts or deficient equipment at various plants that led to fires or unplanned shutdowns of the reactors. One of the more egregious examples cited involved the HB Robinson plant in South Carolina, operated by Progress Energy, which had to shut down reactors twice in six months due to mechanical failures and electrical shorts. In the first case, an electrical cable that was not up to standards and had been installed in 1986 caused the power shortage leading to the shutdown. Nonetheless, the majority of the violations were classified as “green” – the lowest level of sanction – which typically do not result in any monetary fine and require only formal written responses. At the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant in North Carolina, also operated by Progress Energy, the NRC’s report from the time documented confusion and delays in responses among the plant workers after a gas was inadvertently released at the plant. The release should have led workers to activate nearby emergency response shelters and issue warnings to local, state and federal government officials, but the personnel did not know how to activate such alarms. Eventually plant managers had to step in, and the alarms were only triggered after the federally mandated deadline. Despite the major failure in emergency response, the company was cited with only one potential monetary violation. A spokesman for Progress Energy said the company has since installed more modern notification systems and increased the number of drills to twice-a-year, up from once every two years. “We have taken specific actions to address each of the events last year that led to special inspections,” the spokesman said in a written statement. At the Honeywell Specialty Materials plant in Metropolis, Ill., the sole U.S. refinery that processes uranium for use in nuclear power plants, a union lockout has left temporary workers in charge of the facility. The locked-out members of United Steelworkers have erected 42 crosses in front of the Honeywell plant in memory of coworkers who succumbed to cancer in the past decade. Twenty-seven smaller crosses represent colleagues who survived a brush with cancer. When the plant began hiring replacement employees after the June lockout, the NRC found that management coached candidates on how to properly answer questions on a required examination to work there. According to the NRC, the temporary workers were given answers prior to questioning and were helped during the course of the evaluation process if they became confused. “The labor force was locked out and the Honeywell facility was trying to qualify as many operators as they could to make sure the plant could operate,” NRC inspector Joe Calle said. “The process got overwhelmed, so to speak.” The NRC slapped Honeywell with a violation, and stopped the hiring process. Last fall, the NRC noted in a report that all the temporary workers had been retrained at the plant. The commission expressed assurances that the plant is being safely run. But the commission has also cited the Metropolis Honeywell plant for a series of other violations since the lockout began, including an uncontrolled furnace ignition resulting when “operating procedures were not followed,” according to a letter from the NRC to Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) The NRC says it has no definitive proof that temporary workers were at fault, and that the violations were similar to earlier problems that were present when Union workers were working on site. But the locked-out union members pin the troubles on an inexperienced work force that was never fully vetted by the required examinations. “A lot of people could open up a manual and go by that manual, but in an actual emergency it takes knowledge and experience to be able to handle it correctly and quickly,” said a spokesman for the Steelworkers Local 7-669, John Paul Smith.

Read the full article →

An Intraday CHF/JPY Ascending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

March 17, 2011

An Intraday CHF/JPY Ascending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Safety on the Cheap

March 16, 2011

Can we please agree that in the real world corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to make as much money as possible, which means cutting costs as much as possible? The New York Times reports that GE marketed the Mark 1 boiling water reactors, used in TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, as cheaper to build than other reactors because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure. Yet American safety officials have long thought the smaller design more vulnerable to explosion and rupture in emergencies than competing designs. (By the way, the same design is used in 23 American nuclear reactors at 16 plants.) In the mid-1980s, Harold Denton, then an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident. A follow-up report from a study group convened by the Commission concluded that “Mark 1 failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely.” Sound familiar? The National Commission appointed to investigate the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last April recently concluded that BP failed to adequately supervise Halliburton Company’s work on installing the well. This was the case even though BP knew Halliburton lacked experience testing cement to prevent blowouts and hadn’t performed adequately before on a similar job. In short: Neither company bothered to spend the money to ensure adequate testing of the cement. Nor did Massey Energy spend the money needed to ensure its mines were safe. And so on. Don’t get me wrong. No company can be expected to build a nuclear reactor, an oil well, a coal mine, or anything else that’s one hundred percent safe under all circumstances. The costs would be prohibitive. It’s unreasonable to expect corporations to totally guard against small chances of every potential accident. Inevitably there’s a tradeoff. Reasonable precaution means spending as much on safety as the probability of a particular disaster occurring, multiplied by its likely harm to human beings and the environment if it does occur. Here’s the problem. Profit-making corporations have every incentive to underestimate these probabilities and lowball the likely harms. This is why it’s necessary to have such things as government regulators, why regulators must be independent of the industries they regulate, and why regulators need enough resources to enforce the regulations. It’s also why the public in every nation is endangered if the political clout of its biggest corporations — BP, Halliburton, Massey, G.E., or TEPCO — grows too large. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

An Intraday AUD/CHF Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

March 14, 2011

An Intraday AUD/CHF Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

Reena De Asis: Why Corporate Social Responsibility Is Good For Businesses

March 13, 2011

What if corporate leaders thought more like Bill Gates, a leading philanthropist and founder of Microsoft, who once said, “As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others?” Ideally, innovative corporations would increasingly function beyond the short-term profit motive and pay greater attention to their impact on the social economy. A key strategy for companies in this paradigm would be to put more focus on collaborating with the multitude of organizations working to improve communities to make a positive impact in the world. The Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Corporate giving can positively impact a range of social issues. Especially during trying economic times, the value of donating money, goods, and services to charitable causes is generally expected as part of a company’s social obligations. Corporate giving can be strategic while also being a valuable investment in the community. One major strategic benefit is an increase in brand awareness that can result in a competitive edge. According to the CSR Branding Survey 2010, 75 percent of those who have read about a company’s social responsibility agenda on its website say it made them more likely to purchase products or services from the company in the future. Consumers who take a positive view of a company’s social investment are more apt to make recommendations to friends and remain loyal customers. Additional strategic benefits are that a company can garner goodwill from stakeholders by supporting a favorable cause, increase employee morale, improve its reputation in its field and with the public at large. Notably, companies contribute to alleviate a social issue. CSR In Action Regardless of size, a company can incorporate a social cause into their business practice. For instance, for every pair of shoes a consumer purchases, TOMS will give a pair of shoes to a child in need. In return, the company is recognized as a good corporate citizen with a strong following of conscious consumers. Another creditable corporate giver is Lightlife, one of the pioneers of the vegetarian food industry. They give 5 percent of their net profits to charities that support the causes of human dignity, the environment and good health. Lightlife has made this commitment since they opened their doors over 30 years ago, and emphasize this by their business mantra, “Tasting good. Doing good. It’s in our DNA.” Furthermore, some companies prefer to put emphasis on an employee volunteer program and integrate it with core business objectives. Despite the tough economy in 2009, support for employee volunteering remained strong with 83 percent of executives of large companies re-affirming their support. Employees who participated in their company’s volunteer efforts expressed an increase in job satisfaction and morale. TravelStore, an independently owned agency, demonstrates its commitment to the local community by participating in select fundraisers, cleanups or food drives. TravelStore is also proud to be one of Los Angeles’ Best Places to Work in 2010, according to the Los Angeles Business Journal. On a larger scale, The Home Depot provides opportunities for associates, suppliers and community members to contribute their time, talent and resources while creating meaningful impact through Team Depot, their associate-led volunteer program. The Home Depot donates countless hours, tools and supplies each year to community service projects. As a Team Depot member, employees join the ranks of working for a nationally recognized philanthropic business. The Time is Now It takes thoughtfulness, courage and leadership to value corporate social responsibility and incorporate it into business practices. Now more than ever, consumers are craving authenticity and transparency. They want to support “conscious” businesses that “walk the walk, not just talk the talk.” Calling all corporate leaders, are you leading the pack on your walk and talk?

Read the full article →

Progressives Bemoan Focus On Deficit, Call For Stronger Job Creation Agenda

March 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — The usual beef against Beltway politicos is that they spend too much time reading the polls. But to a group of progressives gathered on Thursday to talk about jobs, the problem is that the capital’s elites don’t heed the polls nearly enough. Survey after survey of public opinion finds that unemployment and the struggling economy are the most troubling issues for most Americans. But policymakers from both parties are madly pursuing a different priority instead: deficit reduction. And they want to curb federal debt not through tax increases on the rich , which the public supports, but through spending cuts on popular programs. The result, certainly in the short term , would be the opposite of job-creation. “It’s not the public that’s the problem, it’s the elite conversation that’s the problem,” pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners said Thursday. If today’s politicians are being driven by the polls, Lake said, “it’s not any polls I’ve seen.” On and off the podium at Thursday’s event — a summit on jobs organized by the progressive Campaign for America’s Future — the profound disconnect between public opinion and the public agenda was a constant theme. And it left many of the speakers more than a little dumbfounded. “The idea of national austerity in this environment is truly mind-boggling,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. “Anybody who thinks you can deflate your way into recovery is delusional,” said American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner. “We can’t slash our way to prosperity, we have to invest,” said economic equity advocate Angela Glover Blackwell. Indeed, what’s so exasperatingly self-defeating about the current epidemic of deficit hysteria is that the best deficit reduction program would actually be to create jobs — and bring the tax base back up. “We know the solutions,” said Leo Hindery, who heads the U.S. Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation. “They’re staring us in the face. They’re timeworn by the women and men who preceded us … including Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt.” Among those solutions: A new WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps ; an honest-to-God Industrial policy ; maybe an infrastructure bank like the one proposed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who spoke at Thursday’s event; and any number of other ideas like the ones I outlined in my ill-fated America Needs Jobs series. What’s needed now, said Roger Hickey, one of the event’s organizers, is a robust, job-creating agenda that progressive candidates can run on in 2012 — an agenda that shows that “we’re not just asking people to have patience and cross their fingers and hope the economy gets better.” What explains the extraordinary disconnect between the public agenda and public policy? The toxic effects of mounds of corporate money on the political process was pretty much everyone’s top choice on Thursday, but it wasn’t the only one. Lake, for instance, said part of the problem is that many of the nation’s most prominent economists see things from the Wall Street perspective. And, of course, there’s another usual suspect: “The public is horribly served by the news media right now,” she said. ( The Nation ‘s Chris Hayes recently blamed the “incomprehensible” disconnect on “a governing elite that is profoundly alienated from the lived experiences of the millions of Americans who are barely surviving the ravages of the Great Recession.”) Kuttner put his finger on another problem, which is the lack of a genuine grassroots social movement advocating for jobs. Looking back through the last 50 years of American history, he said, in every single area where society has made great strides, “people built a movement with immense personal risk and immense courage.” Launching that sort of movement around jobs was, as it happens, the central goal of Thursday’s meeting. And coming just hours after Gov. Scott Walker used a quarterback sneak to break Wisconsin’s public unions , several speakers spoke of a possible inflection point in the making. Trumka said his message to Walker was a big “thank you.” He suggested Walker be presented with the “mobilizer of the year award.” Walker’s move was so outrageous that it might be enough to change the national conversation “from deficit hysteria to where it belongs, to jobs and the right to build middle-class living standards,” Trumka said. “This is a debate that we’ve wanted to have for 20 to 25 years.” Now, he said, “it’s our job to channel this Midwest uprising.” Wade Henderson, the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said Walker’s “unprecedented assault on collective bargaining and the right to organize is arguably the most significant challenge to civil and human rights in this early part of the 21st century.” The response to it, he said, “may well determine the future of this great nation.” Robert Borosage, the co-director of the event’s sponsoring organization, described how the powerful, spirited grassroots movement that got Barack Obama elected president basically came to a dead stop right after the election, figuring Obama would then take the lead in such areas as job creation. It didn’t work out that way, of course. “What Wisconsin is doing is pushing the start button,” Borosage said. “And now we’ve got to build again.” ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

An Intraday AUD/NZD Ascending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

March 10, 2011

An Intraday AUD/NZD Ascending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

An Intraday AUD/NZD Ascending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

March 10, 2011

An Intraday AUD/NZD Ascending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

An Intraday GBP/JPY Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

March 9, 2011

An Intraday GBP/JPY Descending Channel is Creating Scalping Environment

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →