Friday, February 15, 2008

A common Sense Solution

When it comes to power generation two things are becoming increasingly clear: 1) the world is under-powered and 2) electricity generation needs to become greener. Booming economies across the world are building up power plants, like China erecting a power station about once a week according to some estimates. Other nations are suffering from power shortages such as South Africa. Even the American economy is going to face power shortages unless new generators are built soon, since there has been no nuclear built in three decades and over half of the applications filed for coal plants have been dropped in the past year. (according to a recent article on reuters.com)

As far as greener energy goes, it looks like that’s going to be the trend since industrial nations as well as less developed nations such as Costa Rica are striving to become carbon neutral and public opinion is turning in favor of carbon caps in other countries. At a time like this many Americans are relying on policy changes at the national level but it is state and local governments that are taking the lead. Despite relatively small budgets, local governments can make big changes that make sense. One way to make renewable energy more cost competitive with fossil fuels is to choose energy sources that provide alternate benefits. Case in point: anaerobic digesters. Municipal sewage needs to be treated regardless. Why pay to treat it when you can use a treatment process that produces energy.

According to Power Engineering International out of over 16,000 waste water treatment plants operating in the U.S. only 100 use the biogas generated to produce power. Municipal waste and power consumption will only rise with the population so the common sense approach is to kill two birds with one stone.

Tell me what you think. I would really like to hear an argument against this because it makes sense but is not applied on a large scale and there must be a reason.

For more information: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1535162120080215?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities?page=1

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The Biggest Problem Facing the Federal Government

1. Healthcare

2. The War in Iraq

3. National Debt

4. Mortgage Crisis

5. Taxes

6. Iran's Nuclear Government

7. Education

8. Immigration

9. Global Warming

10. Terrorism

These are probably the 10 biggest problems that come to mind (in no particular order). If this is true the problems seem almost too complex to solve due to the interactions of each issue and how altering one system creates new changes in all related systems. An example of this:

Providing amnesty new large amounts of immigrants creates strains on the healthcare and education systems, which would require more infrastructure to be built such as more grade schools to educate them and hospitals to treat them, which would have to be paid for taxes and/or bonds, either of which would affect the tax system or the national debt. Also, there would be a shortage of trained teachers and healthcare professionals so more immigrants would be required to fill the gaps and the cycle could start all over again.

With each interlocking piece the puzzle becomes more complex. The way to exploit this is to break it all down to the simplest, underlying issue. In this case one word can sum it all up: goals

Goal-setting and goal-oriented are two requirements found on most job ads (don’t believe me? Search monster.com). This doesn’t just mean setting a vague, “aspirational” goals, it means setting precise, quantitative goals and a plan to achieve it. The federal government (and many state governments) does not follow this policy even though any corporation that wants to remain competitive does. An example of this:

The Department of Education’s mission as quoted from the website is “to promote student achievement and preparation and ensuring equal access.” This is a great goal but the problem with it is how do you measure progress towards achieving it, how do you know if education is improving or falling apart, how do you tell what is holding back the current level of education from being even better. In contrast, a CEO has to provide a plan (including concrete steps and benchmarks) to board members on how he/she is to improve the competitiveness of a company.

An issue that may be brought up is that not every department needs to improve. This is dangerously wrong because we always need to be moving forward and there are very few things we do better than no one else and there is always room for improvement.

The benefits achieved from this type of reform would be numerous. This system would provide a results oriented central government. Citizens should embrace it because it provides a purpose for the tax dollars the government collects. Political parties would benefit because they could directly compare the success of departments under presidents of different political parties. Even special interest groups should approve of this because they could merge their goals into the goal of the relevant department. If each president had to determine goals for each department, it would provide an open channel for concrete reforms. It would also be easier for undecided voters to choose a candidate because rather than seeing how candidates stand on isolated issues it would let the voters see the more comprehensive direction that candidate would take the country.

But this is just one stranger’s rambling thoughts. It’s a free country; voice your opinion on the subject.