On May 12th between 6:45pm and 6:52pm I was the coolest person on earth

DONE! On Monday, May 12th, we held the second SF Green Event and again well over 300 people came to the event. I wanted to say a special thanks to VentureBeat, SF Green's new media partner as well as my co-founding team at SF Beta (Christian Perry and special thanks to Cassie Phillipps who simply rocks)

This event was quite different than the previous event in that we had two speakers and a stage from which the speakers could be heard.  Our goal was to have Darryl Siry, VP Marketing of Tesla Motors and Ray Lane GP at Kleiner Perkins answer questions from Matt Marshall in a "fireside chat" sort of style.

We asked Ray to speak for many reasons, including that:

1. he is a managing partner at Kleiner Perkins which is one of the most influencial venture capital companies in the US

2. he has made significant investments in the GreenTech space

3. is not afraid to mix it up and is quite well informed

4. he is a republican

5. he strongly believes in the new green economy

Now, those of you who are reading carefully will notice LINE 4 - he is a republican.  Yup, that's right.  I particularly was interested in Ray's viewpoints because he represents a new class of "green" people.  Those that see green from an economic standpoint as well as a social standpoint.  I find that I share many of the same opinions with Ray in that his viewpoints are the realities of how business, poilitics and economics work in the world.  He's not trying to change those elements of society, he's using his knowledge of them to inform him on how to best approach being "green".

I had the honor of asking him the last question of the evening and here it is - (by the way, I loved his answer)

"How will the new Green Economy affect the balance of power in the world?  Is Rome (that's the US) about to fall?

His answer, not that he knew it, was exactly what I believe and that is - Green is going to be one of the biggest opportunities to maintain and grow the United States as an economic and socially relevant powerhouse. 

Basically what Ray was trying to say (if I can attempt to summarize) is that when it comes to big shifts in how the world operates, the United States has always been the one to take the lead and thus take the lion's share of the benefits for being the leader.  Just as we have in the industrial, computer and now Internet age, we will also be the leaders in the new green economy.

As the world tries to take advantage of the new opportunities within the green space, new technologies, processes and know-how will need to be created and America is where it is going to built.  If America is the driving force behind these new advances, then all of the other countries such as China and India will want to buy those technologies from us.

What I like best about Ray's answer was that he didn't back down in the face of my question.  I ask this question to nearly everyone that I meet and 99 times out of 100 the person basically says that our economy and our way of life in the US may further be erroded other countries taking a lead in the new green economy.  Those people further illustrate their point by pointing out that nearly every 1st world country and 2nd world country has a larger "green" budget than the US.

I used to think this way - in fact I posted something near to this a while back, but of coarse was smart enough to say that I was research my answer fully.  Well, I have and my opinion is simple. - We are still America and we still are the leader of the world.  The problem we have isn't that America is waining, it is simply that the administration that has been in office for the last 8 years has held us back in so many ways.  Regardless of who we get as our new leader, I think we are going to get back to our roots of tackling big and tough issues the way we used to do.  I think this not only because I think we are the greatest nation on earth - I think this simply because we haven't kicked ass in a while as a country and we have so much pent up energy we just going to explode with creativity when we get our new administration. 

If you would like to join the SF Green group on Facebook, you can join here. 

Thanks again to our sponsors Ernst & Young, Sun Microsystems, Dig Communications, Network Verde, California Cleantech Open, City Car Share and the SF Chamber of Commerce.

The first event, held this March, brought together over 300+ people from a diverse array of companies and backgrounds and immediately became the regions largest Green mixer.  However, I wanted to make SF Green the type of event that helped to shape the new Green Economy and not just celebrated it.  Therefore, I sought out a partnership with a major media company who shared my visions and could help SF Green expand our reach and increase our impact. 

Today I am proud to announce that SF Green has completed a partnership with VentureBeat, one of the nations leading venture media companies on the web. 

Check out our line up of the May 12th SF Green. Get your tickets here.  Please sign up early as we expect to sell out this time due to the overwhelming demand to see the teslas, smart cars and other vehicles at the show. 

VentureBeat is now an integral and strategic partner of SF Green and will be a major player in executing the vision of SF Green.  In short term, our partnership's goal is to expand the importance of SF Green events by bringing in keynote speakers that represent the industry's thought leaders and by bringing in premier companies (like Tesla) to talk about and show their products.   Each event from now on will focus on specific themes like Green Transportation - this month's focus.

This May 12th from 6pm-9pm at 111 Minna Gallary in San Francisco, we are holding our next SF Green event and the theme is Green Transportation.  We have invited some of the most prominent companies and venture capitalists to come and talk to the attendees.  My goal is to create a debate amongst the group that attends on the topic of green transportation.  Make sure that you get your tickets early as 111 Minna stops us at 400 people because of fire codes.

Headlining the event are Tesla Motors, in the form of VP of marketing Darryl Siry and a Roadster or two; and Ray Lane, the managing partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers who invested in Fisker Automotive, as well as the new Think America partnership and the solar thermal startup Ausra. Both will join us for Q&A sessions at different times during the evening, with the chance for the crowd to ask a few questions of their own.

We'll also have our generous sponsors on hand: Ernst & Young, Sun Microsystems, Dig Communications, Network Verde

What's the Big Problem?

Why Capitalism may save our butts.

Fortunately, over the past 200 years or so, Capitalism has spread throughout the world and dominates nearly every economy.  Why is this fortunate?  Well, because Capitalism, which works on a system of supply and demand, may just be the one thing that saves us all.  Consumers, i.e. the human race, has realized we can’t go on the way we have all these years and now humans want new products that enable them NOT to become extinct – fancy that?  And, as we know in Capitalism, with demand comes supply - and therein is the reason why Green will change the world.  

The demand, by Consumers (who wish not to become extinct) for Green products, will cause businesses (who some say really run the world) to make changes in order to make money – and the world goes ‘round.

In other words, those Green things (like renewable energy, sustainable potable water, environmentally friendly products that are based and valued on the entire supply chain) can’t be made unless many of the old and unsustainable systemic infrastructures (like governments, industries, banking, energy) are overhauled.  Once sustainability is a feature that consumers want in their products, businesses will give it to them.

Of coarse money solves everything, what could go wrong?

Well, as much as we would all like the principles of capitalism to simply and nealty solve everything (sorry Mark J.) they don't.  For instance, many people claim that carbon trading (a capitalistic idea) is the great solution to global warming and that if we simply let the free market set a price to save the human race then we will win.  However, others claim that this type of "free market" solution simply makes the problem worse because it allows companies to delay dealing with the real problems.  Where the rubber hits the road on this issue is the realization that CAP and Trade has the word CAP in it.  And CAP means a CAP put on emissions by a government - hopefully a qualified one.  And there is where you need more than capitalism to solve the Green challenge.  It will be the combination of the predictive and powerfull forces of the kinda "free" market that are controlled and buided by good social policy.  We need capitalism for efficiency and good government for ethics - and we should never try to mix the two or we could end of with an immoral and ineffecient system.

What's going to happen when we get a new president? 

In response to the demand for Green products it seems that a lot of countries have come alive with Green fever – eager to build the infrastructures that will attract the corporations. Its becoming clearer every day that Green is not just a whole new Green economy for corporations, its an opportunity for nimble countries who can overhaul their infrastructures to gain power on the world economic and political stage.

So who are these countries? Well it may be a different group of players than you think.  I would look for 1st world countries like Japan who has lots of money, but no oil resources to invest heavily in Green.  The last thing Japan would want is to be caught in a bidding war between the US and China or India for oil once peak oil hits.  Further, I would look for countries like the UAE, whose countries economies are based on oil and who know they need to create a new economy to sustain their own livelyhood to invest heavily in Green.  For these countries it is do or die and the evidence so far shows they get it - look at Abhu Dabi investing $15 billion in their Green city and look at Japan announcing a Green Fund 4 times the size of the United States.

So what are we, the US, doing?  Right now we are doing not much at all with only a $2 billion fund for environmental issues.  However, it looks like no matter which of th 3 leading candidates gets elected, there will likely be a seachange in our energy and environmental policy - starting with McCain who said he would approve a CAP and Trade system to Obama, who said he would proposae a $150 billion dollar environmental plan.

What I think will happen in the short term, right after the president gets elected, is that there will be a frenzy of people who want access to the capital from the government.  Many of these actitivies will likely not actually be in the best interest of humanity, but rather in the best interest of a couple of humans' wallets.  However, this will be weeded out over time and by the end of the next presidency I think the US will hit its stride.  If that happens and we keep the same president, I think we should look for real change to occur in the second term.  If we get a new president, then all bets are off.

Let me know what you think.  Do you think that a sleeping giant will awake?  or do you think we will hit the snooze button. 

According to Wikipidia, Carbon Trading, not to be confused with Carbon Offsetting, is where a central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emissions must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

Also according to Wikipedia, a Carbon Tax is a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is an example of a pollution tax, which most economists favor because they tax a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income). Carbon taxes address a negative externality, and so are classed as Pigovian taxes - named after Arthur Pigou, who first proposed targeted taxation as a corrective to externalities. Note that in the strict definition of a Pigou tax, the tax should equal the marginal damage costs.

Both solution provide very different approaches to try and solve the same problem - reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide.   However, I believe that reducing carbon emissions is only one small battle in the overall fight for the human race to learn how to live sustainability and thus is a potential bellweather for how we will handle other sustainability issues like water, food, etc. 

Take a look at the pros and cons of these systems and see what I think is going to happen as well. 

Carbon Cap and Trade 

Pros

The arguments for a CAP and Trade system of carbon emissions generally revolve around a few points.  1) CAP and Trade has worked before on acid rain reduction, 2) its an economic system build to find the cheapest possible way to reduce the most amount of of carbon dioxide and 3) CAP and Trade systems actually combine regulation with market driven solutions.

Ok. So let's look at the acid rain cap and trade system first. I met with Fred Krupp, the president of the environment defence fund and he uses the Acid Rain program as a shining example of how Cap and Trad can really work.  According to the Environment Defense Fund:

Cap and trade was designed, tested and proven here in the United States, as a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The success of this program led The Economist magazine to crown it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).

The following points highlight some real world results of that program:

• The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2; the actual market price as of January 2003 was $150 per ton.

• In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% - 7.3 million tons - below mandated levels.

• Prior to the launch of the program, cost estimates had ranged from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were around $0.8 billion per year. The long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

Cap and Trade is market driven.  The second big pro of a Cap and Trade system is that it embodies the qualities of capitalistism and uses well established economic principles of supply and demand. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, CAP and Trade because

"markets provide greater environmental effectiveness than command-and-control regulation because they turn pollution reductions into marketable assets. In doing so, this system creates tangible financial rewards for environmental performance."

Cap and Trade systems combine regulation with market solutions.   One of the arguments in favor of Cap and Trade systems is that they actually mandate regulation with a CAP in any emissions and provide a mechanism to tighten the screws on industries if need be.  This mechanism enables the governments to actually control where the parity point is between the cost of buying a carbon credit and the cost of earning one.

Cons:

The arguments against CAP and Trade systems generally revolve around these points 1) they provide incentives for the worst polluters to keep on polluting and 2) the inefficiencies in varifying carbon credit earning systems make the entire system unreliable.

Cap and Trade Systems enable the biggest polluters to keep on polluting.  Cap and Trade systems provide the wrong incentives to the industries who need to change the most.  Those industries which are heavy polluters and have their structure build around fossil fuels, will not change because it is simply too expensive.  Rather they will simply buy credits and continue to build up their fossil fuel dependencies as long as those credits are cheap.  Once the credit become expense or approach parity with actual change they will simply apply political pressure to governments to do away with the Cap and Trade systems.

Thus, if the companies in the worst polluting industries never really plan to change, what will happen is that the Cap and Trade system will ultimately fail.  Over time the low hanging fruits will go away and it will come time for real change to occur.  When that happens the cost of Carbon Credits will soar until they are at parity with the cost of actual change. What happens at this point is that these industries then apply political pressure, claiming they can't change and can't afford the credits, to do away with a broken Cap and Trade system.  The end result is actually more dangerous than the one we are in.  We will be tricking ourselves into thinking we have a solution that is working when it reality we will be putting ourselves further behind than we already are right now.

In fact, Larry Lohman, who is one of the biggest critics of a Cap and Trade system, says, "The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions -- primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems -- and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading -- the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol."

 

Inefficiencies in measure actual carbon reductions make the system unreliable.  Unlike other market based trading systems like the stock market, the cap and trade system is not buying products that can be easily verified.  For example, when a heavy polluting coal fired electricity plant buys carbon credits on a Carbon Exchange, how can the company or the public actually verify the carbon is reduced?  Already there has been numerous reports on projects that are earning carbon credits that are more harmfull than good.  An investigation done by the Financial Times of London found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little - or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

In one case Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

Carbon Tax

Pros

The CTC (Carbon Tax Center) has a full write up on the benefits of Carbon Tax systems, but the biggest points, according to them are:  

1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
3. Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
4. Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
5. Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.
6. Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

Cons

The cons for a Carbon Tax generally fall into a few primary categories 1) Carbon Taxes simply define how much money can be raised by a government to reduce carbon emissions, but doesn nothing to actually regulate the emissions, 2) sin taxes are jut nasty and 3) a carbon tax that would actually cause real change in behaviors of consumers and companies is not realistic and would not actually ever happen.

My Take on Things 

There is no magic silver bullet and putting too much dependency on one single approach to global warming is a big mistake with big consequences.  We need to stop thinking that we can simply pass some legislation or indtroduce some new market that will solve all of our problems.  However, that being said, I just don't want to be a complainer that doesn't have a solution.  So here it goes:

I am in favor of a Cap and Trade system and not in favor of a Carbon Tax for two simple reasons - 1) I don't believe we could ever get Carbon Tax legislation passed that would ever put even the smallest dent into carbon emissions and 2) I believe that a market based approach is one in which the system starts our inefficient and drives towards efficiency and a Carbon Tax system is one that would be simple at first and would drive toward complexity and ultimately towards entropy. 

I do believe that a Cap and Trade system is not the total solution and I do believe that it will be incredibly inefficient and many people will cheat the system in the short run, but I ultimately believe it provides a stronger construct from which to build a solution.

That being said, I believe that the biggest risk of any system we put in place is that those industries that are based on fossil fuels just won't change regardless of the system because it would mean that they would loose too much money - and that scares me because I'm a realist and I do know that money does make the world go 'round and it may be money that makes our world stop. 

The net affect of this legislation, which follows on the heals of NY City Taxi legislation, is that taxi cab drivers' who drive a low-emissions vehicle are charged an additional $7.50 gate fee.  The idea is that the $7.50 goes to the cab companies to support the purchase of these new vehicles and the taxi cab drivers, who have to pay for their own gas, will theoretically make up the difference in by needing less gas.

Announcing the new legislation, Mayor Newsom said "Transportation accounts for over half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions.  The legislation I am signing today complements the pledge I made in 2006 for an all-green taxi fleet and provides a mandate for cab companies to convert their vehicles."  Mayor Newsom’s 2006 State of the City Address challenged the Taxi Commission to create a 100% "green" taxi fleet. Approximately 15% of today’s fleet is either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or hybrid vehicles. This legislation is expected to increase that percentage to 100% by 2011.

When I caught a hold of this news I really tried to understand the good, the bad and the ugly of this new legislation.  Why?  Because I believe that one of the most dangerous things that can, and will to some extent, happen in government, is GreenWash legislation - that is legislation passed under the guise of being good for the environment, when really is it legilsation that is simply good for companies with strong ties to political leaders.  In this case, I am not claiming that this legislation is greenwashing, but many other people are, so I thought I would try my best to give you the information so you can make you own decision.

What the Proponents are Saying:

Generally the supervisors and those that support this legislation, primarily Luxor and Yellow Cab say that the gas savings from taxi cab drivers who drive low-emissions vehicles, like the Toyota Prius, more than makes up for the increase of $7.50 in the gate fee.

As for Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, she said thata "This legislation came about because the status quo gate cap cannot continue. I’m pleased we found a way to green the taxi cab industry without bankrupting the companies and without doing so on the backs of cab drivers."

The Board says drivers will be better off,  “If you drive a Crown Victoria, which gets 10 mpg, and figure gas at $3.48 a gallon, it costs $40 a shift,” said Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. “But a Ford Escape Hybrid gets 25.6 mpg and would cost $15 a shift. Even with the $12.50 increase, that’s a gain of almost $13 a shift.”
 

What the Opponents are Saying:

The loudest opponents, like Bud Hazelkorn are saying "The bill ... is a reverse Robin Hood straight from the George Bush playbooks. The Board of Supervisors pretend to fight global warming by granting a raise to the cab companies - and forcing the drivers to pay for it. Gas prices are headed for $4 and more per gallon."

Mark Gruberg, another Taxi cab driver and opponent says "They're saying we're going to save $25 with hybrids," he said, "and then they are taking half of that back."

The Chronicle also weighs in on the issue and highlights the concerns of taxi cab drivers. 

And the opponent with the harshest words for the Mayor is the SF Taxicab blog who says:

"Make no mistake about it, this legislation was purely strategic. It began not as a green legislation but as a gate increase of $18.50 only for the City's biggest cab companies. The gate increase was cut to $5.00 for all cab companies plus an additional $7.50 for vehicles that are categorized as clean energy by the Taxicab Commission. Michela Alioto-Pier is quoted in the release as saying, "I’m pleased we found a way to green the taxi cab industry without bankrupting the companies and without doing so on the backs of cab drivers". Really? Let me see, the cab drivers are going to pay more money to the cab companies so that the cab companies can do more of what they do already, buy cars, hack 'em up and lease them to drivers. But somehow this is not on the backs of the drivers? Michela, are you aware of what you are saying? I'm not calling you a liar but you said it and the money is coming from the cab drivers. That by definition means that this policy is being carried on the backs of the cab drivers.

This legislation is complete and total garbage and should never have been approved. It is San Francisco politics at it's most embarrassing. It is embarrassing to the people who wrote it, it is embarrassing to the people who approved it and it is embarrassing to those who supported it (that's you Taxicab Commission President Paul Gillespie, you let us down, again)."

Why I say: 

Passing this legislation will not even put a dent in SF Carbon Emissions. Why?  Even though Gavin Newson accurate states that 50% of San Francsisco's carbon emissions come from transportation, he did not state how much of the transportation emissions comes from public transportation versus private vehicles or even taxis versus buses.  The reality is that very little of San Francisco's carbon emissions actually comes from taxi cabs and you can figure this out simply by doing a back of the hand calculattion.  If you estimate that San Francisco has millions of cars traveling through it and in it every day and you count that there are only 7,000 taxi cab drivers in San Francisco, you quickly can see that even if we eliminated the taxi cab fleet all together it wouldn't even touch our carbon footprint.

However, I would vote for this legislation all day long! Why you say?  Because although this legislation won't directly solve global warming, it does provide a basis for sending a message every single day to anyone that ever takes a taxi.  i.e. you couldn't hope for a better marketing position than being able to state your position on every taxi in the city.  I think that if San Francisco did convert all of its fleet to hybrids it could help push the tipping points of the green movement. 

The Final Word: I think that any legislation that involves taxi cabs will always be contentious in the city and I defintely think that the Mayor should have been more upfront of the true value of this legislation and the supervisors shouldn' have pretended that it would have a dramatic impact on our carbon footprint.  But in the end, that's just messaging - I truly believe that the supervisor do understand the value of this legislation and they are trying to be leaders in the United States.  The reaction of this new legislation really highlights how careful legislators will have to be when passing new "green" legislation because sometimes good legislation will be called GreenWashing by opponents who are simply trying to look out for their own best "business" interest.

