How to Think About a Problem

Not that you would ever catching me telling you what to think... but if you are looking to find new ways to solve a problem, I certainly might suggest new ways of thinking about the problem that might help you.  That's what I do best.

Let's start with this: the problem itself and the "way things should be" are not the same thing. They aren't even the same discussion.  One does lead to the other; however.  But, logically, if you cannot shed light on the problem as its own living, breathing entity, your language around the problem and solution will be an unfathomable jumble to nonsense to anyone with a different point of view on the problem. You will find it impossible to have a substantive debate with anyone about the virtues of your point of view. Remember, just because you can put your finger on a given problem and eloquently describe the root of the problem does in no way imply you agree with the situation that is the root of the problem.  It simply means that you can better identify tools to change it.

If you are looking to change the minds of the people who provide support and structure for the root of the problem or are the source of the problem, you must start your thinking and research with the following question,

"Assuming no one is trying to do a bad thing, why are these bad things happening?"

By doing this, you are removing much of the subjectivity from your perspective and, thus, much of the judgmental positioning that can close doors to solutions.  You are using your sense of empathy to find the motivating factor in those supporting the problem and this allows you to glean perspective from them that can lead to a better solution.  

Once we understand the root(s) of the problem at hand, whether a phenomenological problem or a people problem, we can gain a perspective on what steps to take to redirect the problem.  If we run around shouting, "It should be this way; it should be that way..." we are sidestepping the essential questions that will allow us to work with what is and move it toward what can be.  

We also need to get real about the solutions we offer.  We must understand that no solution is a panacea.  We live in a world governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: all natural processes move toward a state of entropy, or a gradual decline to disorder.  They need a constant input of energy to abate that process.  Then there is Newton's Third Law and its implications that no action we take in our world is without impacts or consequences. 

Solutions are trades of energy, trades of perspective and, ultimately, value propositions.  Adoption of solutions is the acceptance of associated risk propositions. You give me a solution and my first question is, "What are the risks of that solution?" By asking questions that allow us to access where and how people perceive risks, we can more easily determine an amenable solution to a societal problem. 

We, as those who seek to inspire change, need to be a little less adverse to talking about the risks of our solutions.  When we can discuss risks, we know we have come to understand the nature of our solution and the impacts it may have on the world.  This also is how we begin to build trust with those who see the world differently than we do.  It's a sharing of grounded, realistic, informed ideas that allow for an honest discussion of risk and choices; of weighing solutions in the framework of our fears and concerns and making decisions whose impacts we are best suited to handle.  

So, in a nutshell:  First, let's get to know each other.  Second, let's be well informed.  Third, let's be real.

Let's start with our situation as it is and then apply appropriate resolution paths grounded in the best information and supported by the best actions for real improvement. 

Let's realize we have to work respectfully together to make a difference.

Responsible

EarthFest 2011-- 1000
volunteers take down the entire event of
200 exhibitors that attracted over 30,000 guests
in 45 minutes

Yes.  You heard me and it isn't the first time I've said it to you either.

Yeah, I'm gonna nag you.  It's a genetic thing and an essential element of living.  It is the key to joy, to sustainability, to life and laughter... it is the central aspect of being part of this world.  Simply:

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OTHER.


WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CARING FOR THE LIFE ON THIS PLANET.


WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING OUR RESOURCE CONSUMPTION SO THAT THIS SPHERE MAY CONTINUE TO THRIVE.

So that the human race may continue to live.

We are responsible for trying to know and see the world as it is.  We are responsible for not allowing fanciful thinking or selfishness to drive us to a position of greed and over-consumption.  

We are responsible for watching over our neighbors, acquaintances; our friends and enemies.  We are required to look people in the eye -- people of any age, race, religion, socio-economic background and greeting them as if they are whole.  Whole in your eyes and whole, should you believe, in the eyes of god.  We are perfectly imperfect.

We are responsible for learning; for being literate participants in society.  We are responsible for acting -- 

from our hearts and informed by facts, experience and whatever wisdom we have at our disposal.

We are responsible for sharing our honesty, truth and sense of justice with the world.  We are responsible for engaging the world on a daily basis.

"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world.  And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world,"  Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud.


The good you do is as if you did good for an entire world; the responsibilities you ignore are as if you have ignored the suffering of an entire world.

What one thing might you do for us all?

You are responsible.

Water: A Human Right

"Seed corn must not be ground" ~ Goethe
Image by Kaethe Kollwitz

At the same time the United Nations General Assembly recognizes clean water and sanitization as a Human Right the first world countries are moving to commoditize it.  Yes, indeed.  The very thing that sustains the entire planet may soon be at the mercy of private business; of investors; of the stock market.

Do you think water rights are not at risk of leaving your municipality?  Your neighborhood?  Think again.

You think it doesn't matter?  Think again.  For example, take a look at territories in Ohio serviced by Aqua Ohio.  Or maybe take a look at American Water.  Both Investor Owned Companies would be subject to Ohio's HB 87 of the 129th General Assembly that the Ohio Consumers' Counsel is watching closely and for which they are providing testimony on behalf of consumers.

Keep this in mind as we bring our thoughts back to our local politic here in Cleveland.  The City of Cleveland, led by Mayor Frank Jackson, is considering balancing the budget for the upcoming year by increasing water rates.  On Saturday, February 26th, 2011, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported about the proposed budget fix.  In "Troubled Cleveland Division of Water to Seek Rate Hike This Year," Mark Gillespie outlines the Mayor's plan would raise an additional $15 million through increased water and sewer charges.  Additionally, $2.5 million was recently approved "to hire a 'turnaround' firm to fix operations and management."

[Raised eyebrow]

Hmmm.  Interesting.  I wonder where that $2.5 large is coming from... this year's or last year's budget?     The rates won't increase until the $2.5M turnaround gal or guy finishes their work.  I'm doubtful the turnaround will happen within the city's budget year.  More troubling is the time frame and process given City Council to deliberate on this and request public comment.  A couple of days...and a bully pulpit aimed at passage.

I remember sitting in my house last year listening to "The Sound of Ideas" discussing the billing debacle that followed the City upgrading water meters.  Some bills were orders of magnitude larger than they should have been.  Others stopped arriving.  Making matters worse was the Water Division's 'customer service' that went along with the erroneous or missing bills.  A friend says it best on his blog, Adjust My Water Bill, when he says,

          Problem solved.  

          Maybe the officials at Cleveland's embattled Division of Water 

          figure that if enough people receive water shut-off notices, 

          then their billing system will be under less stress, and the bills 

          will magically correct themselves.

The suburban customers are wondering how the rate hike will impact their bills.  The $15M is aimed at budget balancing not at improving distribution or anything having to do with customer service.

Everyone notes that the water infrastructure is severely deteriorated and getting worse.  Even in my work with the Federal EPA in business innovation research grants for air and water safety, we are clear that the water distribution system in large old cities is not only deteriorating and a potential hazard, it is rife with opportunity for bioterrorism.  It needs to be fixed. But that is a discussion for later.  

Our mayor's solution is this: Bring in a private firm to make everything right.  This is not a good solution. Take a look around you, Cleveland. What is the biggest water resource in our state that has not yet been privatized?  Hello, Cleveland... look north. What happens to us if our water is traded as a commodity, if the thing that stands before you is no longer simply the government but an investor, a company, a board of directors, the stock market?  

We have a human right to safe and affordable drinking water. In a world filled with the shoulda-coulda-wouldas of knee-jerk solutions, we should make the effort to set our community's water system straight as a community. 

Our city is making a mistake by not seeing us as a resource pool of talent, creativity and strength. Instead of looking to this community as a resource, our city chooses to cut off dialog, to to circle the horses and to disregard the needs, voices and talents of its most precious resource -- our people. 

Some good news might be held within the report entitled "The Global Water Ventures of Cleveland," issued in December 2007, jointly issued by the Cuyahoga Planning Commission and EcoCity Cleveland (now the Green City Blue Lake Institute).  This study researches the feasibility of making our county a center for freshwater use and ecosystems research. Still, it is looking at our water as a business venture.  We need to be mindful that all business is not created equal, but could bring business to the city -- viable business; business necessary to sustaining life on this planet.

I implore our City leaders to look at other ways of fixing the city's budget.  Water rate increases should be in proportion to the increase of costs related to processing and increased services.  I ask them to be mindful that our "turnaround" consultant may bring us one step closer to the road to commoditizing our water.  I ask them to consider the fact that they cannot right our budget in this economy by acting in a bureaucratic silo; that we need serious deliberative public dialog.

None of this can happen without first addressing the meaning of "CUSTOMER SERVICE."  For a city government, that not only means enforcing rules with a generosity of spirit, but it also means being good stewards of the public assets: money, buildings, infrastructure.

Your assets are here Cleveland; they are in your people.  Look individuals in the eye and engage them on what it means for each to live.

We mustn't spend our future to get out of trouble now.  Now, more than ever, it is essential to get out of this crisis of budget, economy, home and faith together; as a community.

Seed corn must not be ground.  ~ Goethe

[More on water resources around the world can be found here at the Trade Observatory]

Possible Possibilities

It seems to me that if we are going to talk honestly about public policy and society, we need to address the question "What is possible?"

As we each stand in our present, we have a past that is comprised of memories: factual, real, morphing; impermanent.  We have a future that is not yet written.  Most importantly, we have the space from which we step forward.  It is a space from which each and every instant we step out bravely into the unknown.

When we consider what is possible to its fullest, we are engaging imagination.  We are engaging our learning (both formal and informal), our intuition, our resources, our community, our families.  When we consider what is possible and apply ourselves to embracing the infinite space where possibilities lie, we make our world a better place.

As I write this, I also recognize truths around our creating future.  Not every human being is living in a mental space where they can make rational choices or rationally see the future.  Not every desire is one that can be had.  There may not be an object, technology or invention that is a panacea.  Every step we take forward has impacts -- some can easily be imagined; some would defy even the most clairvoyant of us all to have predicted.

When we move into that dreamspace of possibilities, it only grows in its breadth and depth as we infuse our  imagination with reality.  Many who will read this will state, "It is better to temper reality with imagination than imagination with reality."  To them, I say this: When we look at how things work and how they don't work, we discover the wonderful serendipity of increasing knowledge.  If we refuse to look at both sides of the equation, we miss an opportunity to see half of the image.  We are degrading the quality of the picture.

It isn't about nay-saying; it's about saying.  It's about learning.  It's about looking at a picture holistically in order to create the opportunity for ideas to flow with nature; with what is.  For many years, I have pondered the difference and interdependence of the words "facts," "truth," and "reality." Facts are the objective observables. They are independent points of observation.  Truth is our objective assembly of these independent observables.  And, yes, it is absolutely the case that truth is at least in part subjective.  Reality is our subjective experience.  It is what gives us our platform from which we step out into our future.

It is our infinite imagination combined with our factual experience that allows us to imagine a future different than the present.  With imagination; with compassion, we may find a way to make the seemingly impossible possible.  We may build community that is as driven by dreamspace as we are reality. 

The possible possibilities of our lives that we move forward out of the past and into our collective future are infinite.  It doesn't matter if we are talking about energy, community, health...or any of the matters society may tackle. 

World Energy Outlook ... in 20-40 years

[Editor's Note: I am a long time proponent of renewable energy and associated technologies.  My argument here is looking at two facts: 1) the researchers are stating we can supply 100% of the earth's energy needs by wind, solar and hydro power within 20-40 years and 2) that this is at no additional cost. I am asking that they consider the 1) the impacts of the technologies at large scale deployment and 2) more clearly define "no additional cost," ie, as compared to what?  Further, our solution lies as much or more in demand-side management and energy/resource efficiency as energy sourcing.  There is no foreseeable panacea.  We need to diversify our energy portfolio and power delivery.  We need to go to more onsite and efficient, and, yes, potentially costly solutions.  It is imperative.]

