THINKTECH ARTICLES
TECH AND ENERGY HAVE NOT FARED VERY WELL IN THE 2013 SESSION
An article that appeared in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on 5/14/2013
We’ve lost so many things in recent years: an airline, an interisland ferry, a second daily paper, a symphony, a refinery, Dan Inouye.
We’ve lost Act 221 to build a tech industry, and we seem to be losing vitality in building clean energy. We need to replace what we’ve lost.
Nevertheless, tech and energy didn’t fare very well in the 2013 Legislature.
Years ago, the Legislature gave the Manoa Innovation Center to the State’s High Tech Development Corporation on a lease that expires in 2015. HTDC asked for an extension, but UH President M.R.C. Greenwood refused.
Representative Isaac Choi introduced a bill to extend the lease for another 25 years. First the 25 years was cut to 10, then the bill died anyway.
Without an extension, HTDC and its 40 tech startups will have to find somewhere else.
That considered, Greenwood’s retirement is a good thing, since it will emancipate the regents from her refusal and allow negotiations in lieu of a midnight struggle in the 2014 Legislature.
Seeing the storm clouds on the horizon, the administration put $54 million in the budget to rebuild a portion of Puck’s Alley for a modified reiteration of MIC. The Legislature deleted it.
So now there’s no extension of the lease, no money for another MIC, and no operating funds for HTDC to give the startups another home. This could be a mortal blow for MIC and HTDC.
The Hi Growth initiative has been the great hope of the tech industry. It provided $20 million for startup incentives, a modest request these days, but the Legislature cut that down to $6 million.
How much is $6 million in a state budget of $20 billion? It shows our level of interest in building a tech industry. While Silicon Valley lobbies for immigration reform to bring in tech talent, we send our best and brightest away.
In fairness, the Legislature did resurrect R&D credits, but this favors defense contractors, not tech startups. And they passed a film credits bill favoring filmmakers, not tech startups.
There is no plan; these decisions are being taken in silos, responding only to self-interest. It’s not enough for officials to say they could do better if the public would only tell them what to do.
What happened on energy is also a mixed bag.
Given the $7 billion we send offshore for foreign oil every year, isn’t energy a top priority? You’d think the Legislature would move on all fronts.
PV credits were again the biggest energy bill of the session. The bill would have revised some tough rules by the Tax Office and phased the credits down to soften the statutory sunset.
None of that passed. The Tax Office rules will stay in place, the credits will not be extended and the graduated phasedown won’t happen either. It was Legislative lockup.
A bill to require more money from the Barrel Tax to go to clean energy, as originally intended, also died. More than half the money will continue to go to the general fund, sidetracking clean energy projects.
After years of delay on on-bill financing, the Legislature created a lending authority to finance clean energy equipment. Reports and regulations will be required, and a number of agencies and organizations have a lot to do to get started, so don’t hold your breath.
The Legislature did pass a bill permitting landlords to install PV for the benefit of their tenants without being regulated as public utilities. This allows renters to get in on clean energy.
There was also a bill that would have required Independent Power Producers to disclose their internal data to the PUC. What looked like greater transparency would have resulted in higher prices and fewer producers. The good news is that this one died.
Big Wind and the undersea cable are in irons, and LNG, biofuel, geothermal and ocean energy are moving at a snail’s pace. Have we forgotten them?
At signing time, will the Governor be pleased with what’s happened, or will he be wondering where his tech and energy initiatives have gone?
In Hawaii, big initiatives and projects resist direction; they evolve slowly, painfully, with a life of their own, often unaccountably forgotten before they ever really get started.
The message is clear: we aren’t excited about tech and we’re losing interest in clean energy. Inherent in this is a lack of confidence that government can achieve these objectives.
Although the 2013 session wasn’t much for confidence, there’s always next year, with the rhetoric that will precede Election Day and the amnesia that will follow it.
HAWAII CAN’T IGNORE CYBERWAR
An article that appeared in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on 3/19/2013
Judging from the recent rhetoric, we seem to be in a state of cyberwar coexistence with China. What are the risks? What role can Hawaii play?
The White House recently demanded that China stop the theft of data from American networks and agree to “acceptable norms of behavior.”
China denied accusations that its army had been hacking American corporations, and called for “rules and cooperation” on cyber espionage.
Let’s face it. China is known as responsible for cyber attacks against targets in dozens if not hundreds of countries, but it denies all that.
The U.S. is spending billions for military cyber weapons like the Stuxnet worm that disabled Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, but unlike China, it doesn’t engage in corporate espionage.
In his State of the Union, President Obama said that cyber attacks on our grid or financial and transportation systems would be seen as acts of war justifying preemptive defensive measures.
The cyber attacks remain largely underreported, but the protestations grow louder. While there are other countries involved, the U.S. and China are now outspoken adversaries on the issue.
The Pentagon has set up a cyber Command to defend American military networks and respond with its own. Homeland Security is detailed to defend the non-military sectors.
The risks include espionage to capture military, political and business information; sabotage of military systems; disruption of infrastructure, information and financial systems; attacks and threats to manipulate perceptions and actions.
A coordinated attack on critical services could effectively upend the American economy. Are these acts criminal? Are they also acts of war? The rules of the game are not yet established.
This makes cyberwar difficult to deter. With low barriers to entry, no geograpical limits and near perfect anonimity, cyberwar is easy to conduct, both for countries and their cyber collaborators.
For China, cyberwar has a payload – it can help China “informationize” U.S. military secrets and acquire intellectual property to fuel its growth. These benefits motivate and justify its activities.
As our dependency on the Internet grows to near absolute proportions, the damage cyberwar can do also grows to absolute proportions. Not only can cyberwar pilfer our inboxes and steal our identities, it can take us back to the Stone Age.
We could wake up and find our world undone, without lights or phones, credit cards or the ability to buy food or get medical care. Civil order would be the next casualty. Every hour would make a return to normal more difficult.
A Cyber Pearl Harbor is so frightening and unpredictable that it becomes improbable. Our current cyberwar coexistence is therefore likely to continue, punctuated by low key, deniable attacks in a Cold War of siege done in secret.
Even in an all-out cyberwar people are not likely to be killed in a cyber attack, but as collateral damage in the state of pandemonium to follow. The consequential results could be horrific.
Hawaii should be concerned - our isolation makes us highly dependent on the Internet to connect the islands and the mainland. This makes us especially vulnerable to cyberwar.
Also, since Hawaii has so many bases, it is a high quality cyberwar target. A cyber attack on these bases is likely to have secondary impact.
Like global warming, what can Hawaii, only one isolated island state, do to ameliorate cyberwar? Not much, but does that mean we should do nothing? No. There are things we can do.
We should make sure that we have up-to-date Internet security systems for our power, water, telecom and transportation infrastructure.
We should find ways to get Hawaii businesses to learn about and improve their Internet security. We need them to become expert, and proactive.
We should support efforts to develop the tech sector (like Karl Fooks’ Hi Growth legislation to fund startups), and to step up government Internet security (like Sonny Bhagowalia’s project to upgrade state computer systems).
We should encourage the University to research cyber attacks on Hawaii targets, to assist Cyber Command if possible, and to assist the local community in improving our Internet security.
We should organize international conferences to allow cyber players to discuss their activities, express their motivations and explore solutions.
Relative to the risks we are exposed to, these are relatively inexpensive steps to achieve greater security and compensate for our vulnerability.
Just as cyberwar aggressors can be anywhere, cyberwar defenders can be anywhere too. The isolation that makes Hawaii vulnerable is not a barrier to what could be heroic self-reliance.
——--
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net.
The White House recently demanded that China stop the theft of data from American networks and agree to “acceptable norms of behavior.”
China denied accusations that its army had been hacking American corporations, and called for “rules and cooperation” on cyber espionage.
Let’s face it. China is known as responsible for cyber attacks against targets in dozens if not hundreds of countries, but it denies all that.
The U.S. is spending billions for military cyber weapons like the Stuxnet worm that disabled Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, but unlike China, it doesn’t engage in corporate espionage.
In his State of the Union, President Obama said that cyber attacks on our grid or financial and transportation systems would be seen as acts of war justifying preemptive defensive measures.
The cyber attacks remain largely underreported, but the protestations grow louder. While there are other countries involved, the U.S. and China are now outspoken adversaries on the issue.
The Pentagon has set up a cyber Command to defend American military networks and respond with its own. Homeland Security is detailed to defend the non-military sectors.
The risks include espionage to capture military, political and business information; sabotage of military systems; disruption of infrastructure, information and financial systems; attacks and threats to manipulate perceptions and actions.
A coordinated attack on critical services could effectively upend the American economy. Are these acts criminal? Are they also acts of war? The rules of the game are not yet established.
This makes cyberwar difficult to deter. With low barriers to entry, no geograpical limits and near perfect anonimity, cyberwar is easy to conduct, both for countries and their cyber collaborators.
For China, cyberwar has a payload – it can help China “informationize” U.S. military secrets and acquire intellectual property to fuel its growth. These benefits motivate and justify its activities.
As our dependency on the Internet grows to near absolute proportions, the damage cyberwar can do also grows to absolute proportions. Not only can cyberwar pilfer our inboxes and steal our identities, it can take us back to the Stone Age.
We could wake up and find our world undone, without lights or phones, credit cards or the ability to buy food or get medical care. Civil order would be the next casualty. Every hour would make a return to normal more difficult.
A Cyber Pearl Harbor is so frightening and unpredictable that it becomes improbable. Our current cyberwar coexistence is therefore likely to continue, punctuated by low key, deniable attacks in a Cold War of siege done in secret.
Even in an all-out cyberwar people are not likely to be killed in a cyber attack, but as collateral damage in the state of pandemonium to follow. The consequential results could be horrific.
Hawaii should be concerned - our isolation makes us highly dependent on the Internet to connect the islands and the mainland. This makes us especially vulnerable to cyberwar.
Also, since Hawaii has so many bases, it is a high quality cyberwar target. A cyber attack on these bases is likely to have secondary impact.
Like global warming, what can Hawaii, only one isolated island state, do to ameliorate cyberwar? Not much, but does that mean we should do nothing? No. There are things we can do.
We should make sure that we have up-to-date Internet security systems for our power, water, telecom and transportation infrastructure.
We should find ways to get Hawaii businesses to learn about and improve their Internet security. We need them to become expert, and proactive.
We should support efforts to develop the tech sector (like Karl Fooks’ Hi Growth legislation to fund startups), and to step up government Internet security (like Sonny Bhagowalia’s project to upgrade state computer systems).
We should encourage the University to research cyber attacks on Hawaii targets, to assist Cyber Command if possible, and to assist the local community in improving our Internet security.
We should organize international conferences to allow cyber players to discuss their activities, express their motivations and explore solutions.
Relative to the risks we are exposed to, these are relatively inexpensive steps to achieve greater security and compensate for our vulnerability.
Just as cyberwar aggressors can be anywhere, cyberwar defenders can be anywhere too. The isolation that makes Hawaii vulnerable is not a barrier to what could be heroic self-reliance.
——--
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net.
MANOA INNOVATION CENTER SHOULD REMAIN WHERE IT IS
An article that appeared in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on January 22, 2013
The state's High Tech Development Corp. operates the Manoa Innovation Center on land leased from the University of Hawaii. The 20-year lease expires in 2015.
HTDC CEO Yuka Nagashima wants to extend the lease, but UH President M.R.C. Greenwood wants to take the property back. What will this do to MIC? Is it the right thing?
Under the HTDC, the Manoa Innovation Center has become a second home to the people there — clean as a pin, with grassy courtyards, conference rooms and ample parking. It has innovation written all over it. It's a prize and maybe that's the problem.
The 25 startups at MIC work in materials science, engineering, pharmaceuticals, computer software and hardware, defense, security, financial planning, biotech, social media, photonics, apps, you name it.
It's not only MIC's physical attributes that bring these startups together, but also the networking and mentoring they get at MIC. It's the perfect place for startup synergy, collaboration and partnership.
A startup at MIC can expect to pay about $2.50 per foot. From this, HTDC gets $1 million in rent every year. This is tiny compared with UH's $1.4 billion budget but helps HTDC cover its program expenses.
While MIC incubates companies that commercialize technology, UH has had challenges commercializing the tech research that it does. To some extent, MIC has incubated startups that use UH technologies, so you'd think UH would want to keep MIC around.
Two years out, the situation is becoming desperate, and the lack of certainty pervades daily life at MIC. There are plans to find another building elsewhere, but that will require millions. It's unlikely that this can be done on time, and it will be disruptive. Some say things will never be the same.
UH says it needs MIC's 40,000-square-foot building for office and research space. But, really, wouldn't it be easier for UH to find other space on its sprawling Manoa campus than to require HTDC to go out into the economy and find or build a new MIC there?
The equities are compelling. Granted that both UH and the HTDC need space, UH has a $1.4 billion budget and campuses of hundreds of acres. The HTDC has the one building. Who is better prepared to find space?
As a public university, UH should provide service to the community, including government. Inserts like the one in last week's Star-Advertiser are not the best way to do that. Innovation Councils like the one created in 2010 are not the best way, either.
That council did not include members from the downtown venture capital community or HTDC. After a year it issued a disappointing report. No action has been taken for commercialization.
At the same time, to the frustration of researchers, UH has all but abandoned the University Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development that was supposed to help in commercialization.
As we approach expiration, what can be done to save MIC? Because UH and MIC were both created by the Legislature, it doesn't seem appropriate for one to displace the other. Should the Legislature step in?
Last year, SB 4125 would have transferred the lease to HTDC. It was deferred. This year, SB 477 would do the same thing. HB 71 would extend the lease by 25 years. MIC supporters will support these bills.
The future of MIC hangs in the balance. Can't this be amicably resolved? Isn't there common ground? Wouldn't a reasonable extension be in order?
Or could there be an agreement by which UH would give MIC a new lease for a new term after the old one expires? But note that if MIC has to pay rent under that lease, it would need additional funding to cover its programs, and that could be a problem.
Also, since UH is lacking on commercialization, MIC could be a pathway to commercialization of UH tech research. Since Greenwood wants to do "research as a business," commercialization using MIC's services would help. If UH is serious about commercializing its technology, it should develop this pathway with MIC. It would be shortsighted to send MIC away.
Where the Stevie Wonder affair involved $200,000, the MIC issue will involve hundreds of millions, the future of a state agency and a program affecting our economy. Dealing with it is not a simple mater, and UH should spend at least as much time doing the right thing.
The regents have not yet considered the future of MIC. They need to take it up, and we will need to see how they do. If they fail to resolve it in a way that will save MIC, the Legislature will have to act.
Whatever we do, it's critical that we save MIC, in Manoa, where it belongs.
——--
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net.
CONTENTION IS STIFLING THE ENERGY INITIATIVE
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on November 27, 2012
Now in the fifth year of the Clean Energy Initiative, its progress is being undermined by contention.
Wind and PV give us 200 MGW, but they, as well as the undersea cable, agricultural biofuel, liquid natural gas and geothermal, are in contention.
Meanwhile, the state is still 90% on oil, and we haven’t made a dent in transportation. At this rate, we won’t meet our 40% clean energy goal by 2020.
Although wind is the most effective of the non-firm renewables, it’s been contained by contention. The wind protests on Lanai and Molokai feed each other and foment discontent on other islands.
People fret over NIMBY, but why don’t they give wind credit for its aesthetic and productivity? What will NIMBY mean when oil hits $200 and their bills go ballistic? To joust with wind can only be Quixotic.
Photovoltaic is our next best bet, but it’s in contention too. It’s expensive, and won’t sell without incentives. Tax credits get people to invest in PV. If we withdraw the incentives, PV will slow down.
This year we spent $173 million on PV tax credits and some legislators want to cut or terminate them, to say nothing of the efforts of the Tax Office to curb abuse. Watch the fur fly in the 2013 Legislature.
Even if wind and PV continue to expand, they are not firm power. Without firm power to generate the base load, we'll have to continue using oil. But the best firm power alternatives are all in contention.
Locally grown agricultural biofuel is firm and could run the generators. Despite the obvious long-term community benefits, there is serious opposition to the Aina Koa Pono project on the Big Island.
Although AKP has reduced its price, the opposers still feel it will cost too much. The surcharge HECO requested has added to the contention, even though that charge will look more trivial as oil escalates.
The surcharge proposal includes the novel idea of equalizing rates among the islands. Although any surcharge bothers us, the notion of equalized rates would be a huge step forward. Isn’t it time for that?
Equalized rates would, of course, favor the neighbor islands. That would be fair if they are sharing their resources with Oahu. But why would we give them equalized rates when they don’t share?
Liquid Natural Gas is firm, cheap, plentiful and American, and could be used to generate the base load. But it’s fossil fuel and could take us off the path to clean energy, and so it’s in contention.
This might be of less concern if we could be sure that the use of LNG will be partial and temporary and will not become a long-term dependency, like oil. In any case, the Sierra Club and Blue Planet Foundation are opposing the importation of LNG.
There’s a glass ceiling on geothermal. The unkind opposition of the 1990’s is still under the hood, and no one pushes for geothermal to go to its potential. This could change with HECO’s RFP in January.
Geothermal would do better with a cable to Maui. But that would be risky, and no developer would take it on while the Maui-Oahu cable is still in contention. Contention on one stalls the others.
This takes us to the larger contention over whether we should have an interisland grid at all. It raises the secession issue we saw in the Superferry and the Molokai blockade. To move into the 21st century and unify the state, we need to link the islands.
In short, every proven renewable that could replace oil to generate base load power is in contention. If we want to meet our goals, like Congress, we’ll have to stop the contention. We can’t just say no to all the alternatives, or we’ll go off the cliff too.
For two hands clapping, we need a countervailing power, a cohort that will take affirmative action for the development of clean energy projects. It could come either from the private sector or government.
In government, we have the Energy Office, the PUC, the Consumer Advocate and a gauntlet of approval agencies, but we don’t have an agency empowered to take affirmative action. If we want government to be a countervailing power, we’ll need to change that.
These days, contention seems to be the new normal. In a battlefield of Babel, we’re kicking the can down the road and deceiving ourselves on what’s around the bend. 2013 is a good time for better progress.
Now in the fifth year of the Clean Energy Initiative, its progress is being undermined by contention.
Wind and PV give us 200 MGW, but they, as well as the undersea cable, agricultural biofuel, liquid natural gas and geothermal, are in contention.
Meanwhile, the state is still 90% on oil, and we haven’t made a dent in transportation. At this rate, we won’t meet our 40% clean energy goal by 2020.
Although wind is the most effective of the non-firm renewables, it’s been contained by contention. The wind protests on Lanai and Molokai feed each other and foment discontent on other islands.
People fret over NIMBY, but why don’t they give wind credit for its aesthetic and productivity? What will NIMBY mean when oil hits $200 and their bills go ballistic? To joust with wind can only be Quixotic.
Photovoltaic is our next best bet, but it’s in contention too. It’s expensive, and won’t sell without incentives. Tax credits get people to invest in PV. If we withdraw the incentives, PV will slow down.
This year we spent $173 million on PV tax credits and some legislators want to cut or terminate them, to say nothing of the efforts of the Tax Office to curb abuse. Watch the fur fly in the 2013 Legislature.
Even if wind and PV continue to expand, they are not firm power. Without firm power to generate the base load, we'll have to continue using oil. But the best firm power alternatives are all in contention.
Locally grown agricultural biofuel is firm and could run the generators. Despite the obvious long-term community benefits, there is serious opposition to the Aina Koa Pono project on the Big Island.
Although AKP has reduced its price, the opposers still feel it will cost too much. The surcharge HECO requested has added to the contention, even though that charge will look more trivial as oil escalates.
The surcharge proposal includes the novel idea of equalizing rates among the islands. Although any surcharge bothers us, the notion of equalized rates would be a huge step forward. Isn’t it time for that?
Equalized rates would, of course, favor the neighbor islands. That would be fair if they are sharing their resources with Oahu. But why would we give them equalized rates when they don’t share?
Liquid Natural Gas is firm, cheap, plentiful and American, and could be used to generate the base load. But it’s fossil fuel and could take us off the path to clean energy, and so it’s in contention.
This might be of less concern if we could be sure that the use of LNG will be partial and temporary and will not become a long-term dependency, like oil. In any case, the Sierra Club and Blue Planet Foundation are opposing the importation of LNG.
There’s a glass ceiling on geothermal. The unkind opposition of the 1990’s is still under the hood, and no one pushes for geothermal to go to its potential. This could change with HECO’s RFP in January.
Geothermal would do better with a cable to Maui. But that would be risky, and no developer would take it on while the Maui-Oahu cable is still in contention. Contention on one stalls the others.
This takes us to the larger contention over whether we should have an interisland grid at all. It raises the secession issue we saw in the Superferry and the Molokai blockade. To move into the 21st century and unify the state, we need to link the islands.
In short, every proven renewable that could replace oil to generate base load power is in contention. If we want to meet our goals, like Congress, we’ll have to stop the contention. We can’t just say no to all the alternatives, or we’ll go off the cliff too.
For two hands clapping, we need a countervailing power, a cohort that will take affirmative action for the development of clean energy projects. It could come either from the private sector or government.
In government, we have the Energy Office, the PUC, the Consumer Advocate and a gauntlet of approval agencies, but we don’t have an agency empowered to take affirmative action. If we want government to be a countervailing power, we’ll need to change that.
These days, contention seems to be the new normal. In a battlefield of Babel, we’re kicking the can down the road and deceiving ourselves on what’s around the bend. 2013 is a good time for better progress.
When it comes to energy, the crisis is now upon us
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on October 2, 2012
A wildfire of anti-American uprisings from Libya to the Philippines is not the Arab Spring we wanted. Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is at our doorstep.
It's a bad time for foreign policy, the First Amendment, the Internet and energy security. Hawaii, an isolated economy still 90 percent stuck on oil, is frighteningly vulnerable.
While officials, think tanks and candidates study the wildfire and weigh the risks of action against Iran, an allied armada gathered in the Strait of Hormuz hopes to head off an Iranian blockade. Thirty-five percent of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
There's plenty of tinder in the box. If the strait is blocked, the price and availability of oil will be affected worldwide. It's naive to think that we will not be affected because we get most of our oil from Indonesia. In fact, we will suffer more because we don't have alternative sources.
Hawaii has been working on clean energy for years, but we are hardly self-reliant. If we can't get enough oil to run the generators and cars, our world will stop and help will be 2,500 miles away. It'll be too late to catch up. We won't like the result.
Photovoltaic users will be better off, at least during the day. With incentives, PV has doubled every year since 2008. Hawaii Electric Co. has relaxed the interconnect study requirement, and PV will more than double again this year. But PV is still less than 5 percent of the load, and oil still gives us most of the rest.
The transition to clean energy is the most profound economic transition in our lifetimes, but it isn't going to happen unless we incentivize it.
The Legislature wants to cut back on solar tax credits next year, even though they are the most iconic of the energy incentives. This is not likely to make us more self-reliant.
The Lingle administration took apart Act 221 before the tech industry could reach critical mass, and the industry stopped short. If we do this for solar tax credits, we can expect a similar result in the solar industry. If government abandons an initiative, the market will, too. See the piece by Leslie Cole-Brooks that ran in the Sunday Star-Advertiser.
In the past year our initiative has somehow moved from Clean Energy to Cheap Energy. Instead of trying harder, we've capitulated to spend less. Will that make us self-reliant?
Complacency is never clever, but in a world roiling in oil politics, where oil could become unavailable any Tuesday, it's seppuku. We need self-reliance now, not decades from now.
We watch as our energy security goes soft. Unthinking, we tolerate unjustified opposition to energy projects, often funded by outside interests. We lose our momentum.
Meanwhile, the low-sulfur fuel oil we buy has hovered at about $130 over the past year. This should warn us that the $100 days are over and we're on our way to $150-plus. We're boiling in it, like the frog.
Oil prices inexorably increase the heat in the pot, squeezing vitality out of our economy and our Clean Energy initiative. We blame the utility and the developers. We look for cheap fossil alternatives. We forget our codified goals, bounce from pillar to post and lose our way.
After wincing at electrical bills, we make a leap of logic to believe that renewables, not oil, are at fault. The news discards what we knew before. We forget our plan to make a plan, then find there is no plan.
How about this: Do energy permits and approvals quickly; design new and better tax credits; move ahead with Big Wind right now; take the glass ceiling off geothermal; approve agricultural biofuel; expand energy efficiency incentives; start on-bill financing already; generously support local energy R&D; replenish the electric vehicle incentives; beef up energy administration; encourage "Friends of Clean Energy" to work with anti-energy groups.
Today, local Clean Energy is our most important product. We are lucky to have the resources that can enable us to return to what these islands once were, a self-sufficient economy, at least for energy. We need to do that before we can't.
The price is whatever it takes to avoid distraction. It will be a joy to redouble our efforts on a goal that will benefit everyone, preserve our environment, keep our islands together and set a new standard for the world to see. It's a good price.
Or, we could all just stock up on cash and candles, fill the bathtub and take our chances.
——--
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net.
A wildfire of anti-American uprisings from Libya to the Philippines is not the Arab Spring we wanted. Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is at our doorstep.
It's a bad time for foreign policy, the First Amendment, the Internet and energy security. Hawaii, an isolated economy still 90 percent stuck on oil, is frighteningly vulnerable.
While officials, think tanks and candidates study the wildfire and weigh the risks of action against Iran, an allied armada gathered in the Strait of Hormuz hopes to head off an Iranian blockade. Thirty-five percent of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
There's plenty of tinder in the box. If the strait is blocked, the price and availability of oil will be affected worldwide. It's naive to think that we will not be affected because we get most of our oil from Indonesia. In fact, we will suffer more because we don't have alternative sources.
Hawaii has been working on clean energy for years, but we are hardly self-reliant. If we can't get enough oil to run the generators and cars, our world will stop and help will be 2,500 miles away. It'll be too late to catch up. We won't like the result.
Photovoltaic users will be better off, at least during the day. With incentives, PV has doubled every year since 2008. Hawaii Electric Co. has relaxed the interconnect study requirement, and PV will more than double again this year. But PV is still less than 5 percent of the load, and oil still gives us most of the rest.
The transition to clean energy is the most profound economic transition in our lifetimes, but it isn't going to happen unless we incentivize it.
The Legislature wants to cut back on solar tax credits next year, even though they are the most iconic of the energy incentives. This is not likely to make us more self-reliant.
The Lingle administration took apart Act 221 before the tech industry could reach critical mass, and the industry stopped short. If we do this for solar tax credits, we can expect a similar result in the solar industry. If government abandons an initiative, the market will, too. See the piece by Leslie Cole-Brooks that ran in the Sunday Star-Advertiser.
In the past year our initiative has somehow moved from Clean Energy to Cheap Energy. Instead of trying harder, we've capitulated to spend less. Will that make us self-reliant?
Complacency is never clever, but in a world roiling in oil politics, where oil could become unavailable any Tuesday, it's seppuku. We need self-reliance now, not decades from now.
We watch as our energy security goes soft. Unthinking, we tolerate unjustified opposition to energy projects, often funded by outside interests. We lose our momentum.
Meanwhile, the low-sulfur fuel oil we buy has hovered at about $130 over the past year. This should warn us that the $100 days are over and we're on our way to $150-plus. We're boiling in it, like the frog.
Oil prices inexorably increase the heat in the pot, squeezing vitality out of our economy and our Clean Energy initiative. We blame the utility and the developers. We look for cheap fossil alternatives. We forget our codified goals, bounce from pillar to post and lose our way.
After wincing at electrical bills, we make a leap of logic to believe that renewables, not oil, are at fault. The news discards what we knew before. We forget our plan to make a plan, then find there is no plan.
How about this: Do energy permits and approvals quickly; design new and better tax credits; move ahead with Big Wind right now; take the glass ceiling off geothermal; approve agricultural biofuel; expand energy efficiency incentives; start on-bill financing already; generously support local energy R&D; replenish the electric vehicle incentives; beef up energy administration; encourage "Friends of Clean Energy" to work with anti-energy groups.
Today, local Clean Energy is our most important product. We are lucky to have the resources that can enable us to return to what these islands once were, a self-sufficient economy, at least for energy. We need to do that before we can't.
The price is whatever it takes to avoid distraction. It will be a joy to redouble our efforts on a goal that will benefit everyone, preserve our environment, keep our islands together and set a new standard for the world to see. It's a good price.
Or, we could all just stock up on cash and candles, fill the bathtub and take our chances.
——--
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net.
The problem with Rail is not Rail, it's Governance
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on December 6, 2011
Last week ThinkTech and the Hawaii Venture Capital Association presented a program entitled “The Press Weighs in on Rail,” with Mayor Peter Carlisle then two panels of journalists.
One panel examined “how good the coverage has been on rail” with panelists Jerry Burris, Richard Halloran, Mark Platte and Barbara Tanabe. The other examined “what we don’t know about rail” with panelists Mark Abramson, Michael Levine, Ian Lind, Neal Milner and Malia Zimmerman.
Rail is the biggest, most expensive and disruptive public works project we’ve ever had. It is also the most divisive and litigation-ridden project we’ve ever had, and makes SuperFerry look like a piker. Now we are engaged in a great civil war over it, testing whether our city can long endure
So we told our panels we didn’t want a debate on rail. But what we got instead was a study on stonewalling, where we found that the trouble with rail is not so much rail as it is governance. Indeed, a disturbing picture emerged, a picture of the press being thwarted by the city’s efforts to manage public opinion.
Big projects have big risks for the community, so it’s all the more important that the public be fully informed and included in the planning. That didn’t happen in the last administration or in this one. The public needs to have full access to costs, benefits, impacts, payment sources, alternatives, contracting, risks, disruptions, design, engineering and everything else. It’s an absolute.
At his turn, Neil Milner said we needed to finish the political phase before moving to the “technical” phase, but that hasn’t been the case. Surrounded by controversy, the city rushed into contract and tells us now that any delay will cost $10 million a day, the implication being that he who would oppose or delay the project will cost us millions. So whose fault is that?
And why has the city spent millions doing public relations and advertising campaigns dedicated to neutralizing public opposition to rail? The city has spent prodigious amounts of taxpayer money, even down to hiring bloggers, to convince us that rail should go ahead. Is this a proper use of public funds?
For the public to be properly informed, we must have a free and unhampered press. Anything that obstructs the press from their vigil strikes at the heart of our democracy. It’s not a small matter when the press tells us that they’ve been systematically denied access to public information. Just as the recent Star-Advertiser editorial called for transparency on rail, the great majority of our panelists weighed in with concerns over the lack of such transparency.
If the press can’t get this information, we don’t get it. If they are manipulated, we are manipulated. In these days of joylessness about the economy and public finances, we rely on the press to dig deep, find the truth, report all the news and, in so doing, protect us from wasteful or ill-advised public projects.
If that means putting more reporters on a story, or spending more time and money for investigative reporting, or hiring counsel to enforce Freedom of Information Act requests for documents and information, then so be it. If that means the media need to raise prices and subscriptions, then so be it.
The price of good government includes the price of a vigilant press. Andrew Jackson said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but it’s hard to say we’ve been paying that price. If we had it to do again, many of us would welcome higher prices to enable that vigilance. Here, it might have saved us billions.
Construction has started, but what a kettle of fish: a public that is completely polarized; a $6 billion project in deepening controversy; a lawsuit; a mandate election with a candidate sworn to deep six the project; and a frustrated press that has been denied access to primary sources. Thank you, Mr. Mayors.
This divisiveness didn’t have to happen. It reflects unacceptable strategies by two successive administrations, and we’re suffering for that. As Ian Lind said, “the lack of transparency here wasn’t the problem, it was the plan.” We need to learn by what has happened and insist on total transparency from now on.
Rail is what it is and we are where we are. Now that construction has started we need to examine the realities and look for rapprochement before it tears us apart. But whatever happens on rail, we have to think twice before voting for anyone who has played the press, misled the public or abused our trust.
Last week ThinkTech and the Hawaii Venture Capital Association presented a program entitled “The Press Weighs in on Rail,” with Mayor Peter Carlisle then two panels of journalists.
One panel examined “how good the coverage has been on rail” with panelists Jerry Burris, Richard Halloran, Mark Platte and Barbara Tanabe. The other examined “what we don’t know about rail” with panelists Mark Abramson, Michael Levine, Ian Lind, Neal Milner and Malia Zimmerman.
Rail is the biggest, most expensive and disruptive public works project we’ve ever had. It is also the most divisive and litigation-ridden project we’ve ever had, and makes SuperFerry look like a piker. Now we are engaged in a great civil war over it, testing whether our city can long endure
So we told our panels we didn’t want a debate on rail. But what we got instead was a study on stonewalling, where we found that the trouble with rail is not so much rail as it is governance. Indeed, a disturbing picture emerged, a picture of the press being thwarted by the city’s efforts to manage public opinion.
Big projects have big risks for the community, so it’s all the more important that the public be fully informed and included in the planning. That didn’t happen in the last administration or in this one. The public needs to have full access to costs, benefits, impacts, payment sources, alternatives, contracting, risks, disruptions, design, engineering and everything else. It’s an absolute.
At his turn, Neil Milner said we needed to finish the political phase before moving to the “technical” phase, but that hasn’t been the case. Surrounded by controversy, the city rushed into contract and tells us now that any delay will cost $10 million a day, the implication being that he who would oppose or delay the project will cost us millions. So whose fault is that?
And why has the city spent millions doing public relations and advertising campaigns dedicated to neutralizing public opposition to rail? The city has spent prodigious amounts of taxpayer money, even down to hiring bloggers, to convince us that rail should go ahead. Is this a proper use of public funds?
For the public to be properly informed, we must have a free and unhampered press. Anything that obstructs the press from their vigil strikes at the heart of our democracy. It’s not a small matter when the press tells us that they’ve been systematically denied access to public information. Just as the recent Star-Advertiser editorial called for transparency on rail, the great majority of our panelists weighed in with concerns over the lack of such transparency.
If the press can’t get this information, we don’t get it. If they are manipulated, we are manipulated. In these days of joylessness about the economy and public finances, we rely on the press to dig deep, find the truth, report all the news and, in so doing, protect us from wasteful or ill-advised public projects.
If that means putting more reporters on a story, or spending more time and money for investigative reporting, or hiring counsel to enforce Freedom of Information Act requests for documents and information, then so be it. If that means the media need to raise prices and subscriptions, then so be it.
The price of good government includes the price of a vigilant press. Andrew Jackson said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but it’s hard to say we’ve been paying that price. If we had it to do again, many of us would welcome higher prices to enable that vigilance. Here, it might have saved us billions.
Construction has started, but what a kettle of fish: a public that is completely polarized; a $6 billion project in deepening controversy; a lawsuit; a mandate election with a candidate sworn to deep six the project; and a frustrated press that has been denied access to primary sources. Thank you, Mr. Mayors.
This divisiveness didn’t have to happen. It reflects unacceptable strategies by two successive administrations, and we’re suffering for that. As Ian Lind said, “the lack of transparency here wasn’t the problem, it was the plan.” We need to learn by what has happened and insist on total transparency from now on.
Rail is what it is and we are where we are. Now that construction has started we need to examine the realities and look for rapprochement before it tears us apart. But whatever happens on rail, we have to think twice before voting for anyone who has played the press, misled the public or abused our trust.
Molokai cannot be allowed to isolate itself from Oahu
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on December 6, 2011
The blockade at Kaunakakai is an outrage and should not be tolerated. On Nov. 26 a seagoing assemblage blocked a 145-foot tourist cruise boat from landing on Molokai, demanding that it stay away until "the community can hash out its concerns over the direction of the tourism industry."
The Molokai Chamber of Commerce issued a statement saying it supports all business and tourism. It went both ways: It characterized the incident as an interference with lawful commerce but also expressed concern that the boat's visits could have "negative consequences" on the "fragile" economy of Molokai.
Walter Ritte told American Safari Cruises, the owner of the ship, "You ask first, before you come to somebody's house." Whose house could that be? He wants ASC to ask his permission before entering a state harbor? This all sounds like a 17th-century toll road; travel, but only after settling with the highwayman.
Ritte said ASC should have allowed the Molokai "community" to "work though" its "concerns" before the ship arrived. He wanted ASC to show "some kind of commitment to the community by stopping the cruise ship before coming in." Imagine what would happen if he asked NCL to do that in Honolulu Harbor.
Let's get it straight. The obstruction of a ship from entering a state harbor by private individuals was not a "protest" or a "demonstration"; it was a blockade, reminiscent of the Superferry blockade on Kauai in 2007. Both were illegal.
It is a violation of law to interfere with navigation into a harbor. Harbors are strategic to state commerce, especially in an island state. Federal and state governments are supposed to protect harbors and keep them open. These "protesters" intentionally obstructed the ship. Will we do nothing about it?
Walter Ritte's assemblage is claiming a right to obstruct tourism. What would the authorities have done if this incident took place in Honolulu? If you tried to obstruct a ship coming into Honolulu Harbor, you would surely be arrested, charged and locked up by sundown. Aren't the rules the same for all of us?
How different is this from barring Big Wind from Molokai? These things are all part of a continuing campaign to isolate Molokai from Oahu and keep it free of wind farms, cruise ships, tourism and a local economy. Secede from anything that smacks of Oahu, except for the social safety net, in a one-way isolationism.
In our hearts we know that Superferry was not about berries on your boots, just as Big Wind is not about seabirds. These things reveal a disturbing trend of "insular drift," where one island tells another to take a hike. The ASC incident helps us understand the trend. "Working through" the "impact" of visits from Oahu really means "Why don't you stay away from our island?"
Actually, it's just as much our island as it is your island, and it's just as much our harbor as it is yours. I am just as much a citizen and taxpayer of this state as you are, and this is my state just as much as it is yours. One island can't wall off the others. That kind of thinking went out hundreds of years ago.
We can't live in the past or in isolation. We can't operate on the notion that our islands can go their own ways or that the people of our islands are not connected to each other. We're one state and one people truly connected. If one island turns its back on the others, that disgraces us all and is not aloha under any definition. Rather, it's disrespect for the law and legacy of our state.
Do dissenters on neighbor islands have a right to bar tourists? If they can bar tourists, maybe next time they'll bar the rest of us. There's no justification for any of it. We need to be in a state of enlightenment, not a state of nature. We can't accept or afford insular drift. What happened on Molokai has got to stop.
ay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on December 6, 2011
The blockade at Kaunakakai is an outrage and should not be tolerated. On Nov. 26 a seagoing assemblage blocked a 145-foot tourist cruise boat from landing on Molokai, demanding that it stay away until "the community can hash out its concerns over the direction of the tourism industry."
The Molokai Chamber of Commerce issued a statement saying it supports all business and tourism. It went both ways: It characterized the incident as an interference with lawful commerce but also expressed concern that the boat's visits could have "negative consequences" on the "fragile" economy of Molokai.
Walter Ritte told American Safari Cruises, the owner of the ship, "You ask first, before you come to somebody's house." Whose house could that be? He wants ASC to ask his permission before entering a state harbor? This all sounds like a 17th-century toll road; travel, but only after settling with the highwayman.
Ritte said ASC should have allowed the Molokai "community" to "work though" its "concerns" before the ship arrived. He wanted ASC to show "some kind of commitment to the community by stopping the cruise ship before coming in." Imagine what would happen if he asked NCL to do that in Honolulu Harbor.
Let's get it straight. The obstruction of a ship from entering a state harbor by private individuals was not a "protest" or a "demonstration"; it was a blockade, reminiscent of the Superferry blockade on Kauai in 2007. Both were illegal.
It is a violation of law to interfere with navigation into a harbor. Harbors are strategic to state commerce, especially in an island state. Federal and state governments are supposed to protect harbors and keep them open. These "protesters" intentionally obstructed the ship. Will we do nothing about it?
Walter Ritte's assemblage is claiming a right to obstruct tourism. What would the authorities have done if this incident took place in Honolulu? If you tried to obstruct a ship coming into Honolulu Harbor, you would surely be arrested, charged and locked up by sundown. Aren't the rules the same for all of us?
How different is this from barring Big Wind from Molokai? These things are all part of a continuing campaign to isolate Molokai from Oahu and keep it free of wind farms, cruise ships, tourism and a local economy. Secede from anything that smacks of Oahu, except for the social safety net, in a one-way isolationism.
In our hearts we know that Superferry was not about berries on your boots, just as Big Wind is not about seabirds. These things reveal a disturbing trend of "insular drift," where one island tells another to take a hike. The ASC incident helps us understand the trend. "Working through" the "impact" of visits from Oahu really means "Why don't you stay away from our island?"
Actually, it's just as much our island as it is your island, and it's just as much our harbor as it is yours. I am just as much a citizen and taxpayer of this state as you are, and this is my state just as much as it is yours. One island can't wall off the others. That kind of thinking went out hundreds of years ago.
We can't live in the past or in isolation. We can't operate on the notion that our islands can go their own ways or that the people of our islands are not connected to each other. We're one state and one people truly connected. If one island turns its back on the others, that disgraces us all and is not aloha under any definition. Rather, it's disrespect for the law and legacy of our state.
Do dissenters on neighbor islands have a right to bar tourists? If they can bar tourists, maybe next time they'll bar the rest of us. There's no justification for any of it. We need to be in a state of enlightenment, not a state of nature. We can't accept or afford insular drift. What happened on Molokai has got to stop.
ay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net
Farmland story shows need for agencies to collaborate
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on November 15, 2012
Here's a story of perseverance, then of pure luck, told to us at the HVCA-ThinkTech Update on Agriculture on Oct. 27 and now being played on ThinkTech on OC16.
Act 271 was adopted by the Legislature in 2006 to incentivize farming by allowing an owner of farmland to subdivide and lease small parcels to farmers without the delay and expense of also being required to get county subdivision approval.
Motivated by the act, businessman Cal Lui and some of his partners in the Filipino community decided to buy, subdivide under the act and distribute 854 acres of Kunia farmland to people who wanted to farm on their own land.
It was a business deal, but they were also motivated by a desire to help small farmers. They engaged veteran real estate attorney Ray Iwamoto to help them implement their plan on a fast-track basis under the act.
The act expressly exempts the project from city and county subdivision requirements and requires that the lots be considered lots of record for mortgage-lending purposes. But things are not always as they seem.
They found that despite the language of the act, if the farmland was registered under the Land Court, the Land Court would not accept a conveyance or lease without Land Court subdivision approval, which in turn required city and county subdivision approval. Regrettably, this land was Land Court land.
Thus began their perseverance. They worked on both levels: They split the land into 99 5-acre, 99-year leasehold farming-only (dwellings not permitted) parcels to comply with Act 271, and they also applied for subdivision approval with the city and county as required by the Land Court. This turned out to be a mouse trap.
They explained to the city and county that the project was for small farmers and neither they nor the farmers had the money for an elaborate subdivision with paved roads, sewers, power or potable water. They also explained this to several other agencies that had to approve the subdivision.
The city and county was sympathetic to the predicament under Act 271 and was prepared to approve it as a special subdivision to allow the project to proceed and encourage small farming. Not so for other approval agencies.
The State Historic Preservation Division, on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' advice, recommended that the city and county not approve the subdivision until Lui and his partners undertook a costly archeological survey of the entire 854 acres, even though 500 of them had been cultivated in sugar and pine for generations. More, the state Department of Transportation required Lui and his partners to pay for costly improvements and deceleration lanes on Kunia Road. With these exactions, the feasibility of the project became doubtful.
Then came a stroke of luck. The 2009 legislature had enacted Act 120, which allowed an owner to de-register his land from the Land Court, effective July 2011. If Lui and his partners could get the land out of the Land Court, no city and county subdivision approvals would be necessary, the exactions would not apply and the project could move forward under Act 271.
It was an easy decision; they de-registered the land, thus avoiding the need for subdivision approval by these agencies. Also, the state Department of Agriculture indicated a willingness to finance the acquisition of the leases. With that the project became feasible.
Despite the torturous route involved, Lui and his partners stuck with it. They got the deal done, established the corporate structures to allow farmers to take the lots under long-term leases and a co-op arrangement, and have sold most of the parcels. They're heroes for persisting, even though it took longer and cost more than it should have. In telling us about it now, they and their attorney help us come to grips with the barriers we face in projects of this nature.
Why these barriers? In Act 271 the Legislature enacted an incentive for small farmers, but controlling agencies stood in the way, constrained by archaic attitudes and inappropriate regulations. These agencies should respect state policy and find ways to achieve it, rather than imposing conditions to defeat it. Perhaps at the end of Act 271, the Legislature should have added, "Yes, we really mean it."
This story is instructive but unacceptable. State agencies should work together to avoid tripping up each other. They should see themselves in the public service, not as adversaries or obstacles. Until we get this straight, neither farming nor any other initiative will have a secure place in the framework or the economy.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on November 15, 2012
Here's a story of perseverance, then of pure luck, told to us at the HVCA-ThinkTech Update on Agriculture on Oct. 27 and now being played on ThinkTech on OC16.
Act 271 was adopted by the Legislature in 2006 to incentivize farming by allowing an owner of farmland to subdivide and lease small parcels to farmers without the delay and expense of also being required to get county subdivision approval.
Motivated by the act, businessman Cal Lui and some of his partners in the Filipino community decided to buy, subdivide under the act and distribute 854 acres of Kunia farmland to people who wanted to farm on their own land.
It was a business deal, but they were also motivated by a desire to help small farmers. They engaged veteran real estate attorney Ray Iwamoto to help them implement their plan on a fast-track basis under the act.
The act expressly exempts the project from city and county subdivision requirements and requires that the lots be considered lots of record for mortgage-lending purposes. But things are not always as they seem.
They found that despite the language of the act, if the farmland was registered under the Land Court, the Land Court would not accept a conveyance or lease without Land Court subdivision approval, which in turn required city and county subdivision approval. Regrettably, this land was Land Court land.
Thus began their perseverance. They worked on both levels: They split the land into 99 5-acre, 99-year leasehold farming-only (dwellings not permitted) parcels to comply with Act 271, and they also applied for subdivision approval with the city and county as required by the Land Court. This turned out to be a mouse trap.
They explained to the city and county that the project was for small farmers and neither they nor the farmers had the money for an elaborate subdivision with paved roads, sewers, power or potable water. They also explained this to several other agencies that had to approve the subdivision.
The city and county was sympathetic to the predicament under Act 271 and was prepared to approve it as a special subdivision to allow the project to proceed and encourage small farming. Not so for other approval agencies.
The State Historic Preservation Division, on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' advice, recommended that the city and county not approve the subdivision until Lui and his partners undertook a costly archeological survey of the entire 854 acres, even though 500 of them had been cultivated in sugar and pine for generations. More, the state Department of Transportation required Lui and his partners to pay for costly improvements and deceleration lanes on Kunia Road. With these exactions, the feasibility of the project became doubtful.
Then came a stroke of luck. The 2009 legislature had enacted Act 120, which allowed an owner to de-register his land from the Land Court, effective July 2011. If Lui and his partners could get the land out of the Land Court, no city and county subdivision approvals would be necessary, the exactions would not apply and the project could move forward under Act 271.
It was an easy decision; they de-registered the land, thus avoiding the need for subdivision approval by these agencies. Also, the state Department of Agriculture indicated a willingness to finance the acquisition of the leases. With that the project became feasible.
Despite the torturous route involved, Lui and his partners stuck with it. They got the deal done, established the corporate structures to allow farmers to take the lots under long-term leases and a co-op arrangement, and have sold most of the parcels. They're heroes for persisting, even though it took longer and cost more than it should have. In telling us about it now, they and their attorney help us come to grips with the barriers we face in projects of this nature.
Why these barriers? In Act 271 the Legislature enacted an incentive for small farmers, but controlling agencies stood in the way, constrained by archaic attitudes and inappropriate regulations. These agencies should respect state policy and find ways to achieve it, rather than imposing conditions to defeat it. Perhaps at the end of Act 271, the Legislature should have added, "Yes, we really mean it."
This story is instructive but unacceptable. State agencies should work together to avoid tripping up each other. They should see themselves in the public service, not as adversaries or obstacles. Until we get this straight, neither farming nor any other initiative will have a secure place in the framework or the economy.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net
Rejection of biofuel plan is a huge setback for isles
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on October 25, 2011
Local biofuel is the latest target in the war against renewables, and now the state Public Utilities Commission has issued a ruling based on its concern that biofuel will cost too much. Is that concern valid or shortsighted? Will it take us forward or back?
In 2010, Hawaiian Electric Co. sought to obtain competitively priced biofuel. It chose Aina Koa Pono as the best qualified and negotiated a biofuel purchase agreement for 16 million gallons annually for 20 years at a fixed price. This would create 300 construction jobs and 100 operational jobs and resurrect agriculture in Kau, on Hawaii island.
It was a dream deal: local company, local investment, local labor, local feedstock, sending less money overseas, increasing energy security, reducing vulnerability to oil volatility, producing utility-scale renewables that can be shipped anywhere in the state without waiting for an undersea cable, building the economy and making us look good. So good, you'd think we'd snap it up.
AKP planned to build a $350 million, 13,000-acre, cutting-edge biofuel "energy farm" on private land that had been fallow for decades.
In January 2011, HECO asked the PUC to approve the contract and the related biodiesel surcharge. Consumer advocate Jeff Ono found that the contract was reasonable and in the best interest of the consumers.
Ten months later the PUC rejected the contract on the basis that the price was "excessive, not cost-effective, and thus unreasonable and inconsistent with the public interest." Its decision focused on the difference between the price and long-term oil forecasts that are predictably unpredictable. It did not respond to AKP's calculation that the contract would only add $2 a month to the average consumer utility bill. Nor did it address the consumer advocate's finding or the state's clean-energy goals and policies.
The law specifically requires the PUC to consider "the long-term benefits of projects that may incur larger short-term costs" than fossil fuel. Shouldn't the PUC have found that higher short-term costs are justified by our energy goals?
These energy goals (to reduce dependency on imported oil, develop local renewables and enhance energy security) and our broader economic goals (to develop a diversified and sustainable economy) are deeply embedded in state law and recognize the need for substantial investment to attain these goals.
Neither the parties nor the administration liked this decision. HECO publicly expressed its disappointment and asked the PUC to extend its time to contest the ruling. The consumer advocate asked that the PUC "clarify" its ruling. AKP is moving to sell its biofuel to a mainland oil company for more than the price with HECO.
Right now there is no other utility-scale source of biofuel in Hawaii. The actual price of the AKP biofuel was sealed by the PUC and is not public, but it's likely to be less than the cost of biofuel shipped in from the West Coast. So now HECO has the Sophie's choice of using imported biofuel at a cost greater than local biofuel or continuing to use imported oil for its generating plants.
Like the PUC's decision on Big Wind, the biofuel decision puts us back years and demoralizes the industry. It doesn't provide a solution, but only a barrier. It rejects the arm's-length deal negotiated by the parties and approved by the consumer advocate, and deprives Hawaii County of huge economic benefits. This is not progress.
These decisions make our energy initiative a lot harder and less promising. They cast a long shadow over our energy aspirations, and will affect every one of us. If we fail to move ahead now, we'll pay more to move ahead later. Mark Glick, our new energy administrator, has his work cut out for him.
No question that the work of the PUC is challenging. But next time, to avoid the severity of a yes-no result, perhaps the PUC could make these pricing parameters public and have its staff negotiate or participate in a mediation to achieve a business resolution that will save biofuel and get us back on track.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on October 25, 2011
Local biofuel is the latest target in the war against renewables, and now the state Public Utilities Commission has issued a ruling based on its concern that biofuel will cost too much. Is that concern valid or shortsighted? Will it take us forward or back?
In 2010, Hawaiian Electric Co. sought to obtain competitively priced biofuel. It chose Aina Koa Pono as the best qualified and negotiated a biofuel purchase agreement for 16 million gallons annually for 20 years at a fixed price. This would create 300 construction jobs and 100 operational jobs and resurrect agriculture in Kau, on Hawaii island.
It was a dream deal: local company, local investment, local labor, local feedstock, sending less money overseas, increasing energy security, reducing vulnerability to oil volatility, producing utility-scale renewables that can be shipped anywhere in the state without waiting for an undersea cable, building the economy and making us look good. So good, you'd think we'd snap it up.
AKP planned to build a $350 million, 13,000-acre, cutting-edge biofuel "energy farm" on private land that had been fallow for decades.
In January 2011, HECO asked the PUC to approve the contract and the related biodiesel surcharge. Consumer advocate Jeff Ono found that the contract was reasonable and in the best interest of the consumers.
Ten months later the PUC rejected the contract on the basis that the price was "excessive, not cost-effective, and thus unreasonable and inconsistent with the public interest." Its decision focused on the difference between the price and long-term oil forecasts that are predictably unpredictable. It did not respond to AKP's calculation that the contract would only add $2 a month to the average consumer utility bill. Nor did it address the consumer advocate's finding or the state's clean-energy goals and policies.
The law specifically requires the PUC to consider "the long-term benefits of projects that may incur larger short-term costs" than fossil fuel. Shouldn't the PUC have found that higher short-term costs are justified by our energy goals?
These energy goals (to reduce dependency on imported oil, develop local renewables and enhance energy security) and our broader economic goals (to develop a diversified and sustainable economy) are deeply embedded in state law and recognize the need for substantial investment to attain these goals.
Neither the parties nor the administration liked this decision. HECO publicly expressed its disappointment and asked the PUC to extend its time to contest the ruling. The consumer advocate asked that the PUC "clarify" its ruling. AKP is moving to sell its biofuel to a mainland oil company for more than the price with HECO.
Right now there is no other utility-scale source of biofuel in Hawaii. The actual price of the AKP biofuel was sealed by the PUC and is not public, but it's likely to be less than the cost of biofuel shipped in from the West Coast. So now HECO has the Sophie's choice of using imported biofuel at a cost greater than local biofuel or continuing to use imported oil for its generating plants.
Like the PUC's decision on Big Wind, the biofuel decision puts us back years and demoralizes the industry. It doesn't provide a solution, but only a barrier. It rejects the arm's-length deal negotiated by the parties and approved by the consumer advocate, and deprives Hawaii County of huge economic benefits. This is not progress.
These decisions make our energy initiative a lot harder and less promising. They cast a long shadow over our energy aspirations, and will affect every one of us. If we fail to move ahead now, we'll pay more to move ahead later. Mark Glick, our new energy administrator, has his work cut out for him.
No question that the work of the PUC is challenging. But next time, to avoid the severity of a yes-no result, perhaps the PUC could make these pricing parameters public and have its staff negotiate or participate in a mediation to achieve a business resolution that will save biofuel and get us back on track.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net
Economic recovery relies on supporting the homeless
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on April 11, 2011
Although it's hard hard to get a bead on the economy these days, for many of us the sea change seems to be trending down. Unless we can somehow jump out of the pot, like the proverbial frog we'll be unwittingly boiled in this recession.
As if the Great Recession and the end of earmarks weren't enough, the tsunami goes further. Japan tourists were 20 percent of our 7 million visitors, but that's no more. The Council on Revenues is worried, and the Legislature is wrestling with a $1.3 billion deficit. Stand by for more pay cuts and tax increases.
Last week we read that oil would reach $200 and gas at the pump would reach $6 within five years. This means less money coming in, more money going out. Oil increases undermine tourism. They also make everything more expensive, further reducing our disposable income. Some of us aren't faring very well.
Wishing it's temporary won't help. Like the departure of the Japanese in the 1990s, it's not temporary, and it is redefining our economy and quality of life.
Forget about the new car, house and trip to Paris. Get used to being on the wrong side of an increasing income disparity and shrinking middle class. This is an economy where we work too hard to pay the rent or mortgage, where our aspirations soften as we age and where the government nickels and dimes us but still can't fix the potholes.
We used to have more millionaires per capita than other states, but now our economy is generating more homeless instead. And homelessness is not limited to the homeless - others will follow soon.
In a recent Star-Advertiser article, we heard more hapless stories about the homeless. For everyone who falls out of the system, our economy shrinks further. This crisis makes us look Third World to tourists, APEC and ourselves. We're raising a generation of homeless children, and theirs is a shame on all of us.
Some say these people want to be homeless, but that's a rationalization. Nobody wants to be homeless. This isn't Walden Pond or Taylor Camp. Our way of life depends on collaborative economic activity. We can't afford to have breadwinners drop out of our economy and become streetside eyesores.
Actually, the thousands of homeless are the canary in our coal mine, the measuring rod of our real economy. The increase in their numbers and alienation stands as a billboard of our economic failure. How can we attend to other issues while they're out there as a constant reminder of our inability?
We must identify and incentivize them into rebuilding their lives. It’s a condition of fixing everything else. If they don't like the shelters, let's change the model.
Hats off to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for releasing funds to kick off the New Day Work Projects initiative, and to state Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland for her efforts at finding vacant rental units and acquiring property that can be used for permanent housing for the homeless and for those at risk. Let's do everything we can do and spend whatever it takes. Yes, it's that important
As they go, we go. This is not just another budget debate. It's Job One. We can't make things right until we get them back in the boat.
It will require tough love by all branches of government and widespread support by the public. If we are to go forward, we need to bring the homeless back.
Some say that we can't afford to help them, that we don't have the money and should just keep them out of sight. But there for the grace of God go us. They are our fallen neighbors and friends, and our work force. For our own future, we need to get them off the street and deploy them in a new diversification.
If we help them, they'll help us. If not, we're all going to boil together.
State must save, not end, open-ocean fish farming
ThinkTech in the StarAdvertiser on February 6, 2011
Two anti-open-ocean fish farming bills have been introduced in this legislative session. Both reflect a profound lack of knowledge of the subject, especially the strategic importance of the budding aquaculture industry to our economy.
HB 221 would stop open-ocean fish farming (mariculture) with a moratorium on permits and expansions. SB 626 would require an environmental impact statement (beyond the already rigorous environmental assessment) and codify a percentage rent on revenues in addition to lease rent. They're both bad bills, and there's no room for them here, where mariculture is a unique advantage.
In addition to creating jobs, export revenues and economic expansion, mariculture provides critical food security. We're still spending almost as much buying foreign fish as buying foreign oil, and that's simply not sustainable.
We're Hawaii, surrounded by millions of miles of ocean, the only state with a regulatory process that allows entrepreneurs to pursue mariculture. We should be world leaders in that, but we're too busy shooting ourselves in the foot.
The two bills ignore the economy and forget our long-standing state policy favoring mariculture. While we equivocate, mariculture has become a $100 billion dollar industry, dominated by Asia, supplying half the seafood consumed globally.
One-third of ocean species are in decline. Modern fishing methods are destructive and fuel-inefficient. Bycatch and indiscriminate capture of immature fish are taking an incalculable toll on our oceans. They're being fished out.
To meet the demand for seafood, the United Nations' Food Agriculture Organization says aquaculture production needs to double in the next 20 years. The U.S. has no permitting process to allow the industry in federal waters. Only Hawaii allows that. It's a huge and growing market, and part of it could happily be ours.
Hawaii can use proven technologies to take fish farming out into the ocean, where its carrying capacity and ability to absorb nutrients is vast. Mariculture doesn't require fresh water or land, and can produce more protein per acre than any alternative. It's friendly to the environment, uses less energy and has a lower carbon footprint than traditional fishing.
Now, when Hawaii desperately needs to reinvent and expand its weakened economy, mariculture offers the perfect opportunity for us to be a world leader in an activity that would do just that. To put a moratorium on something so beneficial to our interests would be ridiculous and self-destructive.
Yet there are those who would stop or hamper mariculture at every turn. They are unwilling or unable to grasp the reality of our times. In a session that will surely be focused on the economy, these two bills must fail as spurious and indefensible. Bringing down a food industry is the last thing we want to do.
Increasingly, there are those who systematically oppose anything that smacks of progress: the ferry, the 30-meter telescope, genetically modified crops, even clean energy. We cannot allow Hawaii to become a killing field for progress, with legislators kowtowing to a handful of ill-informed activists.
These bills are not desired by most people you know, but have been slipped into the process by activists, likely Food & Water Watch, a Washington, D.C., lobby group that has regularly attempted to derail mariculture in our state. It's a twisted cause, and it has no business telling us what to do.
Our legislators have a duty of due diligence. They should have done the research and talked to mariculture entrepreneurs before introducing this kind of wrong-way legislation on the say-so of known anti-progress activists.
Responsible legislators should think twice before imposing moratoria or increasing burdens on industries already overburdened. These bills send a message of recalcitrant isolation, telling everyone everywhere that our state has its head deep in the sand, paralyzed by the "precautionary principle."
We have to do better. We're in an economic crisis. How about getting down to business?
Two anti-open-ocean fish farming bills have been introduced in this legislative session. Both reflect a profound lack of knowledge of the subject, especially the strategic importance of the budding aquaculture industry to our economy.
HB 221 would stop open-ocean fish farming (mariculture) with a moratorium on permits and expansions. SB 626 would require an environmental impact statement (beyond the already rigorous environmental assessment) and codify a percentage rent on revenues in addition to lease rent. They're both bad bills, and there's no room for them here, where mariculture is a unique advantage.
In addition to creating jobs, export revenues and economic expansion, mariculture provides critical food security. We're still spending almost as much buying foreign fish as buying foreign oil, and that's simply not sustainable.
We're Hawaii, surrounded by millions of miles of ocean, the only state with a regulatory process that allows entrepreneurs to pursue mariculture. We should be world leaders in that, but we're too busy shooting ourselves in the foot.
The two bills ignore the economy and forget our long-standing state policy favoring mariculture. While we equivocate, mariculture has become a $100 billion dollar industry, dominated by Asia, supplying half the seafood consumed globally.
One-third of ocean species are in decline. Modern fishing methods are destructive and fuel-inefficient. Bycatch and indiscriminate capture of immature fish are taking an incalculable toll on our oceans. They're being fished out.
To meet the demand for seafood, the United Nations' Food Agriculture Organization says aquaculture production needs to double in the next 20 years. The U.S. has no permitting process to allow the industry in federal waters. Only Hawaii allows that. It's a huge and growing market, and part of it could happily be ours.
Hawaii can use proven technologies to take fish farming out into the ocean, where its carrying capacity and ability to absorb nutrients is vast. Mariculture doesn't require fresh water or land, and can produce more protein per acre than any alternative. It's friendly to the environment, uses less energy and has a lower carbon footprint than traditional fishing.
Now, when Hawaii desperately needs to reinvent and expand its weakened economy, mariculture offers the perfect opportunity for us to be a world leader in an activity that would do just that. To put a moratorium on something so beneficial to our interests would be ridiculous and self-destructive.
Yet there are those who would stop or hamper mariculture at every turn. They are unwilling or unable to grasp the reality of our times. In a session that will surely be focused on the economy, these two bills must fail as spurious and indefensible. Bringing down a food industry is the last thing we want to do.
Increasingly, there are those who systematically oppose anything that smacks of progress: the ferry, the 30-meter telescope, genetically modified crops, even clean energy. We cannot allow Hawaii to become a killing field for progress, with legislators kowtowing to a handful of ill-informed activists.
These bills are not desired by most people you know, but have been slipped into the process by activists, likely Food & Water Watch, a Washington, D.C., lobby group that has regularly attempted to derail mariculture in our state. It's a twisted cause, and it has no business telling us what to do.
Our legislators have a duty of due diligence. They should have done the research and talked to mariculture entrepreneurs before introducing this kind of wrong-way legislation on the say-so of known anti-progress activists.
Responsible legislators should think twice before imposing moratoria or increasing burdens on industries already overburdened. These bills send a message of recalcitrant isolation, telling everyone everywhere that our state has its head deep in the sand, paralyzed by the "precautionary principle."
We have to do better. We're in an economic crisis. How about getting down to business?
Electric Cars Could Be in the Fast Lane for Hawaii Has the age of the EV finally arrived?
ThinkTech in the Honolulu Weekly on January 19, 2011
If you haven’t noticed, we’re in a full-tilt transformation away from conventional cars. Automakers still produce them, and are hurriedly adding on wonderful new efficiencies and technologies to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. That’s great for the last days of the chapter, but it’s too late to save them as the predominant genre. The threat of peak oil prices and the call of the environment have already dulled their luster, and it’s time to move on. The plug-in electric vehicle (EV) won’t solve all of our energy or transportation problems, but it’s part of a much larger movement toward efficiency and self-sufficiency. Is Hawaii ready to take the plunge to EVs? That’s the question.
In a world where eye-popping tech is around every corner, there are a number of entries vying for head of the automobile pack: EV, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell and diesel electric. The truth is that any of these could succeed. Every automaker has or is putting a horse into the race. It’s a moving target, with announcements being made as you watch.
There aren’t many EVs in Hawaii yet. The Nissan Leaf ($33,000 before credits) is coming any day. The Chevy Volt ($41,000 before credits) is coming soon, but it’s a hybrid, not a pure EV. The Leaf has a range of 100 miles and an EPA rating of 99 miles per gallon. With a 220-volt charger, it will take eight hours to charge. Three hundred people have put $99 down and are awaiting delivery. Now available in Hawaii is the Wheego, which seats two and gets 100 miles to the charge. But the EV to salivate over is the Tesla Roadster ($109,000 before credits), which has a range of 245 miles, a charging time of three to four hours, and can go from 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds. There are perhaps two of them here. They’re not exactly affordable.
Another EV to watch is the Ford Focus Electric, just announced for release in 2011. It can be charged in three hours with a 240-volt charging station that Best Buy will sell and install for you. These cars provide instant torque and put you back in your seat. Ford has an app that lets you check your Focus charge from your iPhone and has partnered with Microsoft to build a system that allows you to reduce costs by charging at off-peak hours, when utility rates are lower.
The race for renewables It’s like the transformation in renewables (wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, ocean, hydro). Any one could succeed, but only one or a small combination of them will become predominant. On which should we put our money? We’ll have to see where the technology, the marketplace and the politics take us.
The same race presents itself with cars, although things move faster. This is a collective decision likely to be made within one car generation, that is, within no more than 10 years. What technology or combination of technologies will prevail?
Although the marketplace and the politics are not entirely predictable, the punt answer is that people are most often driven by convenience and price. Sure, the early adopters will embrace the most high-tech and environmentally sound cars–that’s what drives them. But most of us will be second-generation buyers, waiting for the early adopters to find the way in convenience and, of course, price. Let’s look at how convenience and price are shaping up for EVs.
Oahu is a great laboratory for EVs, because most drives are short. But that’s not a panacea for the dreaded “range anxiety.” For any sense of convenience, you absolutely must have a network of charging stations. If we build them, the anxiety is tolerable. If we don’t, EVs will be left stranded in favor of other technologies.
How many charging stations are enough for Oahu? The Gas Co., predictably, favors hydrogen cars and wants to build 25 hydrogen stations in the next five years. That number is instructive, and, numerically, 25 is a good start. For now, even with 300 Leafs on the way, Green Energy Outlet, the Wheego dealer on Cooke Street, may be the only location with a commercial charging station. There are various plans to build more charging stations early this year, but not all will be for consumer use.
One charging station is clearly not enough and the challenge is how to get more. They do cost money and in the absence of EVs, investors will be hard to find. It’s a chicken-egg thing. To give EVs a foothold, government needs to incentivize the charging stations, not only for drivers, but also to show dealers and automakers that we mean business and are an “EV- ready state.”
EV incentives The Energy Office at the Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) has $4 million of federal stimulus money to help. Of this, $1.4 million will go to rebates of up to $4,500 for EVs or plug-in hybrids and $500 for the purchase and installation of EV chargers. At $5,000 a pop, that would cover only 280 buyers. The balance of funds will be from grants to commercial charging-station developers, and DBEDT is in the process of contracting with the successful bidders. The stimulus money must be spent by April 2012, so there’s no time to dawdle. There’s also a federal tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of the charger up to $2,000 for a residence and up to $50,000 for a business installation. Are these incentives sufficient?
Investors who build commercial charging stations would suffer if the Leafs are delayed. Buyers who have signed up to buy Leafs have not heard from Nissan and have had difficulty in determining when they will get their cars. To keep up the EV momentum, we need to have these cars coming into the state when promised.
Many feel that the Nissan Leaf has the potential to transform the automotive industry and the way people drive. Check out YouTube and you’ll see lots of early adopters in a state of excitement about EVs. No, they don’t have the deep rumble of conventional cars, but they beat them at drag races. They’re silent, but their torque is amazing. They provide a new driving experience that most people will like a lot.
All charged up You know how Mini owners have clubs where they can share their enthusiasm? Well, this month the Electric Vehicle Association of Honolulu was organized as a chapter of the Electric Auto Association. To join, you pay $35 on [eaaev.org].
You’ll go to EV rallies like the one that toured Oahu last week and ended up at Mother Waldron Park in Kakaako for food, music, politicians and press. There were only seven EVs at the rally, but the organizers promised many multiples of that at the second annual rally, which they are now planning. After all, we do expect 300 Leafs between now and then, don’t we?
For single-family houses, it’ll be relatively easy to install a charger. Condominium dwellers will find it somewhat more challenging. Despite Act 186, adopted last year to prohibit condo associations from barring the installation of chargers, condo boards have been slow to approve them over concerns about running cable to multiple individual parking stalls in the condo parking lots. These delays will continue, and we can expect a certain level of frustration among the early adopters.
Is charging safe? With the SAE J1772 connection standardized last January, there is no power until the charging cable is locked into the charging station, so you can’t get electrocuted unless you do something really dumb. Will this be covered under existing car and condo insurance? Ask your broker.
A Level I charger takes 110 volts and could require more than 15 hours to charge. A Level II charger takes 240 volts and requires three to eight hours, and would be the best approach for most people, who already have that voltage at home. The Level III charger takes 480 volts and could complete the charge in minutes, but will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most people won’t spend that much. Tesla and others are building induction chargers that charge wirelessly, and that’ll be another game changer.
The Level III charger would be most useful for a commercial charging station. People will pay for a fast charge, and you can charge more cars in a given period. Gas stations would be well advised to include these charging stations. Parking lots have to include them starting this year under the charging-station bill lobbied by Better Place when it came to town a couple of years ago. We can also expect tow trucks to be outfitted with chargers to help you on the highway.
Better Place designed a carwash-like machine that switches your battery in 10 minutes. Will the replacement battery be as good as the one you’re giving up? Switchable batteries were to come with the Nissan-Renault EV that Better Place was going to market, but we haven’t seen them yet. It looks as though each EV will have its own integrated battery, so switchability may not be happening.
Accessorize EV makers say the batteries will last for the life of the car but if that’s not so and you need to replace one for any reason, a new battery will cost you as much as $12,000. That’s not affordable, either.
The EV will change the landscape for auto dealers, too. EVs don’t need as many moving parts and won’t require as much maintenance and repair. Space requirements at dealerships are likely to be affected. Car buying and leasing are also likely to migrate to the Web. EVs are more like commodities or computers, and the web will be a more viable venue for many EV customers.
Just as a century of car development has nurtured the development of a huge assortment of accessories, EVs will likewise call for lots of accessories. Although they can also be sold on the web, the likelihood is that dealerships will continue to carry those accessories. This means the empty floor space at the dealerships will be reallocated to charging stations and accessory displays. These accessories will include battery-life extenders and smart software apps.
This isn’t going to happen this year. Standing at the tile mosaic in the atrium of the Hawaii State Capitol, David Rolf of the Hawaii Auto Dealers Association compares each tile of the 600,000-tile mosaic to a car on Hawaii’s roads. In that huge sea of blue, green and white tiles, you find one red tile. The EV is that one tile, and it’ll take years to bring in enough new red tiles to change things.
In the meantime, there’s one more generation of cars to sell. To the extent that people buy EVs, they’ll probably use them for short trips and rely on their conventional or hybrid cars for longer trips. In the short term, the advent of the EV may wind up increasing the number of car registrations, and a driver with a conventional car or hybrid may wind up adding an EV as a fun member of the family fleet. We’ll join the transformation, but we’ll also hedge our bets.
If you think the 100-mile range of the Leaf or Focus Electric is the end of it, think again. That’s like saying the development of renewables will end in 2030. If the Tesla can build a car with a range of 245 miles, the Leaf, the Focus Electric and all the others can’t be far behind. It’s just a matter of time. Most people will be happy to pay a little more for greater range and, thus, greater convenience.
