Brain-Aide

Continuing with the thread of communities fighting wind-farms, here is an interesting tale that has been brewing for some time in New York. In this case, the allegations are much more serious with communities claiming that wind-farm developers engaged in bribery, threats and corruption (conflict of interest situations) to get approvals from municipal officials.

To counter the crisis, New York’s Attorney General drafted a “Wind Industry Code of Ethics” to govern the behaviour of wind-farm owners. Included in the provisions are measures limiting the donations and gifts to municipal officials, conflict of interest provisions in hiring municipal officials and information privacy policies. So far only two companies have signed onto the Code of Ethics

The Code of Ethics in it self is not all that original and sets out fairly rudimentary conflict of interest provisions. Given that conflict of interest provisions are generally placed to control the excesses of “big” business and establish a fair playing field for all stakeholders, it is disappointing when such measures have to be explicitly applied to an industry that has sold itself on the moral high ground of environmentalism.  Contrary to the claims of the Wind Industry, such provisions will NOT hamper the development of more wind farms. There are conflict of interest provisions in play in thousands of jurisdictions around the world (many of which are much more stringent), without negatively affecting business outcomes. These provisions, if adhered to, will allow the Wind Industry in New york to regain the public trust of the communities in which they operate.

Unfortunately, what happened in New york was much worse than the simple betrayal of the public trust. The industry displayed arrogance and greed, engaged in corruption and abused communities. As someone who has actively pushed for the implementation of green technologies, I am disheartened by it and hope that such behaviour never raises its ugly head in green businesses again.

Although renewable energy has the public persona of being harmless, wind farms have an extensive history of raising the ire of rural communities. The anger comes from the fairly disruptive effects of windfarm activities, such as noise, the seemingly excessive bird kills and even the view.

Combined, local opposition groups can be a powerful force against future wind energy projects. And even if the letter of the law is for the project, a well organized opposition can shift public opinion against the project. This does not mean that rural, or even some urban communities, are against green power. What it means is that wind farm developers and even environmental advocacy agencies have to take into account the NIMBY factor, engage in meaningful outreach with affected communities and actively try to mitigate the impacts of wind technology.

The NIMBY factor comes into play with any seemingly disruptive energy development. One recent example is the push to develop a North-South running powerline in Alberta that met stiff resistance from the rural and environmental community. The issue turned into a public relations disaster for the Stelmach government, when it turned out that the government body overseeing the public hearings hired private investigators to spy on the opposing farmers.

The lesson here is that green energy advocates have to be tuned into the public and political sentiment instead of blindly advocating a technology/environment first agenda. Any environmental and political agenda must to be sensitive to the needs and concerns of the people it affects, otherwise renewables will have a long and difficult climb ahead.

In the meanwhile it will be interesting to see how these local battles around wind energy are going to shape up in Ontario.

Every once in a while somebody comes up with a seemingly impossible idea. Professor Nakamura from the University of Toyama has literally started “printing” biological, three dimentional objects using modified ink jet printer technology, with hopes of being able to print a heart in the future. If this technology is ever perfected, the benefits could be huge; custom made “rejection proof” organs, stem cells etc.

You can check out the story here. If anyone has any additional (or corroborating) information, please do not hesitate in passing it along.

This is an utterly fascinating Globe and Mail article about a man who used current construction techniques to handily exceed the efficiency of R-2000 homes, the current gold standard of Net-Zero homes. Enjoy!

The Pentagon has been conducting tests and competitions to end their dependency on fossil fuels. The push comes partially from recognition that the US armed forces are dependent on fuels from politically unstable areas with wildly fluctuating costs. In the last few years the US Air Force has been testing synthetic fuels in a variety of its air-craft; from the top of the line F-22 Raptor to the Cold War era B-52s. But the shift to “green” goes much deeper than fuels.

According to Wired Magazine, current and near-future conflicts will be conducted in relation to strong civic/political stabilization components. The Pentagon has therefore started demonstrating unique, innovative and easily deployable technologies ranging from solar panels to tents to be applied through the stabilization area. As noted by Wired, the effort has brought about a curious (though likely, very limited) linguistic shift towards phrases like “sustainable solutions” rather than the normal military speak.

It should be interesting to see just how many of the technology demonstrators actually make it into the field and to what extent the US Armed Forces will be involved in sustained long term stabilization operations. However, even if the military falters, the spillover effect could still be a slew of cheap, “green” technologies that have easy commercial and civilian application.

The Government of Ontario recently introduced the Ideas for the Future Act, 2008 that will allow for a 10 year income tax refund for businesses commercializing “home grown” ideas. The commercialization projects have to involve ideas and technologies developed at “qualifying” Ontario universities and colleges. Targeted technology groups include “advanced health, bio-economy/clean technologies; and, telecommunications, computer or digital technologies”. Only foreign venture capital with at least 59 percent of it’s invests in Ontario will be eligible for the tax refund.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/media/2008/nr09-otec.html

Reading between the lines:

Just because a Bill has been introduced does not necessarily mean that it will pass and become law. That depends on the government’s legislative agenda and exactly where the Bill falls in terms of importance. However, given that the government has recently created a Ministry of Innovation, it would stand that bill ranks fairly high on the legislative agenda will pass in the days to come.

If it does pass, the Act will not have a significant impact on the technological sector, especially keeping in mind the tax refund applies only to technologies emerging from the Canadian post-secondary sector and research houses. Despite the rosy talk, Canadian universities are not hard-wired for commercially applicable research. This requires two key components; a) putting more money into basic research and b) realigning program streams for an applied or commercial output.

• Basic research is the research that is not commercially viable but becomes the backbone from which commercial ideas are built. Given that the commercial entities will generally not engage in basic research, it is often left as a government sponsored function through universities. However, without it, commercializable research would not be possible. Increasing basic research will conversely allow commercial grade technologies and ideas to be developed.

• Realigning program streams for an applied or commercial output is a much more difficult task and gets to the core of why some companies are innovative and some are not. Using the word “innovation” does not make you innovative. Adopting it as a core organizational principle, creating organizational structures that can recognize, support and develop new ideas/technologies and working in closely knit, inter-disciplinary teams are most conducive to being commercial grade output and ideas. The philosophical mantra behind most Canadian university academics is rooted in research for researches’ sake (basic research) but not for applied or commercial output, which in certain circles can be viewed with considerable distaste. However, this is slowly changing.

By restricting the refund to the commercialization of Ontario held/developed intellectual property, the government is missing the boat on a much more lucrative market. It shuts out equally viable “foreign” technologies that could be used to develop an industrial base, job creation, knowledge spillover and building a mastery of technologies from all over the world.

Tax incentives are competitive incentive tools in building for businesses and setting up centers of excellence and growth. By limiting the refund to ideas from Ontario universities, the government is sending a message to the world that outside ideas and technologies are not welcome. If the government is truly serious about stimulating R&D, setting up a manufacturing base and increasing employment prospects for its population, it must recognize the utility of all ideas and technologies, regardless of who holds its IPR, where it was developed and bring them to Ontario.