When we opened the doors there was a decent sized line to get in and when we added up all of the people that came we went well passed 300 people without including the people who paid at the door.  Overall, we are very please with the event, but we are also looking to improve it in a number of ways.  1) better demo setups, 2) better networking organization, 3) direct communication with the SF Chamber and 4) better ways to find out about my legislative and business initiatives in SF.

One of the things that did work out was our free drink ticket offer to those that took Green transportation.  One attendee, who walked, came up with a really interesting way to prove his GreenWalk to get his ticket.

Ted Ko, who I hope to meet up with later next week, walked to SF Green and decided to take pictures along the way with his iPhone in order to get his drink ticket.  When he got to the door, he showed the staff his journey.

One of the fascinating things that Ted found on his walk to SF Green was that at nearly every corner and every block he was able to take a picture of something that demonstrated just how active the Green movement is in San Francisco.  If you want to take look at Ted's SF Green Walk check it out below.

That being said, I am exploring one and the rest of the story that Alexis wrote is accurate - although I had asked him to keep the detailed information off the record.  But I guess I can't complain too much because the posting actually got me to thinking that it would be really interesting to open source my idea as I explore it.

So to that end I am going to be changing the format of my website a little and I am going to writing specific blog entries to post updates on the progress of 1) my legislative initiatives; and 2) my business initiatives.

As well, I am going to be adding some technology to my website to add a video blog and technology that creates a forum for people to discuss, argue against or support my initiatives.  My goal is to involve as many people as possible in the initiatives that I am trying to push.

Read on to see the first post and behind the scenes video. 

GreenClub (private)

Some people who follow me closely know that I have already created a private social network of about 80 people that I call GreenClub (shown to the right here)  The purpose of GreenClub was to help me think through and punch holes in my GreenFund idea.  I created it on Ning.

GreenClub (open)

Now I am looking to take this same concept and open it up to a much larger group of people and not only include GreenFund, but also all of my initiatives that I am working on such as the Green Campus and Solar Initiatives that are on this Junes Ballot and several other initiatives that are in the works like my Green Startup Incentive Program and the Carbon Fund idea for San Francisco.

Why am I sharing my ideas publicly?

As anyone who knows me can tell you, I am a big believer in transparency and I'm not afraid to be criticized in public.  In addition, I'm not afraid of my ideas getting ripped of, because this time I'm doing it for the benefit of others.  If someone wants to perfect GreenFund on their own and take it out to market then bravo! I'll do what I can to help.

The Very First GreenClub Video

To start the sharing, I thought it would be interested to take you back to the earliest days of GreenClub and let you peer into the process and see the early thinking. Below is the very first video that I posted back in October of 2007 to welcome new people to GreenClub.  The idea has changed quite a bit since then and you will see in subsequent videos just how much it changed.  In the early days of GreenFund the key problem we were trying to solve is that when you go over 100 unaccredited people you get into Mutual Fund rules quite quickly.  You'll see in the video, back then we were contemplated a reverse micro-lending model.  Since then we've moved on, but I thought it would be interesting to dig up the old videos that were private and show them to you.

In the video, I also talked about GreenCivics and GreenYou - today all of these concepts are merged into GreenFund.  Also note, I have Climate Change in the beginning of the video taking center stage and now I truly think it is sustainability and not climate change.

Take a look at the video, I'll be posting more to help share the history and thinking behind GreenFund as we develop the idea.

In September of 2007, I attended a political collaboration event called Renaissance Weekend.  It is a 4 day event, held once every 3 months or so, that brings together young business and politically-minded people like me with senior level political and business leaders from across the globe.  It is quite an honor to be nominated to go and anyone that has gone can tell you that it is a truly humbling experience.  Over the years, it has inspired many people to change their lives and I am proud to say that I am now part of that group of people.

What did it for me was a conversation where I was boasting about how proud I was about being a positive force in the lives of the 72 people at Powerset to a senior political figure. I expected him to congratulate me, but instead his reaction completely flattened, stunned and humbled me.  He said "How dare you...   if you truly think you have the special ability to bring about a positive change in peoples' lives then how dare you limit your talent to only 72 people.  You have made your money, now be done with it.  Dedicate yourself to changing thousands of peoples lives and I will congratulate you then."

In my first day back to work after the weekend I told my fellow founders this exact story and told them I was eventually going to leave.  That was September and in October I left Powerset.  After reflecting on my research in the new Green economy, and after reflecting upon an admitedly up and down relationship with my fellow founder Barney Pell, I decided that the best way I could affect thousands of peoples lives was to dedicate myself to Green.  Why Green?  Because I had come to the conclusion that the Green revolution will cause a larger impact on society, government and business than the Internet and the industrial revolution combined and I believed that I could play a role in causing some of the tipping points in government and in business. 

Now it's been 5 months since that day and I thought I owed it to you to let you know what I have been up to.

The Green Campus Initiative 

The first initiative, which I call the Green Campus Initiative, is part of the overall plan to bring the Hunter's Point region in San Francisco back to life.  As part of this larger initiative, the ballot initiative proposes to set aside 2,000,000 square feet for a green zone.  To give you an idea of how large 2,000,000 square feet is, the Mission Bay BioTech Campus is 3,000,000 square feet and there has been about $2 billion dollars raised to build it.

Why do I believe this project is so important?  Because, for the last 10,000 years, the human race has been building a society that never contemplated running out of resources.  This project can be much more than another technology incubator, it can be a place where we can bring together the greatest minds in the world to shed unbiased light on the ways in which our current societal infrastructures are unsustainable and a place where we can bring to light the changes necessary to define and foster sustainable socio-economic infrastructures that carry us for the next 10,000 years.

What I am trying to do is to try to shape what goes into the campus and help to bring awareness about the project to corporations and people alike.  I would like to see San Francisco not just create a "green zone" of green buildings, but rather create a world leading campus that helps to define Green for the world and helps to put San Francisco in the forefront of the Green revolution.  I believe that the campus needs to have 1) higher education involved (similar to the Biotech Campus at Mission Bay) 2) corporate sponsors 3) research and development 4) media and 5) venture capital and startup infrastructure support. 

If you want to keep up to date then sign up for my rss feed and if you want to know more, please feel free to email me at newcomb.steve@yahoo.com.

The Solar initiative

Another initiative that I am getting behind is the new Solar Initiative in San Francisco.  This initiative provides for an additional $3-6 thousand in incentives for people to install solar panels.  What makes me get excited is that the plan isn't just about giving people money and that's it - the plan actually helps to create a solar business ecosystem that becomes somewhat self sustaining.  The way it does it is by building in higher incentives for people who use services and materials that come from San Francisco.  Here are the basics of the initiative:

• Creates a solar energy incentive program by providing cash grants to residential and
  commercial, industrial or manufacturing property owners to offset part of the cost
  of installing photovoltaic panel solar systems on existing buildings.
• 10 year program that would provide between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000 for
  incentives per year.
  
• Incentive payments for residential property owners are as follows:
  

• $3,000 – Base incentive payment for system that generates at least 1kw of energy.  
• $4,000 -  If system is installed by a San Francisco based solar installer
• $5,000 – If system is installed in an Environmental Justice District (94107 &94124 area codes)
• $6,000 – If system is installed by an individual trained under the City workforce development program.

• Incentive payments for commercial, industrial or manufacturing property owners are:

• $1,500 per kilowatt of electric power generated up to a maximum of $10,000 per applicant.
• Each property with a separate electricity meter may apply for the incentive, up to the applicant maximum of $10,000.

The Green Campus and Solar initiatives are just two of the many legislative efforts I'm trying to help shape. Expect to hear a lot more from me regarding carbon funds, plug-in electric vehicles, and many other iniatives taking form in San Francisco. If you have ideas about these or any new initiatives, as always, contact me, I'd love to hear from you.