So, here's the story: "The World Can be Powered by Alternative Fuel Using Today's Technology in 20-40 Years...."

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.  "Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources, said  Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering.  "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will." 

My first question is, "Really?" (note the raised eyebrow)


The next question revolves Jacobson's quote at the end of the article, "This really involves a large scale transformation," he said. "It would require an effort comparable to the Apollo moon project or constructing the interstate highway system."  

My next question is this: Have Jacobson and his partners not considered the large cost for deploying the technologies and facilitating the transformation on a worldwide basis? These include things such as modernizing worldwide electric grid and delivery systems; developing/utilizing the incoming electricity to meet the variety of needs.

And then, there is this: Have they considered climates that have heating needs and heating efficiencies given they plan to use electricity only as the primary power source for the world?

Have they considered the increase in electric consumption given the proposed transition to electric vehicles? 

Have they considered the energy loss in transportation wires across hundreds of miles from the hydroelectric plants planned to provide power when wind and solar availability are inadequate? 

Have they considered that these most efficient cells used in photovoltaics are generally doped with costly and highly toxic heavy metals in order to develop the needed semi-conducting efficiency and that there will be a highly toxic waste stream associated with mass manufacture of these "clean" energy technologies?

Have they considered the square area of land and availability of appropriate sites needed to deploy these technologies?  How about the availability of wind with consistent, reliable speeds and good laminar flow?

Have they considered geopolitics, the privatization of water across our country? Have they looked at our existing electric grid and analyzed what it would take to deliver energy at this density from wind, solar and hydro sources?  Have they considered that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but changed from one form to another? Have they calculated the availability of wind energy and the needs of human societies and imagined what would happen if that amount of energy were removed from our climate and employed to deliver power? 

My hope is yes; that these things have been considered.  

Yet, economic analysis; technological analysis; socio-political analysis...none are even referenced within the article, except to say that their studies show... which studies?  This is too important not to see the numbers. 

Geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric -- these are all coastal energy sources.  Given the potential destruction of coastal areas should global warming cause the oceans to rise and the severity of storms to increase, there may be a move away from the coasts.  Most of the population in the US is non-coastal, anyway.

First things first: it's about demand-side management.  The cleanest, safest, most abundant energy -- the type that will have a net-zero environmental impact on our life is the energy we don't consume.  Second: it's about diversification.  In this case, "the solution to pollution [may be] dilution." We need to put our eggs in lots of baskets.  We will continue to need high density (read fossil fuel) energy into the next century; we need to minimize it's use.  Combusting fossil fuels is bad for the environment and fossil fuels are in very limited supply.

If we continue to put our collective heads in the sand and brand everything as "good" or "bad" we may miss great opportunities of this life.  We continue to make divisions between opposing points of view instead of seeing those with different perspectives and sets of values from us as resources. We will surely be unprepared to predict the potential impacts of our actions. We diminish our agility and responsiveness. 

We need to ask ourselves the hard questions and be willing to make changes in our individual lives that reduce our environmental footprint; relieve ourselves from the burdens of over-consumption.  We are all burdened by our over-consumption at some level or another. 


Only then can we more effectively deploy renewable energy technologies.

Take a minute.  Look around the room you in which you are sitting.  Make a written inventory of what you perceive as the energy embodied and/or consumed by several items in that room.  Think of harvesting/birth; transportation; manufacture; consumption during use; next uses/reuses; opportunities for the item when spent to be turned to fuel, back to the earth...

Make a list.  Think about what you might do differently that both enhances your life and reduces waste.  Post your ideas here. 

Welcome to ZenWhoreNun

Welcome visitors near and far.  I look forward to great discussion about life here, there and everywhere!