Even When CleanTech Ideas Are Asinine, It’s Sometimes Hard to be Blunt
I think we’ve all been in the position of being asked for an opinion on something we think is terrible, but hesitating to answer the question truthfully. Here’s one every man fears: “Does this dress make me look fat?”
In clean energy, I find myself in this position all the time. Sometimes it’s more awkward than others, like this discussion with a friend:
Friend Asks: Hi, Craig. Do you mind providing your opinion on this?
$1 million+ “gift capital rounds” are becoming common. U.S. financial investment laws have been liberalized, too.
Now, the costs of large-scale environmental and social business projects can be safely spread among thousands of small supporters.
I’ve picked a big project to prove this concept – cleaning up the serious air pollution problem in Salt Lake City where I’ve lived since 2013.
It will cost over $1 billion to reconfigure the city’s economy to end production of the smoggy pollution cloud know(n) as “the inversion.”
Yet, I am confident it can be achieved using a step by step approach that starts with “gift capital” donations as small as $1.00!
If you liked what I was aiming for in the 2000’s, I hope you’ll support my return to the field with a gift of $1.00 or whatever feels right for you.
Craig Responds: I really don’t have too much background or experience with micro donations but I do have two significant problems with this. I’ve written this in a very direct manner so as to be clear; I hope no one takes offense.
• Basic math: Hoping to raise $1 billion from tiny donations will be deemed as silly (putting it kindly) to people who have experience with this. The Sierra Club, 123 years old, one of the best-known and well-run environmental organizations on Earth, has grown its membership as aggressively as possible over that considerable period of time. Currently, they have 2.1 million members, of which I’m one, and their “war chest” is measured in tens of millions of dollars, nowhere close to $1 billion.
• The cause: donors need to be content that their gifts are focused on rational, achievable goals. The concept here is to somehow spend $1 billion to clean up the air pollution in Salt Lake City, spending over $1 billion to reconfigure the city’s economy to end production of the smoggy pollution cloud know(n) as “the inversion”. I’m afraid this will be regarded as even “sillier” than the first one. Think about this. How specifically will he spend $1 billion to “reconfigure the city’s economy?”
There are some extremely well-thought-through clean city initiatives that are aimed largely at smart grid, integrating more renewables, reducing VMT (vehicle miles travelled), and improving the efficiency of lighting/HVAC in buildings. Anyone wishing to get behind them is welcome, and will have a reasonable expectation that they are supporting something that is scientifically and economically sound.
Btw, there’s a group out here in California that does vigorous fund-raising aimed at getting rid of fossil fuels entirely and replacing the entire energy infrastructure with wind and hydrogen. They really have no idea what they’re talking about in terms of the practical realities at stake, but that doesn’t stop them; it doesn’t even slow them down. I’ve seen them in action at large luncheons and other events, and I’m sure they rake in some very large donations from people who know even less than they themselves about this subject.
Again, I hope my candor here doesn’t offend anyone.
Friend: More scams and BS just like our so-called government!
Craig: Ha! Well you blasted this even harder than I did. And here I was worried about insulting someone….. 🙂
