Mike,
It's good/great to change the debate...there is ample room to intelligently engage issues of energy policy, as David Levy demonstrated in his post, which intelligently began to turn to the actua subject...but I don't agree we can agree on the things you believe we can all agree on. This not a minor point. The generalizations/assumptions made about Gates's product, for example, fall into the category of character assassination, which you decry. I raise this not to create a stir, but to stimulate some refection about how much 'group think' and 'common wisdom' there is in so many discussions on issues in which there are actually many nuances. As a result, discussions are often less about interpreting the available evidence and more about posturing, but only within the agreed upon 'group think' boundaries. I know I sound like a postmodernist (which I'm not), but this issue of framing, especially in a setting such as this where so many issues, political and otherwise, are pre-agreed upon (in this case, Microsoft is big and bad and turns out by choice crappy products) infects all analysis.
I think it strange to suggest that Microsoft has conducted its business (in general) with less than the ethical standards than most other companies--I don't believe there is evidence for that, short of the kind of anecdotal analysis that creates icons out of ethically schizophrenic companies like Body Shop or Starbucks or BP or Whole Foods or any other so-called (or once so-called) SR company.
It's also a bit to dismiss or marginalize comments by Bill Gates on energy issues --as if he voice deserves to be heard less than, say, mine or yours. He is a very intelligent person, who has demonstrated an ability to actually execute research and turn it into world-changing projects. That's more than can be said for me or anyone on this list. It's not whether he's right or wrong...his comments can't be analyzed in that way...it's that he has more than earned the right to be part of the debate and at a high level. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I dare say Gates' views on energy are probably far more sophisticated than Obama, whose accomplishments are, shall we say, thin...and yet he is driving our energy policy?? (that said, I believe Obama's stated views on energy are much in accord with Gates....)
On a side note, much as I hate Windows and have been a slavish Mac user for a quater century, I always find it amusing that people so glibly characterize the legendary bugs in that one program as emblematic of the greed or indifference of a corporate giant. On that one point, I would highly suggest you introduce into the conversation a few people who actually understand computer programming. Windows is buggy because it's a back engineered product designed to fit over a variety of disparately designed computers made by other companies, and then designed forward to deal with changes constantly being made by other companies not in Microsoft's control. It didn't have the luxury of being an OS built from scratch on hardware made by the same company, Apple's initial liability and genius. Because of this history, Windows will always be buggy....the computer code is too complex to be anything but...and it has zero to do with an ethical judgment about the company.
There are serious issues about energy that can be intelligently discussed. Issues of this kind often revolve around cost/benefit analysis (which is an anathema in the minds of some ethical 'purists' who have a strong personal sense of what they is believe is pure), but at least it can be done.
Can we move back to the thread raised by David...the relative merits of nuclear energy, including second and third generation reactors, in a carbon constrained world where costs in fact do matter?
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Barnett [mailto:
michael.barnett@SBS.OX.AC.UK]
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 04:42 AM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Why Bill Gates knows what he's talking about...
Seriously, we're framing a discussion of energy policy around a debate over whether Bill Gates deserves an electronic pie in his face or on his desktop?
The Bill Gates of today is an admirable philanthropist tossing around masses of money in coordinated ways to deal with grave societal problems. The Bill Gates of yesterday made these masses of money he now tosses around through questionable business practices and the production of software that had more bugs than desired. I think we can settle on that. And hopefully we can settle on concentrating on the former more so than the latter, as any pies thrown today won't do anything to change yesterday. Moreover, I don't think he needs our pies to help him in his quests of today - he'll do it, and probably do it well, with or without our pies. But thankfully he's doing it, rather than taking his billions and going into seclusion, collecting his urine in jars, and building the Spruce Goose of today.
But even if he were shown to be a saint, we should not decide on energy policy just because one person says so. Nor should we dismiss his ideas, if he were proved a devil. What we should do is focus on the facts, in as much as they can be determined. These include the viability of the technology, the costs of today, the costs of tomorrow, the political realities on the ground, so forth. I don't know this literature well, but I do imagine there are frameworks established that could help out. Perrow's is one, though it may focus more on the risks than the potential benefits, at a time when the risks of not adopting some new technologies might begin to outweigh the risks of only going with safe technologies. In short, it's time to take some risks, but not stupid risks, and certainly minimal. Glad to follow this post, in as much as it gets at this, but not so much interested in the Fox News approach to debate based on character assassination (if lib) or promotion (if con). And sorry for this last line - not intended to spark a debate over how "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is (objectively, it's not; and yes, Jon, this is probably true of other news sources).
Best,
Mike
************************
Michael L. Barnett
Professor of Strategy, Said Business School, U. of Oxford
Research Director, Oxford U. Centre for Corporate Reputation
Fellow, St. Anne's College, University of Oxford
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/people/Pages/MikeBarnett.aspx
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=414796
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Sharma, Aarti
Sent: 14 February 2010 00:33
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: FW: Why Bill Gates knows what he's talking about...
I am wondering if there are any computer games through which one can bake really delicious e-pies for Bill Gates and e-serve it to him on a silver platter?!
Bill Gates is one of the greatest philanthropists in history and god bless him for his great courage and his amazing kindness and desire to help the poor and needy in this world. Let's not forget that his Foundation is doing amazing work to solve problems of illiteracy, hunger, poverty and diseases like HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Tuberculosis etc. at a global level. He is giving lot of people in this world some hope to live. The poor, the unhealthy and the elderly are the ones who are most susceptible to climate change related disasters. It's great to know that he is getting involved in the climate change conversation too. He has the economic and political power to influence minds and create a positive difference.
By the way, also thanks to him and his team, we can use outlook and email one another. Thanks to his Microsoft Office package....we can revise our papers endlessly, without worrying to type each version manually as our grand dads would have done in the past.
I think the gentleman deserves greater respect. Maybe it's time for some folks at IBM to start baking pies for Bill Gates now!
Respectfully,
Aarti
Aarti Sharma, Ph.D.
Instructor of Strategic Management
Department of Management & Organization
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave., BSN-3524
Tampa, FL-33620-5500
Tel: 813-974-4354
Fax: 813- 974-1734
Email:
asharma@coba.usf.edu<mailto:
asharma@coba.usf.edu>
Web:
http://www.coba.usf.edu/departments/management/faculty/sharma/index.html
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Entine
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:22 PM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Why Bill Gates knows what he's talking about...
Debbie,
In theory, you're correct...except that "truly clean, safe approaches such as solar, wind and tidal energy sources" are not economically feasible now, and there is no indication that they will be for many decades, and may never be when compared to fossil fuels. That's not to say we as a society should not absorb some of the expenses because of the externalities attached to fossil fuels, but you can darn well be assured that the economic/financial pressures will limit the transition for decades, and it will be a choice of the mostly affluent west to give up on fossil fuels. China and India and Russia won't do it (though China in particular is aggressively pursuing cleaner energy, because it is placing bets everywhere).
We have to deal with the cards we're dealt with. That means we have to commit to nuclear and natural gas and other bridge technologies...just wanting "clean energy" won't break it about, and it's not cost efficient...and it won't be for decades.
Frankly, I'm naive enough to listen to anything someone as smart as Bill Gates it. He will also go down in history as -- by far -- the most important philanthropist in the history of mankind.
That has earned my respect when it comes to giving him a hearing...others can make their own choices.
Jon Entine | 513.319.8388 |
www.jonentine.com<http://www.jonentine.com>
[cid:
image001.jpg@01CAAD58.33E6C710]
On Feb 13, 2010, at Feb 13, 2010 5:31 PM, Debbie de Lange wrote:
To those who think that nuclear energy is or might be a good option, please read Normal Accidents by Charles Perrow.
http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Accidents-Living-High-Risk-Technologies/dp/0691004129
After this, think about all the costs and risks of nuclear technology from a complete life cycle perspective and weigh that against other options like truly clean, safe approaches such as solar, wind and tidal energy sources. It's not as if it's harder to develop these latter approaches (and others that would fall into the clean, safe, renewable category) than nuclear - it's just that we've had an incredibly powerful nuclear power industry pushing that agenda such that the political will (and investment) has been one sided, against the other technologies.
I previously worked in the energy industry. I can tell you that they are a bunch of dinosaurs and as they go extinct, they will take us with them, if we listen to them.
I also worked for IBM and never listen to Bill Gates :-) At work, we passed a computer game around that allowed us to throw pies at his face (ha, ha!). By the way, there was also a study done that wind energy could power the world many times over without any other energy sources. Why do we need "traveling wave reactors, etc." when we have the sun?! I do not understand how anyone could be so naive as to listen to Bill Gates and the nuclear industry.
Cheers,
Dr. Debbie de Lange
Strategy and International Business
Suffolk University
Sawyer Business School
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA
USA 02108-2770
617-573-8794
From: "Harris, Craig" <
Craig.Harris@SSC.MSU.EDU>
Date: February 13, 2010 3:09:32 PM EST
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent uranium rods into electricity .....
Reply-To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion <
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
hi lionel,
i'm wondering where the high level radioactive waste from those thirty
years of nuclear power generation in toronto went to . . .
cheers,
craig
craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan agricultural experiment station
national food safety and toxicology center
institute for food and agriculture standards
food safety policy center
michigan state university
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel Boxer
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:56 PM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent
uranium rods into electricity .....
Having grown up in Toronto, Canada from 1957 to 1987 I am convinced that
nuclear power generation is safe. (However, I understand that Canadian
reactors are much safer than those made in the rest of the world.) My
impression is that we need to stop using coal and switch to hydro
electric or nuclear energy. The other option is to cull 90 percent of
the human race - Soilent Green and Logan's Run were films that explored
that option.
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Graduate School of Business
my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
"David L. Levy" <
David.Levy@UMB.EDU> 14/02/10 12:31 AM >>>
And Gates calls these energy technologies "miracles" - unfortunately,
I'm not expecting any divine intervention, especially from the guy who
runs a company whose software has daily meltdowns.
Nuclear isn't cheap or clean (though I've come to think it's far safer
than coal...)
Cheers
David
David L. Levy
Professor and Chair
Department of Management and Marketing
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/
<http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/>
Climate Inc. <http://climateinc.org/> - Business and Climate Change
Blog
--------------------------------------------------------------
I just read Bill Gates speech and was heartened. "The world must
eliminate all of its carbon emissions and cut energy costs in half in
order to prevent a climate catastrophe, which will hit the world's poor
hardest, he said."
....
Gates said the deadline for the world to cut all of its carbon emissions
is 2050. He suggested that researchers spend the next 20 years inventing
and perfecting clean-energy technologies, and then the next 20 years
implementing them.
....
Gates spent a significant portion of his speech highlighting nuclear
technology that would turn spent uranium -- the 99 percent of uranium
rods that aren't burned in current nuclear power plants -- into
electricity.
That technology could power the world indefinitely; spent uranium
supplies in the U.S. alone could power the country for 100 years, he
said.
A "traveling wave reactor" would burn uranium waste slowly, meaning a
60-year supply could be added to a reactor at once and then not touched
for decades, he said.
....
READ it all at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill.gates.clean.energy/index.html
Best regards,
Charles Wankel
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4864 (20100213) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4864 (20100213) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com