Month: November 2012

From my previous blog post, an economics professor, Tim Haab, pointed out that pollution is okay as long as its benefits are equal to its costs. The United States’ self-sufficiency in oil provides benefits, but also comes at a high cost.

I agree with Claudia Jang though, on how the United States will be able to better focus its resources to more efficient uses and perhaps boost its own economy, and the economies of other countries that are involved with the U.S.

At the same time, I also see the cost that is associated with this. Many countries that are affiliated with the U.S. through oil trades, such as Canada, will suffer losses initially, and possibly never recover the losses from a boosted U.S. economy. Also, the new methods of extracting oil by the U.S. poses environmental concerns, such as polluting groundwater, and the surrounding environment.

I fully agree with Claudia that an assessment is needed for these methods of oil extraction. At the same time, resources are diminishing, especially oil – and the continual dependence on oil will create more environmental concerns in the future. Countries should not focus its resources on oil extraction and instead should look towards innovating more sustainable methods of energy production for the future. This technology will prove to be valuable to not only the U.S., but countries around the world in an effort to become sustainable.

A while back, Wade Larson came and gave my class a presentation of his new venture, UrtheCast (pronounced “Earthcast”). There are many opportunities and possibilities that UrtheCast will open up and I agree with Fergus Arnold on how UrtheCast will be key in creating a global community and opportunities for new global ventures.

UrtheCast plans to constantly stream video through the satellite. This means that UrtheCast will be facing a large amount of data collection daily. If the data is not managed properly, UrtheCast could face serious financial problems due to the large amounts of data it has to handle daily.

Like Fergus has stated, there are some privacy concerns over UrtheCast due to the capability to zoom in, along with social media collection. The problem is people can be recorded and zoomed in on – making them a part of a real-time movie that is public for the world to see.

On the social front, UrtheCast will need to deal with junk information. UrtheCast is providing a large amount of data to its users, from videos to news feeds, and social posts. This amount of data needs to be filtered extensively to filter out the junk information. Overall, if UrtheCast can solve these concerns, I feel this technological advancement will benefit society to various degrees – from entertainment to environmental awareness globally.

According to the environmental economics professor, Tim Haab, in this article, pollution is okay.

Of course, it does not necessarily mean for companies and society to accept pollution and stop caring about it. Instead, they should look towards the marginal benefits of the extra pollution, and the marginal costs. Basic economics: equation marginals will maximize. In this case, by equating the marginal cost and benefits of the extra pollution, society will be better off as a whole even if there is pollution. Sometimes, the benefits of the polluting activity outweigh the cost – and that’s when economists would say to engage in the polluting activity, thus benefit society as a whole overall.

This blog is informative and a great reminder that pollution will always exist, and polluting activities can sometimes be more beneficial to society. The problem is, how does one account for the costs of pollution? If the price needs to reflect the true cost, how much would the price be adjusted? Recently, I’ve learned about sustainability and social responsibility in business, and this topic walks on a fine line for businesses which makes this post a much more interesting read. On one hand, if a business can pollute but at the same time, be sustainable and socially responsible, society will benefit greatly. If not, it could pose huge environmental concerns and protests against said company.

Today, there has been a rising awareness of the need to go “green”, to become more sustainable and environmentally friendly. But how does one start about reducing their carbon footprint?

It all starts with the awareness of ones’ own usage of resources. If consumers are aware of their power consumption or water usage (and how it’s used), consumers can take on initiatives to reduce their overall consumption. For example, a Sauder alumni, Janice Cheam, created Energy Aware and its product: the Power Tab. This device allows consumers to monitor their energy consumption in real time, making them more aware of their consumption.

Like Helena Lin states in her blog, with the addition of the Power Tab and BC Hydro’s smart meter program, BC Hydro can save money by being more effective in energy distribution with the newly collected data. By partnering with other utility companies in various markets, Energy Aware allows individuals, and companies to become better in tracking the energy consumption and energy distribution. Aware individuals have the ability to innovate new methods to save energy either by reducing consumption, or consuming a more sustainable type energy (solar, water, instead of coal, or gas).

Recently, major companies and its CEOs have taken on the initiative to go green within their businesses, from saving energy to having a more environmentally friendly supply chain. The question is why would these companies take on added costs, and not maximize their profits?

I think these companies are changing the way they operate for the opportunities it will create. Short term it may incur more costs, but it will also bring about sustainable advantages such as lower costs of production or differentiated products. By being socially responsible and sustainable, the company gains a lot of opportunity to earn more profits through either diminishing costs in the long term, or more revenue (customers, differentiated products). The advantage is that the company can effectively market itself as innovative, and ready to adapt to the changing world and the diminishing amounts of resources.

By being innovative, new products and new methods of producing products will be discovered. These methods can make resources be allocated more efficiently, or use an alternative resource that’s much more sustainable. That, is what I think makes going green, the new gold. The bonus is the ability for the company to market itself and differentiate its products.

The trio of Panasonic, Sony, and Sharp are quickly falling behind in the electronics industry. All three companies are reporting huge losses, and solutions only minimize the damage. Each company is losing ground in the electronics industry, failing to compete with Apple, LG, and Samsung on TVs, phones, and tablets. Panasonic has cut 39,000 jobs within the last year and even skipped a dividend because of the huge losses ($9.6billion). Investors don’t believe the job cuts were enough, and the value of Panasonic’s stock reflects that with a 100 yen drop in a day, reaching the daily limit.

These companies have become too reliant on the sales of TVs, focusing on differentiating themselves with superior technologies (Which is also a case for most of the Japanese tech sector). Competitors caught up on technology and quality, and instead, focus on differentiating through content and applications, which brings a comparably stronger competitive advantage. This is evident with the struggles of the Japanese companies in designing competitive products.

The question is, can they dig themselves out of their current hole? I don’t think so, and if they do, they would have to face the task of positioning their brands better than the likes of Apple.

Article