Climate Technology

Full-cell company bought by Daimler and Ford

Ballard -- the Canadian fuel-cell company that once hoped to be the "Intel Inside of the hydrogen car revolution -- has sold off its automotive fuel-cell business to Daimler and Ford.

You can listen to a good CBC radio story on it, which includes an interview of me (click on "Listen to the Current," Part 2). You can read Toronto Star columnist Tyler Hamilton on the story here. A Financial Post post piece headlines the story bluntly: "Hydrogen highway hits dead end: Ballard's talks with potential buyers is admission that dream of hydrogen fuel car is dead: analyst."

The story has a keen interpretation of the sale's meaning from Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy:

Civilization …

… is doomed.

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day on Friday; no purchase necessary

Thousands of people the world over plan to celebrate what’s usually the biggest shopping day of the year by … not buying anything. That’s right, it’s almost time for Buy Nothing Day, celebrated Nov. 23 in the U.S. and Canada and Nov. 24 in the rest of the world, drawing attention to how easy it […]

Green products largely guilty of greenwashing, says study

A study of 1,018 “green” products from big-box stores has found that all but one were marketed with false or misleading eco-claims. Researchers from TerraChoice Environmental Marketing called out products for committing the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”: a hidden tradeoff (e.g., toxin-loaded electronics touting their energy efficiency); no certifiable verification of green claims; flat-out lying […]

It can happen here

Recently Hale "Bonddad" Stewart, who normally writes informative posts about finance, let loose with a string of myths about manufacturing (both at Huffington Post and Daily Kos) that really got my blood boiling. Nothing like boiling blood to get those fingers moving, I always say! So I thought I would address various myths, most of which Bonddad managed to touch on. Also, I figure that some clarifications might be in order for those that read both my post on the necessity of manufacturing and Ryan Avent's spirited challenge.

Bonddad's myths: a strong U.S. manufacturing base will be bad for trade, is an artifact of World War II, is not necessary for high-tech industries or a thriving middle class, depends on low-cost labor, and ultimately, is not possible.

80% by 2050? Try 2010.

Got a headache from all the recent back and forth over rhetoric and politics of climate change? Last week, Frito-Lay served up a refreshingly rhetoric-free reminder that the future is coming no matter what we might do to encourage (or stop) it. Under their net zero initiative, the salty snack behemoth will be taking an Arizona potato chip factory almost entirely off the grid, running it on renewable energy and recycled water.

The project stands out to me mostly for what it is not:

USDA orders Tyson Foods to stop using antibiotic-free labels on poultry

Tyson Foods will no longer be allowed to use its “raised without antibiotics” label that the U.S. Department of Agriculture originally approved in May, due to a mix-up at the agency and disagreement over whether a medication used in Tyson’s chicken feed should be classified as an antibiotic. Tyson launched a $70 million ad campaign […]

Groups announce voluntary carbon standard for offset market

In an attempt to rebut accusations that buying and selling carbon offsets amounts to a whole lotta nothin’, a coalition of three groups has announced new voluntary standards for the international offset market. The standard attempts to verify that money spent on carbon offsets goes directly to a project that does indeed help the climate. […]

Busting ethanol market bad news for investors

The U.S. ethanol boom has been brought up short by market glut, making corn-based fuel “2007’s worst energy investment,” a Bloomberg News Service article declared today. President Bush made ethanol a centerpiece of his energy plan and lavished it with subsidies; ethanol distilleries that went up quickly in anticipation are now having to shut down. […]

Pro-business vs. pro-market

Much of the debate around the big issues of our day -- from energy to healthcare -- hinges on whether one is "pro-market" or "pro-government," with Cato and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page lining up on one side and any number of PIRGs on the other.

Unfortunately, neither side appears to understand the pro-market position. Herewith, my attempt to add a bit more rigor to the debate.

So what does a market look like? At the most basic level, a market is defined by its characteristics. There are various definitions out there, but they all come down to the same basic tests:

1. No barriers to entry
2. No barriers to exit
3. Price transparency (e.g., prices reflect costs)
4. No participants can independently affect price

Meet these tests and Adam Smith's magic starts to work, whereby the self-interest of each participant leads to social benefit for all in the form of better products and services, at lower prices. Why? Because life in a perfect market sucks! If you're running a firm in a market as defined above, you don't sleep well at night. New entrants keep cropping up. If you can't stay competitive, you're going to lose your money. Tiny changes in raw material costs have big impacts on your profits, which you are completely powerless to change. This causes you to do two things: