Disruption is good and bad. In the digital landscape disruption can lead to innovation, in the natural not so much.
When Industry talks about conserving (conservative principles) they are talking about conserving not the planet, but growing profit margins.
Industry does not look at the big picture. Industry looks solely at short term monetary gains. This is why Exxonmobil squashed their own scientists findings on fossil fuels and it’s effects on climate.
Now the Wood Product Industry wants to plant forests of GM trees that will make the wood products they sell easier to make.
Sounds great, less expensive to make = more $$$. But…
Trees are plants and they grow in forests. Plants cross pollinate with the aide of the wind and insects.
What if, these genes end up in other trees? Conifers, oak trees, redwood trees? Peach trees? Almond trees? Apple trees? Sugar maple trees?
It would take decades just for some of these trees to reach the maturity. By then if these GM genes have been introduced it would be decades too late to stop. That would be a not so great type of disruption.
Perhaps it’s time to disrupt the multi-national conglomerates and their “conservative” agenda.
It’s not the trees that need to change, but rather the actions of those who interact with them.
The fossil fuel companies keep fighting for life as cleaner energy sources slowly climb upwards. They continue to pump money into politician’s coffers in increasingly desperate attempts to stay antiquated. In doing so they have continually put off investing in other sources of energy production.
Again and again they fight against the inevitable. Their protectionism, their conservatism may well be their downfall.
We already have the infrastructure in place for high voltage long distance transmission of DC currents.
But now they are facing more than just the advancements of technology and an unlimited and free source of energy, they are now facing an enemy within. OPEC.
Saudi Arabia is willing to let crude fall to a low of $20 a barrel. That is going to cost investors a ton of money. That loss leads to a selloff that leads to more losses. The end result is a halt to research and development.
The question seemingly floating around is why would OPEC purposely take this hit? I have a theory not connected to energy per se. We think in terms of western capitalism. The middle east doesn’t. Religion, power, money and politics are intertwined.
The biggest threat in the middle east is ISIS. ISIS funds itself by selling oil from oil fields it has captured. As the prices drop so does their power, ISIS is mostly a mercenary army and they have to be paid or they stop fighting. Why should the Saudi’s fight on the ground when they can starve the enemy?
Big Oil and they old way of doing business doesn’t quite mesh with this new global economy. We really do have to change the way we think.
Our most challenging obstacle in converting to clean environmentally friendly energy is not cost but the conservative and corporate mind set. The idea that the root source of energy is free, ample and worldwide and therefore unable to turn a profit through exploration and extraction could be frightening if your business model is based on turning a profit from every aspect involved in the manufacturing of your end product.
This approach seems, as I see it, to be the way international corporations have modeled themselves and that is counterproductive in the long-term. Electricity in today’s world is no longer a luxury but a necessity.
As long as the grid is held in the mini monopolies that make up the national network we currently have, innovative and progressive ideas and solutions will be viewed as a threat to the status quo.
By looking at electricity solely as a singular profit generating entity and not as an evolving body in need of constant inner growth, care and ideological innovations, progressive growth becomes hampered or halted by quick growth profiteering.
Long term sustainable profit growth requires a view to the future and beyond. By treating electricity solely as a commodity as opposed to a necessary economic component this will not be accomplished.
Innovation and progress is born of need and change. It is time for people, politicians and courts to look beyond today and to the future. The intelligently run corporations will help foster innovation and progress, the conservative ones will inevitably fail.
I came upon this video of Naomi Klein speaking recently at the The Festival of Dangerous Ideas held September 5&6 at the Sydney Opera House. Streamed live on Sept 5th.
As 86 notions, meaning to throw out your past ideas of how this world must work (aka. changing the way you think). Naomi Klein puts it in perspective. The ways of capitalism, as we know it today, are incompatible with sustaining life on this planet.
Should we force a change? In a way, yes. By force, but not by force. Innovation is key to change. Socially and politically and innovation comes from small groups, companies, individuals with a desire to make life better not just for a profit but because they care.
Empathy for people. Love of the planet and all life no matter how small or seemingly insignificant has to come first above money and profit. There is great profit to be made by caring. It takes longer but it lasts longer. It is sustainable. It can and must be done.