A Broader Framework in Which Localization Occurs

One of the drivers behind technology development is the quest for human equivalence – the point where technology performs at a level of functioning that is equal to or greater than the functioning of the human brain. While it is speculative at best to estimate if and when such a goal is achieved, recent history illustrates that the increase in capability and capacity of technology is ramping up a rather steep slope. And if we are to trust the application of Moore’s law, technology’s prowess is doubling every 18-24 months. At that rate, it doesn’t take much to project a future wherein technology is closing in on human equivalence.

As a trend develops it is useful to be able to track its progress and anticipate its trajectory. Choosing or crafting a set of markers that give indication of a trend’s speed, depth, and scope as it gains influence and becomes an impetus for change is critical. While there are many markers from which to choose, the most durable and universally applicable sets concerns value added, particularly, where and how value is added.

The simple Wikipedia example about making miso soup from the above link is a good one to illustrate how advances in technology change the value-added equation. First, the value of the soup as the end product is comprised of the value added by the farmer to grow the raw product, soy beans, plus the value added by the processor to the soy beans to produce tofu, plus the value added by the chef to the tofu to prepare the soup. This “value package” utilizes a combination of equipment, input, labor, and know-how applied in various locations, stages, and timeframes—and is based on a specific capability and capacity level of technology.

What happens when technology develops further? There are several possibilities: the soy beans are grown in close proximity to the preparer; the yield of soy bean plants and desired quality and characteristics of the beans are increased; the equipment that harvests soy beans conducts post-harvest operations that condition the beans for making tofu; this equipment is smaller and more compact which accommodates localized production; methods of packaging, storing, and shipping soy beans or tofu are more integrated thereby consuming less energy and taking less time. In these instances, advances in technology are applied to the value-added equation dramatically altering the value package. The result is a system utilizing less costly and more productive equipment, requiring fewer inputs and less labor, and deeply embedding human knowledge and experience into new processes and tools. This has the potential to be transformational—and in relatively short order, too!

While the example of soy may represent a somewhat narrow space within which profound change can be noted, it does highlight where and how value added steps are enabled by technology. These changes can be witnessed in a broader sense through the lens of large social and economic “eras.” The first of these, industrialization , brought developments in technology to bear on centralizing facilities, equipment, and people in the production process where capital investments could be amortized through economies of scale.

As production technologies become scalable, logistics are more integrated and efficient, and information and communication technologies are more pervasive, powerful, and responsive, manufacturing operations are dispersed close to those areas where lower cost skilled or tractable labor is available. This is the impetus for “globalization.” Attendant to the distribution of manufacturing capability is the transfer of technology and subject matter expertise. This significantly increases the technological competence of the lower cost workforce. In this regard, globalization heightens the ability of people to utilize new technologies when presented and results in a more evenly distributed capability worldwide.

This puts us on the brink of the next era: localization. The embedded link goes to one of my earlier postings about this phenomenon, so I will not wax on about it again here. However, one quick observation: localization is the inevitable outcome of technology continuing to cost less, get stronger, fit into smaller spaces, run faster, be embedded in more operations, streamline processes, and sense, respond, adapt, learn, and sustain itself despite problems and challenges. To put such an imperative into perspective, the more we transfer technology from one place to another under the auspices of globalization, the more potential we are placing in the hands of the recipients to utilize those technologies in developing localized applications. Constant application of technology that packs more punch at lower cost is what SUSTAINS the drive toward localization. Without technology localization would merely be an updated term for the back-to-the-land movement of some 40 years ago. While localization may imply a different lifestyle choice, it is actually honoring well-deserved quality of life factors while continuing to take advantage of what an improved standard of living provides.

What happens beyond localization as technology continues its trek to become smaller, faster, stronger, etc.? Imagine assembling the end product from molecules – at the point of utilization – precisely at the time it is needed? Yes. Get small enough and one is into the basic building blocks of material: molecules. This is the realm of nanotechnology, specifically, molecular manufacturing.

While such a concept has the earmarks of science fiction or the paranormal and, indeed, there are many who contend it is one or both, technology will continue to shrink the distance from production to utilization until they are as close to the same as possible and the material manifestation will be of the immediacy and convenience of what is conceived virtually. The development timeline for molecular manufacturing suggests a useful output rests some distance in the future and that it will come at considerable expense.

This time is needed. Eric Drexler, one of the leading thinkers in the field of nanotechnology, co-founder of the Foresight Institute, and currently, Chief Technical Advisor for Nanorex, Inc. is a clear advocate for “responsible nanotechnology.” Citing the hypothetical possibility of the world turning into “gray goo” should molecular nanotechnology run amok, Drexler advises the imposition of a stringent ethical framework on these technologies before they are endowed with the capability of self-replication. Not bad counsel regardless whether one buys into Drexler’s future vision for nanotechnology.

And maybe that’s the reason we need to spend time in localization before leaping ahead to what’s next. It is the strength of the community experience where we learn to act upon our value as society rather than default to the strength and survival of the fittest individuals. This is the intent behind the Nanoethics Group. As an extract from their mission states, “By proactively opening a dialogue about the possible misuses and unintended consequences of nanotechnology, the industry can avoid the mistakes that others have made repeatedly in business, most recently in the biotech sector – ignoring the issues, reacting too late and losing the critical battle of public opinion.”

Yes. One can only imagine what happens if the machine – nanotechnology, in this instance – has the unfettered capacity to choose who survives with no more ethical framework in place to guide it than the ones we humans use today…maybe we are not quite ready for human equivalence!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Tuesday, July 10, 2007

A Voice for Localization

In response to my earlier posting about Localization, Bob Banner, publisher / editor of HopeDance sent me an email noting that Julian Darley was the founder and director of the Post Carbon Institute. While James Howard Kunstler was an Institute Fellow, he has his own website that covers a wide range of related topics. Please note that my 6 July posting is now updated to reflect this correction.

Bob also mentioned in his email that Issue 62 of Hope Dance Magazine 1 is “…a special issue we did on RELOCALIZATION that features BALLE, Judy Wicks, the PCI, Michael Shuman’s Small-Marts, Local Living Economies, Bill McKibben, many book ad film reviews, a LOCALIZATION FILM FESTIVAL and more.. all in a tabloid of 56 pages.” If you are interested in Localization, you will find this issue chock-full of useful information that can be quickly applied in a wide range of localities. Take a look!

In addition, he printed an extra 2,000 copies that are available in lots of 50 for $25, which includes shipping. If you be interested in hard copies for local distribution, please contact Bob and Hope Dance at this embedded link.

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Sunday, July 8, 2007

  1. No longer available online ↩

The Case for Localization

Over the past five months I have dedicated considerable attention to “localization.” According to Wikipedia, “Localization may describe production of goods nearer to end users to reduce environmental and other external costs of globalization.”

The Relocalization Network, which is affiliated with Julian Darley’s Post Carbon Institute defines “relocalization” as “- a strategy to build societies based on the local production of food, energy and goods, and the local development of currency, governance and culture. The main goals of Relocalization are to increase community energy security, to strengthen local economies, and to dramatically improve environmental conditions and social equity.”

Another way to consider localization is to see it as the shrinkage of distance between the point of production and the point of utilization or consumption. It is the conversion of bits and bytes into material form as close as possible to where that form will be used. In contrast, globalization is the virtualization of experience, knowledge, and innovation so that intellectual property created can travel from anywhere to anywhere quickly, easily, at minimal cost.

Of course, one can look at the world today and effortlessly conclude that neither of these is current reality. We take advantage of low-cost skilled labor to manufacture in different countries only to move parts, components, modules, and whole goods vast distances to reach the place of final assembly or sale. Quite obviously, we produce far from the point of use in many instances.

So what will change this? It is a matter of impetus. Concern about continuation of the fossil fuel economy is one such prompt. There are those who support the contention that the fossil fuel economy is unsustainable due to depletion of reserves, especially oil. Still others claim that regardless of how much fossil fuel there is our consumption of it adversely impacts the environment resulting in severe consequences over time. And there are those who maintain that the political ramifications of buying fossil fuel from countries whose governments adhere to a different moral framework are not advantageous. These are certainly powerful factors directed toward changing current business models and social dynamics.

However, another deciding factor is technology and how people appropriate it. As technology continues to get smaller, faster, stronger, more embedded, and more intelligent it facilitates localization. At one time high capital investment costs and the resultant economies of scale prompted centralization and regionalization to amortize these investments. Now, rapid technological advances are placing increased integration, capability, and capacity in more compact and powerful packages. This scales the costs and complexities downward at a propitious rate. And it leads to very innovative applications that change how we live, what we do, and how we do it: iPhone , Cheetah Prostheses, and CEREC by Sirona.

Societies also change when their members are introduced to these technologies and latitude is given for people to experiment with them in their local context. Working with various technologies and their local applications increases the number of people who are “domain experts” in the solutions that arise. Such domain expertise accelerates the rate of application successes with local markets which sets up the possibility of exporting those solutions to markets elsewhere through a phenomenon called “innovation blowback“. But do those global enterprises want that? Sounds highly disruptive!

Here is where the interplay between globalization and localization can be discerned. The initial aim of globalization is to move technology to areas of the world that have a decided labor cost advantage and ship the goods produced or services provided back to the originating point of the technology. This offers a payback for the investment in the technology and provides an advantage until competition finds a location of similar or lower labor cost. As the competence, capability, and capacity increase in those countries that have been enrolled in globalization, their domain expertise about the products and services they are producing or providing increases stage by stage: parts, components, modules, systems, and whole goods. Ultimately, the originator seeks to establish markets and ramp up SALES of those products and services in low-cost countries. Their driving interest is to see that domain expertise continues to forge markets for native flagship products and services into non-native, new markets close to low-cost production and support operations. This means changing the practices and behaviors of people in low-cost markets. But do those governments want that? Sounds highly disruptive!

India and China represent two examples. Both have significant populations engaged in subsistence agriculture. Many of the world’s largest agricultural equipment manufacturers have production operations or are in the midst of setting them up in those countries. Of course, one of the main reason they went there at the outset was to tap sources of low-cost, skilled labor. Now, the next step in leveraging their investments is to establish local markets for the same or similarly scaled products as those that are successful in North American and European markets. That means introducing to India or China the kind of mechanized agricultural practices practical in two continents that have a combined population equal to India OR China is going to be exceedingly disruptive. The net result of mechanization on that scale is the elimination of the work people are doing with technology. Such unemployment forces people to move out of rural areas and into the urban centers for employment. Can the infrastructures of those urban centers and the surrounding environment sustain such an increase in population?

What kind of solutions would an India or China develop? Perhaps ones which are smaller, faster, stronger, more embedded, and more intelligent? In other words, the development IMPERATIVE of technology plays evenly across all countries, societies, and markets. HOW that imperative is exercised, though, is specific to the conditions within the local markets.

What if the domain expertise about those technologies feeding products and services going to North American and European markets was diverted to solutions for local markets? Would the solutions for an India and a China be different than what works so well in North America or Europe? Would those solutions not only have value locally, but also well-serve markets further from home? And of equal or even greater interest, what happens in the long run if countries like India or China perceive they are not being supported by corporate interests based in North America or Europe to develop locally-appropriate solutions which would clearly be in the best interests of those countries?

And these questions constitute a prompt to consider localization further in future posts…

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Friday, July 6, 2007 and updated on Sunday, July 8, 2007

Boids, Integrated Structures, and Renewable Energy

About 20 years ago, Craig Reynolds, developed an artificial life program entitled, Boids, that simulates the flocking patterns of birds. One of the compelling features of Boids is that despite random starting points and infinite range of action enjoyed by each boid, through adherence to three simple rules a consistent behavior pattern among the boids is quickly established and maintained.

Boids exemplifies a principle in complex adaptive systems termed “emergence.” Emergence is a key concept in organization design. It has particular relevance when the issues of control, dependence, and autonomy in centralized and decentralized structures are recast into integrated structures such as networks, communities, and teams.

My previous posting, “Lessons from the Grid,” focuses on distribution of responsibility and authority to generate electricity, by whatever type of renewable energy source, to individual homeowners and business owners. Net metering connections to the grid enable owners to sell excess electricity generated to the utility company and draw from the grid as necessary during times of insufficient electricity generated locally. This is a win-win solution: an expanding network of home and business owners, representing multiple families, neighborhoods, and communities, are actively involved; participants meet their individual and local needs, first, then, sell their surplus to meet regional and global demand; and, the localization of electric power generation through “green energy” is more efficient and consumes less “brown energy.”

Distribution of electricity generation among the masses and the resulting win-win solution for the majority is an example of emergent behavior and the formation of integrated structures. Like “Boids,” this phenomenon is driven by three simple “rules” that define the social system in which emergence and integrated structures occur:

1) Universal participation.

The point of rapid development and deployment of information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities is to get everyone connected at a basic level. One need look no further than the geometric increase in the number of cell phones, Internet service providers, email addresses, blogs, videos, web-based services, etc. to see that the world is getting “wired!”

Every uptick in participation only heightens the number of advocates, providers, customers, buyers, and sellers available. Each has different experiences, perspectives, and ways of describing and meeting needs and wants. It is beyond the capability of highly centralized organizations to respond to the needs of so many independent agents. And it is beyond the capability of any one, “decentralized” individual to be both autonomous AND disconnected and expect to have needs and wants met while enjoying a respectable quality of life.

2) Meet individual and local needs, first; then, sell any surplus.

On its way to “human equivalence,” technology gets faster, smaller, stronger, more embedded, more integrated, and more intelligent with each turn in development. This has the effect of putting capabilities and capacities into the hands of the individual what was heretofore only available to the wealthiest or those with the largest assets to underwrite substantial ventures. The entirety of the Industrial Age is characterized by “managing” monopolistic interests dictating what was in vogue, what was available, and what was affordable. Now, with the Information (Digital) Age evolving into the Knowledge Economy and the “Relationship Age,” it is increasingly possible to dismantle the hulking centralized structures in the public and private sectors and distribute their power and authority to individuals and groups working in concert with one another at the grassroots. People at the local level can pull from vast global networks of “virtualized” information, knowledge, and resources and “materialize” them in local applications.

The result is people now have the means to meet their needs for fundamentals like food, energy, clothing, shelter, and safety without having to depend on others. It also creates the opportunity for them to produce MORE than they need so that the excess can be sold in further markets. This challenges the authority of comparative advantage when it comes to life-sustaining basics. Each day, advances in technology give more people the opportunity to produce sufficient renewable energy to feed, clothe, and house themselves – to meet their basic needs. And when people have their basic needs met, challenges to their security and safety are reduced; they can speculate, take risks, learn, and contribute their learning more broadly into global networks.

3) Consume what is produced locally, convert / process excess to standardized / higher value form, and ship to nearest point of use.

Unchecked globalization encourages people at local levels to compromise their buying power by sending raw or first-stage processed materials to worldwide destinations or further value-add processing. Because materials at this stage have their lowest value, the compensation for them is least. However, when finished products return from where further value is added their prices are out of reach. The net effect is the local economy is depleted of its resources and the people are unable to care for themselves. Of course, some corporations invest in facilities located closer to the raw or rough finished materials to take advantage of lower cost labor in subsequent value-add processes and stages. The finished goods are priced beyond the reach of employees and their compensation is insufficient to afford necessities. Once again, they are unable to care for themselves at a local level. Worse yet, the cost in use of fossil fuels to transport raw materials, work-in-process, and finished inventory from one part of the world to another only exacerbates the problems besetting local economies mentioned previously.

The “localization-to-globalization” model operates in reverse. It encourages people to consume what they produce rather than sending it elsewhere only to have to buy it back later. Also, it fosters the conversion of excess into standardized form of higher value in order to have a broader market which is easily accessed. Using renewable energy sources like solar, wind, biogas, etc, to generate electricity has more efficiency than the individual sources of energy because the energy is converted from a more difficult to use form to a standardized form. As an example, everyone can use electricity pulled from the power grid. Not everyone can use DC current from a photovoltaic array or a tank of biogas, although each can be used to generate electrical power for the grid.

These three “rules” drive the formation of many different integrated structures as localization takes root and globalization builds from it. How well these rules are followed in the development of business cases and plans is an indicator of the viability of the business under consideration.

For example, earlier this month, Biopact announced the headline, “Green giant Russia to produce 1 billion tons of biomass for exports.” That’s a lot of raw material! Now, will Russia process it into fuel or ship it elsewhere for processing? The article is unclear which direction this will go. However, it would seem that the environmental advantage of growing biomass material for fuel would be offset by the amount of fuel required to transport the raw material to a remote point for processing. In addition to the logistics issues, a business plan built on the comparative advantage Russia apparently has to grow biomass but not to process it into usable fuel is risky. Expecting another region or country to invest in the processing facilities yet not have control over the flow of raw material from considerable distance away is…well…dicey.

In contrast, Iowa grows more corn1 ethanol than any other state. It could ship corn to other states to process ethanol. However, the approach is to localize ethanol production from corn2 and keep the value in the hands of the producer while reducing transportation costs. Maybe there’s another lesson in here from the Iowan farmers?!

More business possibilities will be analyzed according to these three rules in subsequent postings…stay tuned!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Monday, February 12 2007

  1. Original link no longer available. ↩
  2. Original link no longer available ↩

Lessons from the Grid

The electrical power grid is a study in organizational behavior. Take how electricity is generated and distributed to the point of consumption. Huge power plants or arrays – fueled by “green energy” sources such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric, or “brown energy” sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear – concentrate electrical power generation to take advantage of “economies of scale.” The resulting current is transmitted through an extensive redundancy of power lines, cables, substations, circuit breakers, switches and transformers – oftentimes referred to as the “power grid” – to individual consumers across wide areas.

Organizationally, this is a centralized model. Power is concentrated in a select number of locations and authority is distributed to other points as needed and according to priorities driven by limited supply during periods of peak demand. The overall system, no matter how inefficient or costly, strives to be convenient, available when needed, standardized in delivery, and transparent during use. The goal is to please the most and dissatisfy the least so that fundamental assumptions about the design of the system are unquestioned, significant investments in infrastructure modernization or extensive system redesign are delayed, and increases in operational costs, along with services, are passed fluidly to the consumer. In other words, the existing power structure prevails and remains unchallenged and the consumer is dependent on that structure to get what is needed and wanted.

For every movement, there is a counter-movement. There are those who regard being “on the grid” as a lifestyle that epitomizes wanton consumerism, promoting waste, excess, banality, and destruction of the environment. Their alternative is to live “off-the-grid” disconnected from public services including electrical power. Initiated during the 1960’s and ’70’s, the “back to the land” movement is often synonymous with off-the-grid solutions such as energy from solar, wind, and biomass sources.

The off-the-grid approach represents an alternative organization structure – a decentralized model. In this instance, power is held by a wide range of relatively small, independent individuals / families who are in total control of an electrical power system that meets their consumption requirements. As with many decentralized structures, one’s destiny is in one’s hands. However, the limits of these structures become apparent when consumption patterns change and more power is required or disaster strikes and there is no opportunity for a quick recovery.

As the title of this blog article, “Solar Power FAQs: Will The Electricity Meter Run Backwards?” posted on the Alba Energy website suggests, some homes with photovoltaic (PV) panels generate sufficient electricity during the day to meet and exceed the immediate consumption needs of the home. In a different twist to back to the land homes sporting off-the-grid solar-powered systems, the scenarios presented in this article illustrate how consumers can load surplus electrical power generated by solar panels onto the grid and receive financial credit for doing so through various net metering plans.

While a national mandate for electric power companies to offer fair net metering practices is not in place – albeit Jay Draiman of Northridge, CA, author of “Mandatory Renewable Energy – The Energy Evolution – R12,” touts this as a necessary step in overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels – momentum is gaining in several states as commitment to renewable energy is strengthened. One of these is New York where the New York Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) promotes net metering / remote net metering and interconnections 1 through a range of incentive programs directed toward offsetting the installation costs for small-scale solar systems and encouraging connection to the public power grid in order to facilitate net metering.

From an organizational standpoint, this represents a very different structure – the integrated model. Although neither centralized nor decentralized, integrated structures blend a centralized surplus distribution and backup system with a decentralized network of small-scale operations. Such interdependence distributes responsibility and authority to individual members in the social system so they can engage in self-sustaining behavior patterns while linked to a broader network of resources and markets. Individuals are in control of investments, operating expenses, and utilization of resources. They can take care of themselves first, sell the surplus, or if circumstances warrant, buy what they need or want when they are unable to provide enough by themselves.

The combination of electrical power grid, PV panels, and net metering represents one way developments in technology influence organization structure and design. As systems technologies become more powerful, pervasive, and transparent, sub-systems will become more embedded, integrated, and interdependent. The same concept applies to computers, the Internet, and payment for posting articles on a website or blog. As information and communication technologies continue to evolve, they will empower individuals to THINK independently, work openly and in parallel, and collaborate when opportunities arise for bargains and balances to be struck among the various comparative advantages, surpluses, and deficits in the larger system.

Thereby comes one of the unintended but inevitable consequences of pursuing “green energy” sources for power generation in lieu of “brown energy” sources: the fundamental organization structure and assumptions for organization design shift. Control is no longer held by a central body, be it a corporation, government, or special interest group; nor is it fractured and splintered to such a degree that collective effort is no longer possible. Instead, it is held in balance at the point where production, distribution, and consumption work in unison with one another for the advantage of the system rather than favoring the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Conventional wisdom may differ, but the world will be a better place for it!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Wednesday, February 7, 2007

  1. The original New York Energy $martSM Program is no longer available ↩

Distribution Channels for Agriculture Equipment Systems in India

Overview

The long run of substantial growth in the Indian economy since liberalization in 1991 spread opportunities for business expansion and entrepreneurial start-ups in all commercial sectors, including agriculture. During the past decade and a half, noticeable gains in the purchasing power occurred for some Indian farmers. Their economic circumstances improved through the expansion and strengthening of infrastructure, rapid farm consolidation to take advantage of economies of scale, adoption of genetically modified cropping, and utilization of more productive agriculture equipment systems. However, there are 700 million farmers in India – the second largest block in the world behind China – and clearly, not all enjoyed the same level of benefit from the blistering economy as evidenced by the article, “India on Fire” in the current issue of The Economist.

Regardless of economic strata and chosen agricultural practices, all farmers are dependent on some type of agriculture equipment system to conduct their farming operations. The range of different equipment systems is quite broad, extending from low-investment handheld tools moved by draft animals to extensive, high-investment “packages” of machinery, computer systems, integrated software, and global communication networks. As with any complex marketing landscape, matching solutions with opportunities to make a difference for the customer and the company is essential.

The following graphic illustrates the interrelationships of the number of farmers, farm size, and market potential for sales of agriculture equipment systems.

The distribution clearly shows that 695 million farmers hold 80% of the arable land in India on farm sizes that are less than 2 hectares, approximately 5 acres, each. In fact, estimates suggest that 600 million farmers work on lot sizes that are each less than 1.5 hectares, or slightly less than 4 acres. This distribution is significant for several reasons, but one that features prominently when considering a marketing distribution channel strategy in India is population, both in terms of density and migration. As evident by the sheer number of people involved, unchecked farm consolidation, such as what occurred in North America and Europe since WWII, is not a viable course.

The infrastructures of urban areas in India would be quickly overwhelmed if even 25-30 % of the 700 million farmers scattered across India abandoned their rural homes in hopes of brighter futures in the cities. The challenge facing India, then, is to improve agriculture practices, increase output, and raise the quality of life for 700 million farmers so they choose to stay put. Not an easy mandate to meet.

Such distribution coupled with a wide variance in farming conditions within India’s agricultural regions and a diversity of farming methods and crop portfolios in each creates a complex marketing space that is anything but homogeneous. Developing a distribution channel strategy under these circumstances is problematic unless due consideration is given to the segmentation scheme and the value propositions for those segments.

Channel Design and Infrastructure

Regardless of segment, the design of distribution channels is dictated by the reach, capability, and capacity of three fundamental systems of infrastructure: information / communication technologies, electrical power, and roadways / waterways.

1) Farmers, no matter how remote, have to communicate: among themselves, with suppliers, downstream processors and retailers, government agencies, and financiers. The more direct the connections without brokers and middlemen the better. ITC has carried this point further than many through the implementation of their trademarked e-Choupal system. Comprised of self-contained solar-powered kiosks, satellite downlink stations and cellular microwave towers, and computers, nearly 4 million farmers throughout India are able to communicate by phone, access the information from the Internet, conduct online transactions, and make daily decisions about their farming operations.

A successful channel strategy begins with the virtualization of the products, services, and solutions so they flow through the information and communication networks to current and prospective customers. This constitutes a clear value proposition through improved decision making. It also establishes the first level of trust that the relationship between provider and customer is not exploitative, but mutually beneficial.

2) It takes electrical power for a farming operation to function, despite where it is located or what is in its business portfolio. Currently, India imports 100 million tonnes of crude oil per annum and is projected to import 300 million tonnes per year by 2030. In addition, India possesses the fourth largest coal reserves in the world. However, consuming it to generate electrical power in an environmentally sound manner is problematic and costly to resolve. To continue aggressive economic growth while not compromising the environment or being held hostage, politically, by unfriendly, oil-rich nations, India must develop alternative energy sources. In a press release earlier this week, Indian president, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, committed to put India on the path toward energy independence by 2030. Furthering the use of electrical power generated through renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geo-thermal, and biomass / methane is central to India meeting this long-term energy goal.

A successful channel strategy contributes to this in a two-fold manner. First, it discourages more dependence on oil by delivering agriculture equipment systems that do not require fossil fuels to operate. Second, it encourages the development, commercialization, and adoption of alternative energy sources to generate electrical power for agriculture. This enables farmers in rural areas where the electrical grid does not reach to have the technologies available to generate the electrical power they need. Also, as the grid becomes available they have the opportunity to draw from it as needed and transfer surplus power they generate onto it for revenue. This posits a value proposition that reduces the cost of farming operations and improves productivity and profitability. Furthermore, fostering an alignment of business interests with government intentions and policies establishes a second level of trust between the provider and customer.

3) As farm productivity increases so do variety and volume of inputs and outputs. Moving, storing, applying, and disposing of more and more material within the same block of time drives the food system to hit the limits of capability and capacity preventing it from working efficiently and effectively. India has a number of critical initiatives underway that target an overburdened infrastructure for receipt of more resources and assistance as evidenced in “Priorities for The New Millennium” by the Asian Development Bank. This is complemented by a continuing effort to setup Special Economic Zones (SEZ) that, in part, facilitates the building of critical infrastructure. It also has a dampening effect on population migration due to farm consolidation by creating jobs that can be filled by those who are displaced from farming operations. A speculative argument by Indian development economist, Atanu Dey, and Vinod Khosla advances a concept called Rural Infrastructure Services Common (RISC), that addresses rural population, infrastructure, and economic improvement. While not necessarily the answer, it does offer insight into the degree with which people of influence and power in India are aware of the issues and are searching for answers.

A successful channel strategy distributes information, methodologies, and capabilities to people engaged in agriculture so that they can work through or around infrastructure deficiencies or build-up the infrastructure so that it is no longer an impediment to growth. Of particular importance is the delivery of product and service packages primarily intended for agricultural operations but can serve a dual purpose in building, upgrading, or maintaining physical infrastructure such as roads and waterways. This establishes a value proposition based on multi-use applications for basic equipment systems thereby leveraging the investments by farmers and contributing to additional growth opportunities. Because such an approach does not place the farmer in a bad situation where the benefits promised by increased productivity are cancelled through losses due to infrastructure weaknesses, a third level of trust that speaks to a long term commitment by the provider to the customer.

To design a distribution channel strategy for agriculture equipment systems in India, it is a critical to first understand information / communication technology, electrical power, and roadway / waterway infrastructures then, respond to the business context established by them. As the graphic below suggests, the rate of adoption for various agriculture equipment systems varies from one segment to another depending on the size of the farming operation, the ability of farmers to take advantage of available opportunities, and the potential for sustaining the business. Projecting across a ten-year period, greater adoption, market share, and revenue will go to the provider of systems that span across the full landscape of Indian farming operations.

To try to sustain a growth strategy by ignoring the bottom-of-the-pyramid (BOP) representing the vast majority of farmers and tapping the upper-end who lead the adoption curve and have the most resources to invest will yield short-lived and unsatisfactory results. Accusations of exploitation of the masses will take its toll on reputation, incite resistance, and drag down sales performance as reflected in numerous press articles (“Farm Widows in India Fear Crop of Creditors,” by Aparna Pallavi and “The Tale of Three Widows,” by Jaideep Hardikar in India Together online magazine) and research papers (“Biotechnology and Suicide in India,” by Glenn Davis Stone) about increases in farmer suicides.

Moving Forward with a Distribution Channel

Given these dynamics, there are three steps in initiating, expanding, and sustaining a distribution channel for agriculture equipment systems in India:

  1. Take advantage of existing or supplement information and communication networks to disseminate valued information about agriculture in an Indian context to prospective customers. This is a low-price, high-value service with low entry barriers and costs that quickly establishes a first level of trust upon which additional value can be delivered.
  2. Expand upon the initial business information to include knowledge about the larger Indian economic and political “system” in relationship to technological developments and the realities of community life to deliver product and service packages that make a difference for the agricultural businesses, environmental conditions, and community stability. This is a moderately priced, high-value package of services and products from different providers that collectively leverages the investment of the customer while providing an acceptable return for the providers.
  3. Engage major players from industry, government, academe, and the community to affect larger, more capital-intensive projects that serve broader objectives to build more capacity and further improve productivity. This is a higher priced, high-value package of services, products, and solution management from a wide range of providers.

Essentially, this is an “infrastructure first” approach that endears the company to the people by putting in their hands the information, knowledge, and resources they need to be successful. This is the key differentiator among equals. It builds a trusting relationship based on the clarity of motive, integrity in deed, and delivery of what works for the majority before moving into more extensive and riskier endeavors that may exceed the customer’s boundaries of healthy speculation. This means that the marketers, the dealers, and the sales force must know their customers so they can keep them positioned for sustained success without overrunning their headlights. And this brings us back to best approach for partnering with the Indian farmer: focus on improving the infrastructure – it is THE winning strategy!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, February 3, 2007

Agriculture Megatrends: Ten Trends Redefining the Practice of Agriculture in the World

When I was growing up in south central Kansas, agriculture was a way of life – it was all around us in the form of wheat fields, cattle ranches, pastures, and gardens. Agriculture has had enormous economic significance throughout the history of Kansas, first, as a territory then a state. And it continues to be an important factor in shaping Kansas’ future. However, changing conditions over the past 60 years transformed the practice and scope of agriculture in Kansas: myriad family farms vanished through improved mechanization and consolidation of farming operations, absentee ownership of farms increased as farming businesses incorporated and adopted professional management in an effort to be competitive in a global market, significant tracts of productive farmland were lost to urbanization, and productivity of farmland became more unpredictable as precipitation patterns shifted, water tables dropped, and soil and ground water became more contaminated through unsustainable agricultural practices. While there are arguments both pro and con for the direction these changes took and their consequences, it is safe to say that agriculture is very different today than it was even a generation ago AND it will change even more with the next generation.

Changes in agriculture experienced by Kansans are not much different than those experienced by people in other states. The same phenomena of mechanization, consolidation, absentee ownership, globalization, urbanization, and non-sustainability have had similar affects throughout the United States and many other countries in the world. While the productivity / hectare or acre has certainly improved substantially over the last 60 years, the complications arising from less arable land, more distance from the point of production to the point of consumption, less oversight, and undesirable environmental consequences makes agriculture an even riskier endeavor than when success was determined by fickleness of the weather! If one extrapolates the next 20-30 years based on historical trend lines across the previous 60 years the picture for agriculture is not a particularly rosy one.

But just as mechanization had a profound disruptive effect on agriculture over 100 years ago, there are forces at play today and into the near future that are going to have a similar impact. My contention is that agriculture, rather than being relegated to the ranks of the mundane, mistreated, and maligned, will witness a rebirth into a new golden age. Whereas agriculture meant wheat, hay, and livestock when I was a boy growing up in Kansas, today, it extends across a full range of plant and animal applications: food for human consumption, feed for animal consumption, fuel, fiber, floriculture, horticulture, and nutraceuticals to name a few. This broader scope, when prompted by rapid and far-reaching developments in information and communication technologies and placed into the context of Marshal McLuhan’s “global village“, opens the door to examine agriculture in a more approachable, personal, and wholistic manner. Agriculture is reinstated to a more historically accurate location – an explicit, integral part of our lives, individually and collectively, and our world.

The purpose of this posting is to introduce ten agriculture “megatrends” – to borrow from John Naisbitt’s 1988 book, MEGATRENDS: TEN NEW DIRECTIONS TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES – that portend a renaissance for agriculture. Together, these offer a framework within which further details will be added. For now, though, the highlights:

Agriculture Megatrends: Ten Trends Redefining the Practice of Agriculture in the World

1) Growing concerns about the depletion of fossil fuels, the environmental impact caused by consuming them, and the consequences of paying those who do not have the best interests of others at heart for the fossil fuels is contributing to an increased investment in bio-fuels, biomass, and bio-energy.

Renewable energy from plant material and animal waste will continue to be a high-growth area.

2) Modifying a crop portfolio to include more plant material for fuel rather than food or feed equates to less food and feed UNLESS more land is put into production and productivity and output per unit of land is increased to make up the difference. This means that land in urban and suburban areas formerly dedicated to non-edible, non-fuel uses such as lawns and landscaping will be converted into higher value uses.

Localization of agriculture will be a high-growth area.

3) Raising crops for food and feed or fuel and fiber requires more production with less cost on smaller land sizes. This leads to a continuing emphasis on genetics either by modification or selective breeding to make significant improvements.

Genetic research and applications of genetically modified or selected characteristics for valued crops will be a high-growth area.

4) Using seed stocks with uniquely valued characteristics warrant tight controls through growing, harvesting, and post-harvest handling to assure purity. This promotes the application of techniques like RFID tagging and tracking to maintain an audit trail of traits, conditions, and treatments from end-products to their source.

Traceability will be a high-growth area.

5) Knowing that fresh food is grown without the use of certain fertilizers, pesticide, and herbicide is of increasing importance to consumers. The classification of “organic” is gaining ground as a way to assure food is grown and prepared according to specific guidelines that preclude the use of these chemical applications.

Organic food production will continue to be a high-growth area.

6) Curbing the release of carbon into the atmosphere is complemented by absorbing it into plant material and converting it into sugar and starch through photosynthesis. As more countries adopt broad-based systems to manage carbon credits more interest will be shown in selecting crop portfolios that take advantage of carbon credits as well as other value.

Carbon sequestration will be a high-growth area.

7) Recycling water, waste, and unused raw materials is becoming a more important consideration to increase efficiency and prevent unnecessary losses. This leads to a more systematic integration of farming practices along with the management of waste and by-products. Such systems offer wholistic approaches to year-round food production in temperate regions with a minimum of energy consumption, maximum utilization of inputs, and reuse of unconsumed outputs.

Integrated farming and waste management systems will be a high-growth area.

8) Decentralizing the generation of electric power and making electricity the common energy source for the vast majority of people worldwide is a mounting imperative. This invites the possibility of those who live in yet-to-be-electrified rural areas of the world to generate electricity through wind, solar, methane, or geo-thermal and use that energy to meet the needs of their agricultural, business, and domestic operations self-sufficiently off the grid. The development of a full array of electric-powered equipment in all price ranges is a natural complement. Of course, as the grid reaches out to more remote locations it will be a straightforward way for those who are generating electricity by whatever means to sell their surplus and draw upon in times of peak usage.

Electrification of rural areas and agricultural and multi-use equipment, especially with VERY low-cost solutions, will be a high-growth area.

9) Increasing agricultural production in widespread areas as well as concentrating agricultural operations in urban, suburban, and near rural settings requires new ways of moving and storing the output from the point of production through processing and preparation stops along the way to the point of consumption. Issues of food security and food safety coupled with the management of inventory to assure the least amount of loss while delivering the highest degree of freshness and quality are critical. This applies to inputs as well as outputs and touches upon the coordination among diverse growers for individual production portfolios.

Agricultural logistics and complex production management will be a high-growth area.

10) Forming, utilizing, and managing connections between and among agricultural producers, suppliers, logisticians, and customers is essential for effective business relationships to develop and transactions to occur. Whether wirelessly or by landline by voice, written word, or graphics, there are many ways to communicate and transfer information. The most important step is having the information and communication infrastructure to reach anyone, anywhere at anytime so that knowledge and insight about markets, prices, costs, pick-ups, deliveries, funding options, investments, etc. can occur expeditiously and consistently.

Information and communication technologies will be a high-growth area.

While these megatrends are introduced individually, the reality is many of them work in concert with one another to form an infinite variety of complex solutions addressing a wide range of community and commercial opportunities. Future postings will not only elaborate on each trend, but will showcase those combinations that provide additional value through interconnection and integration. More to come…

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Thursday, February 1, 2007

Value Propositions

As January draws to a close I look back on a busy month of travel that took me to three continents and visits to a wide range of clients in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. A common theme no matter what type of organization is value for time, energy, and resources spent. We want more value in each of our transactions. As a result, regardless of how the metrics of time, energy, and resources are defined, they represent the ways in which comparisons between alternatives are drawn, distinctions and differentiations of one to another are determined, and ultimately, decisions to choose are made based on which alternative offers the greatest value. Does one alternative take less time than another? Does it take more physical effort, require specialized skills, or is it informed by direct experience? Does it cost more to rent, lease, buy, or contract, or does it tie-up more capital? These and related questions are at the heart of determining value.

Of course, what we are looking for from others who might help us are ways in which their input provides value. In other words, we look for what Geoffrey Moore terms the “value proposition” as the impetus to choose from what is presented to us for consideration including choosing nothing at all if it does not improve our current situation. (For further reference, consider the following books authored by Mr. Moore: CROSSING THE CHASM and INSIDE THE TORNADO, and his blog Dealing with Darwin) Essentially, the value proposition presents ways we can use our time, energy, and resources in pursuit of our endeavors. Our task is to evaluate whether one value proposition is better than what we are already doing or is best among other value propositions available. Knowing what constitutes a value proposition guides us in our evaluation of various alternatives.

Basically, value propositions surface in three ways: information, packages, and integrated solutions.

Let’s take information. Go to any blog, like this one, or website that features certain products, services, or points of view and what you see and read are testimonials with references. The authors describe the context in or circumstances under which their experiences occurred, including probable causes / root cause if a problem and contributing / off-setting factors if an opportunity; they document the results; and they offer an evaluation of the various factors and actions that made a difference one way or the other. The idea is that if we can match our circumstances with theirs we will be in position to make a more informed decision using the results of their approaches as guidelines. The value comes in not repeating the mistakes of others or duplicating what worked well by taking the same steps they did. The value proposition of time and energy spent going to a particular information source versus another is based on accuracy, timeliness, and relevance. For that reason one blog is more popular than another, one search engine is tapped more frequently than another, and one reference website is consulted more often than another.

The problem with information alone is I have to find it, first; then read it and see how it fits my situation; then act upon it. This can and often does consume considerable time. And it may very well be worth the effort. However, if I am dealing with a complex system where there are multiple dimensions to take into consideration, a complete package is preferable.

Here’s an example: let’s say I want a high-speed Internet access with a secure wireless router to do online banking transactions from my laptop. Also, I have been reading about VOIP and that service sounds interesting, maybe even a Wi-Fi phone to be independent of a computer. In addition, I have a cable TV service that includes Internet access as an option. Oh, and I have land-line phone service in the office that also includes a DSL option. But then the company providing my cell phone service offers wireless connectivity for my laptop through a wireless card. Of course, there are parts of the world where there is no cell phone coverage and land line service is spotty at best. For these there are satellite phones and high-speed Internet access.

With all these choices, how does one proceed? As one can well imagine, there is a wealth of information about each and every combination of service and product. The time and energy required researching these and putting together a cost-effective and reasonably performing bundle is ENORMOUS. Can’t someone do it for me?

Therein lies the next level of value proposition – the package. Most organizations providing a variety of products and services catalogue their offerings into generalized buckets that fit together logically and purposefully. Their interest is to reduce the time customers spend making a decision and is cost-effective and satisfying, operationally; the package functions as intended. The organization that presents a value proposition with the least outlay of costs, the fewest ongoing transactions and the greatest degree of “fit” and satisfaction wins the prize!

Despite excellent bundling and packaging strategies guided by Customer Relationship Management (CRM) practices the customer must choose among an array of options and alternatives to fulfill all the requirements of a business or personal application. Companies can engage in customer segmentation schemes to better target their package toward particular customer groups and reduce the customer’s involvement. Also, they can provide opportunities for customers to interact with representatives online or by phone to better tailor a package to meet specific and often unique requirements. Still, the customer remains the integrator who exercises the final step in putting a solution together that truly matches the unique context in which it fulfills its mandate. Packaging efforts fall short of the goal which is for an organization to design, deliver, and maintain a totally integrated solution that meets and exceeds the needs of the customer WITHOUT the customer having to be directly involved.

The strongest value proposition is the one in which the customer does not have to decide what is the best solution overall or which are the best components to include in the total solution. The organization becomes the integrator of choice for the customer. To be relieved of having to spend time, energy, and resources to develop, implement, and maintain an integrated solution is of supreme value to the customer.

This suggests a three-stage progression of value propositions organizations can use as a scorecard to see whether they are on the way to becoming the integrator or is the customer relegated to remain so:

Step one: is the information you provide accurate, timely, and relevant?

Step two: does the package of products and services you offer indicate you understand the customer’s needs and circumstances and does the package function as promised?

Step three: does the integrated solution you provide merit the trust and confidence of the customer that you are making choices in the customer’s best interest?

As might be expected, the third step is not easily reached. Only those who have the intelligence, means, moxie, and integrity to warrant such trust earn this right. However, it should be the goal of all who serve others through organizations of any type. How does your organization stack up?

Are you in position to offer a better value proposition for the customer?

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Food Systems and Distances Traveled

Food is an essential requirement for life. A certain degree of psychological preoccupation is prompted if there are risks associated with getting the need for food met. As a result, securing food is one of the fundamental building blocks in Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs.”

Distance from the source of food is a sticky wicket for food consumers. We are left in the hands of government regulations, enforcement agencies, businesses, and various special interest groups in between us and the food we need for survival, health, and well-being. Questions range from plant and animal genetics to methods of production, processing, and preparing foods, to the logistical systems that transport, store, and stock what we eat as it moves from the point of production to the point of consumption.

So how far is it from the point of production to the point of consumption? According to a 2003 study, “Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for Local versus Conventional Produce Sales to Iowa Institutions,” by Rich Pirog at Iowa State University it can be further than one might think. For a synopsis of Pirog’s study, please read Consumers Prefer Locally Grown Foods published by the WK Kellogg Foundation.

Drawing from Pirog’s report, Jane Black offers the following analysis in her article in Slate entitled, “What’s in a number? How the press got the idea that food travels 1,500 miles from farm to plate:” 1

All statistics, of course, are based on a series of assumptions. And Pirog is quick to point out that whether or not the 1,500-mile figure applies to everyone and everything—or how it’s been misused—it has raised consciousness about where food comes from. It sends a message: It matters what you buy, and where you buy it.

The graphic below illustrates some of the critical relationships in the current, globalized food system relative to distances food travels.

Essentially, the diagram is a continuum from local to global with regional and continental “zones” setup to offer arbitrary hash marks at the 100, 1,000, and 10,000 mile intervals in between. Clearly, the distribution of distance favors production, processing, and preparation encompassing more than 1,000 miles. Also, the interplay of production, processing and preparation, and consumption is embedded within a logistical system that supports the movement of plant and animal materials from one location to another while transferring from one production / processing stage to another.

This diagram does not attempt to quantify the complete distance traveled, but offer a way to visualize the approximate distribution of mileage when looking at the overall food system. While Pirog’s report focuses solely on fresh produce and excludes various stages of processing between production and consumption, if one included the distances incurred by these additional steps the total mileage traveled would be considerably further. Also, due to the economies of scale favored by globalized operations, processing and preparation are centralized in specific locations that enjoy advantages of lower cost labor or closer proximity to large scale production operations. This adds to total distance traveled when completing the cycle to the consumer.

In his book, PERMACULTURE: A BEGINNER’S GUIDE, Graham Burnett offers a diagram entitled, “The Industrialization of Tea” that captures the notion of distance in the globalized food system and its consequences. When the total costs of fossil fuel consumption is treated as an externality and there is relative assurance that globalized food sources are secure and can provide safe food at low cost the food system functions effectively. But what if the formula changes due to increased fuel costs? What if we cannot assure food security and safety? What is an alternative? Mr. Graham begins to explore this question by providing a second diagram, “The Permaculture Cup of Tea,” posted on the same website.

In carrying the philosophy of a “permaculture cup of tea” further, the diagram below follows the same general format as the previous graphic, only the food system is more localized than globalized.

Now, 60 % of the food system functions within an area under 1,000 miles of the point of consumption. While this stops far short of 100% under 1,000 miles, it does suggest that simply moving a mere 30% of the total food system output from over 1,000 miles to under will have a profound impact on the issues like fuel consumption, food security and safety, and community sustainability, health, and well-being. But how much difference would this really make?

While there are no data to tell us for sure, there are reports from studies in related fields that offer some insight. In The New York Times article by Matthew Wald published December 30, 2006 entitled “Travel Habits Must Change to Make a Big Difference in Energy Consumption,” the author states,

…picking a large sport utility vehicle that goes two miles farther on a gallon of gasoline than the least-efficient SUV’s would have an impact on emissions of global warming gases about five times larger than replacing five 60-watt incandescent bulbs. The dollar savings would be about 10 times larger. And the more-efficient light bulbs would have a negligible effect on oil consumption.

This suggests that shifting the 30% of the current food system activity to under 1,000 miles from the point of consumption would make a substantial difference.

There is a business case in this for sure; but how would one go about putting the business model together that leads to viable business plans and startups in localized agriculture? The key is in designing a framework that ties the critical elements of food production, processing and preparation; renewable energy and environmental remediation; logistical systems; and community sustainability together into a set of dynamic, interactive, and adaptive relationships. And that will be the topic for subsequent postings…

Wishing you all the very best in 2007!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Tuesday, January 2, 2007

  1. The original article, “The Issues: Buy Local,” is no longer available online ↩

Oil Addiction and the Business Case for Change

One responsibility that comes from communicating with readers through media such as blogs is to define terms as they are going to be used in various postings and follow-up by consistent usage of those terms according to their stated definitions. In this instance, three terms are offered for consideration in this and related postings about business opportunities: business case, business model, and business plan.

Wikipedia defines “business case” in the context of an existing business wherein certain changes are being considered. While this is certainly a useful construct in project management practices, it need not be limited solely to that purview. It is also a valuable tool for entrepreneurs to draw upon when determining start-up possibilities or expanding an existing business far beyond the boundaries and scope of its original charter.

Business cases lead to “business models.” A business model is the approach a business intends follow in order to generate revenue, control expenditures, and make a profit. More than one business model is possible in response to strong business cases. The challenge is crafting and adopting an appropriate business model that leads to a successful business within a given set of circumstances. It is a bit like playing chess and determining the opening one is going to use based on personality and temperament as much as intellect, skill, and experience. Determining and applying business models in response to business cases spawns creative experimentation that typifies entrepreneurial efforts.

A “business plan” covers comprehensive information, in-depth analysis, and detailed description about how practical application of the business model is accomplished successfully over time. Putting a business plan together demands that one think past overly optimistic assumptions about revenues and underestimates of capitalization costs and operating expenses. This exercise brings a critical level of discipline to choosing a business model. And if support from others is required to get the business going, a business plan is an excellent communication medium through which one’s attention to detail and exercise of due diligence is documented.

An earlier posting, “Addicted to Oil,” points out that such a level of dependence drives concern for quantity and quality of the addictive agent and consequences of use for the addict and the social systems that support the addict. It also turns up the heat in the addict’s thinking to consider the possibility of not succumbing to the powers of the addictive agent and choosing an alternative path of recovery. The foundation for an addict’s travels to a clean and sober life is a totally different structure and behavior than the basis for the one that supported the addiction. It requires significant sustained commitment to move from the addictive structure to the clean and sober structure. And there are many bumps in the road that test commitment and resolve. This is an act not to be taken lightly.

Recovery from oil addiction entails securing energy from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. This is a costly route to take since the current global system is setup to generate, deliver, and consume energy from fossil fuels, not renewable sources. To make the switch requires a considerable investment of time, money, and talent to develop and apply the technologies that will make renewable energy system feasible. Such investment will not happen without the assurance that there is a business case for doing so.

Making the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources requires a business case based on irrefutable evidence that not doing so will result in highly undesirable consequences. In recovery, the addict must “reach bottom” before beginning the long ascent out of the dark pit. With oil addiction that point is reached when the realization that to continue unchecked is simply an untenable position. In other words a “tipping point” is reached from which there is no turning back.

In a December 22, The New York Times 1 editorial by Thomas Friedman entitled “And the Color of the Year Is…,” he writes:

We reached a tipping point this year — where living, acting, designing, investing and manufacturing green came to be understood by a critical mass of citizens, entrepreneurs and officials as the most patriotic, capitalistic, geopolitical, healthy and competitive thing they could do. Hence my own motto: ‘Green is the new red, white and blue.’

It appears that in the minds of some the point of no return from black to green has passed. Regardless of how far beyond this point we are, it is safe to conclude that business opportunities in the renewable energy sector and the proliferation of business models and plans they spawn are nigh. We are taking first, but strong steps out of the black hole of addiction along the green path of recovery. And this growth in business possibilities will not remain within the realm of the energy sector alone. Due to the tightly woven interconnections among them, the fuel, food, feed, floriculture, and fiber industries as a whole will be transformed. A budding renaissance for agriculture is in the making. Stay tuned for more!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Friday, December 29, 2006

  1. Original posting to the Stop Global Warming website is no longer available online ↩