Predictions By 2015, cars will be lighter, with carbon fiber and other high-tech materials; EV batteries will exceed the range of current conventional cars; and charging times will shrink to what it now takes at the pump. The market will demand it, and, with the research and development made possible by EV sales, the technology will be more mind-boggling and the industry will easily find a way. Like computer chips, capacity will grow logarithmically, while prices go lower and lower.
Right now, EVs are more expensive than conventional cars and many buyers will depend on rebates and tax credits. EV owners also enjoy free use of county and state parking facilities and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. If government reduces these incentives before EVs reach critical mass, EV sales will be impacted and EVs could again fall out of the mainstream. As EVs pass critical mass, their prices will go down, ensuring their success. Just as free auto registration for Hawaii EVs has ended, at some point, rebates and tax credits will go away.
The mobility offered by cars defines our quality of life and our economy. Our cars are our most interactive tools, protectors and friends, especially when you add computers and software. People love their cars for business, recreation and everything in between. We’ve had a century to perfect that relationship, and that’s why this transformation is so disruptive, and so important.
Cars will change more dramatically than ever in the next few years, and we will be that much more dependent. They’ll change the way we drive, work and live. They’ll be better transportation, smarter and more dedicated to serving our every wish, and adding new dimensions to our lives. Watch what happens.
Has the age of the EV finally come? Will it succeed, or will it be seen as a golf cart? We can answer those questions by our actions. Manufacturers won’t build what we don’t buy, no matter how advanced the tech may be. Remember the laser disk and digital audio tape? These technologies didn’t fail because they were defective. They failed because not enough of us bought them.
Right now, it costs $6 to $7 to charge an EV. Not bad for 100 miles. Some say EVs are only as good as what powers the grid, and, if the grid is powered by oil, then EVs are powered by oil. Nevertheless, an EV running on today’s grid is more efficient than a conventional car running on oil. Where the efficiency of conventional cars is limited to 30 percent because of energy lost in heat and friction, EVs can get 60 percent. If energy losses in grid transmission could be avoided by charging directly from rooftop photovoltaic cells, EV efficiency could be more like 90 percent.
You will hear much more about the EV this year. Before you reject buying one or diss the people that do, remember that every great technology has had early adopters, from the light bulb to the cell phone, and each was ahead of its time. As digital cameras have transformed photography in only a few years, EVs are likely to transform transportation. Pay attention, or you’ll be left standing in the road.
Jay Fidell, a Honolulu business lawyer, is a founder of ThinkTech Hawaii. He was assisted on this article by Maria Tome Dave Rolf, Stan Masamitsu, Joe Nicolai, Dennis Short, Todd Yee, Mark Piscioneri and his law partner, Keith Agena. Related video is available at [thinktechhawaii.com]
If you haven’t noticed, we’re in a full-tilt transformation away from conventional cars. Automakers still produce them, and are hurriedly adding on wonderful new efficiencies and technologies to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. That’s great for the last days of the chapter, but it’s too late to save them as the predominant genre. The threat of peak oil prices and the call of the environment have already dulled their luster, and it’s time to move on. The plug-in electric vehicle (EV) won’t solve all of our energy or transportation problems, but it’s part of a much larger movement toward efficiency and self-sufficiency. Is Hawaii ready to take the plunge to EVs? That’s the question.
In a world where eye-popping tech is around every corner, there are a number of entries vying for head of the automobile pack: EV, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell and diesel electric. The truth is that any of these could succeed. Every automaker has or is putting a horse into the race. It’s a moving target, with announcements being made as you watch.
There aren’t many EVs in Hawaii yet. The Nissan Leaf ($33,000 before credits) is coming any day. The Chevy Volt ($41,000 before credits) is coming soon, but it’s a hybrid, not a pure EV. The Leaf has a range of 100 miles and an EPA rating of 99 miles per gallon. With a 220-volt charger, it will take eight hours to charge. Three hundred people have put $99 down and are awaiting delivery. Now available in Hawaii is the Wheego, which seats two and gets 100 miles to the charge. But the EV to salivate over is the Tesla Roadster ($109,000 before credits), which has a range of 245 miles, a charging time of three to four hours, and can go from 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds. There are perhaps two of them here. They’re not exactly affordable.
Another EV to watch is the Ford Focus Electric, just announced for release in 2011. It can be charged in three hours with a 240-volt charging station that Best Buy will sell and install for you. These cars provide instant torque and put you back in your seat. Ford has an app that lets you check your Focus charge from your iPhone and has partnered with Microsoft to build a system that allows you to reduce costs by charging at off-peak hours, when utility rates are lower.
The race for renewables It’s like the transformation in renewables (wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, ocean, hydro). Any one could succeed, but only one or a small combination of them will become predominant. On which should we put our money? We’ll have to see where the technology, the marketplace and the politics take us.
The same race presents itself with cars, although things move faster. This is a collective decision likely to be made within one car generation, that is, within no more than 10 years. What technology or combination of technologies will prevail?
Although the marketplace and the politics are not entirely predictable, the punt answer is that people are most often driven by convenience and price. Sure, the early adopters will embrace the most high-tech and environmentally sound cars–that’s what drives them. But most of us will be second-generation buyers, waiting for the early adopters to find the way in convenience and, of course, price. Let’s look at how convenience and price are shaping up for EVs.
Oahu is a great laboratory for EVs, because most drives are short. But that’s not a panacea for the dreaded “range anxiety.” For any sense of convenience, you absolutely must have a network of charging stations. If we build them, the anxiety is tolerable. If we don’t, EVs will be left stranded in favor of other technologies.
How many charging stations are enough for Oahu? The Gas Co., predictably, favors hydrogen cars and wants to build 25 hydrogen stations in the next five years. That number is instructive, and, numerically, 25 is a good start. For now, even with 300 Leafs on the way, Green Energy Outlet, the Wheego dealer on Cooke Street, may be the only location with a commercial charging station. There are various plans to build more charging stations early this year, but not all will be for consumer use.
One charging station is clearly not enough and the challenge is how to get more. They do cost money and in the absence of EVs, investors will be hard to find. It’s a chicken-egg thing. To give EVs a foothold, government needs to incentivize the charging stations, not only for drivers, but also to show dealers and automakers that we mean business and are an “EV- ready state.”
EV incentives The Energy Office at the Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) has $4 million of federal stimulus money to help. Of this, $1.4 million will go to rebates of up to $4,500 for EVs or plug-in hybrids and $500 for the purchase and installation of EV chargers. At $5,000 a pop, that would cover only 280 buyers. The balance of funds will be from grants to commercial charging-station developers, and DBEDT is in the process of contracting with the successful bidders. The stimulus money must be spent by April 2012, so there’s no time to dawdle. There’s also a federal tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of the charger up to $2,000 for a residence and up to $50,000 for a business installation. Are these incentives sufficient?
Investors who build commercial charging stations would suffer if the Leafs are delayed. Buyers who have signed up to buy Leafs have not heard from Nissan and have had difficulty in determining when they will get their cars. To keep up the EV momentum, we need to have these cars coming into the state when promised.
Many feel that the Nissan Leaf has the potential to transform the automotive industry and the way people drive. Check out YouTube and you’ll see lots of early adopters in a state of excitement about EVs. No, they don’t have the deep rumble of conventional cars, but they beat them at drag races. They’re silent, but their torque is amazing. They provide a new driving experience that most people will like a lot.
All charged up You know how Mini owners have clubs where they can share their enthusiasm? Well, this month the Electric Vehicle Association of Honolulu was organized as a chapter of the Electric Auto Association. To join, you pay $35 on [eaaev.org].
You’ll go to EV rallies like the one that toured Oahu last week and ended up at Mother Waldron Park in Kakaako for food, music, politicians and press. There were only seven EVs at the rally, but the organizers promised many multiples of that at the second annual rally, which they are now planning. After all, we do expect 300 Leafs between now and then, don’t we?
For single-family houses, it’ll be relatively easy to install a charger. Condominium dwellers will find it somewhat more challenging. Despite Act 186, adopted last year to prohibit condo associations from barring the installation of chargers, condo boards have been slow to approve them over concerns about running cable to multiple individual parking stalls in the condo parking lots. These delays will continue, and we can expect a certain level of frustration among the early adopters.
Is charging safe? With the SAE J1772 connection standardized last January, there is no power until the charging cable is locked into the charging station, so you can’t get electrocuted unless you do something really dumb. Will this be covered under existing car and condo insurance? Ask your broker.
A Level I charger takes 110 volts and could require more than 15 hours to charge. A Level II charger takes 240 volts and requires three to eight hours, and would be the best approach for most people, who already have that voltage at home. The Level III charger takes 480 volts and could complete the charge in minutes, but will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most people won’t spend that much. Tesla and others are building induction chargers that charge wirelessly, and that’ll be another game changer.
The Level III charger would be most useful for a commercial charging station. People will pay for a fast charge, and you can charge more cars in a given period. Gas stations would be well advised to include these charging stations. Parking lots have to include them starting this year under the charging-station bill lobbied by Better Place when it came to town a couple of years ago. We can also expect tow trucks to be outfitted with chargers to help you on the highway.
Better Place designed a carwash-like machine that switches your battery in 10 minutes. Will the replacement battery be as good as the one you’re giving up? Switchable batteries were to come with the Nissan-Renault EV that Better Place was going to market, but we haven’t seen them yet. It looks as though each EV will have its own integrated battery, so switchability may not be happening.
Accessorize EV makers say the batteries will last for the life of the car but if that’s not so and you need to replace one for any reason, a new battery will cost you as much as $12,000. That’s not affordable, either.
The EV will change the landscape for auto dealers, too. EVs don’t need as many moving parts and won’t require as much maintenance and repair. Space requirements at dealerships are likely to be affected. Car buying and leasing are also likely to migrate to the Web. EVs are more like commodities or computers, and the web will be a more viable venue for many EV customers.
Just as a century of car development has nurtured the development of a huge assortment of accessories, EVs will likewise call for lots of accessories. Although they can also be sold on the web, the likelihood is that dealerships will continue to carry those accessories. This means the empty floor space at the dealerships will be reallocated to charging stations and accessory displays. These accessories will include battery-life extenders and smart software apps.
This isn’t going to happen this year. Standing at the tile mosaic in the atrium of the Hawaii State Capitol, David Rolf of the Hawaii Auto Dealers Association compares each tile of the 600,000-tile mosaic to a car on Hawaii’s roads. In that huge sea of blue, green and white tiles, you find one red tile. The EV is that one tile, and it’ll take years to bring in enough new red tiles to change things.
In the meantime, there’s one more generation of cars to sell. To the extent that people buy EVs, they’ll probably use them for short trips and rely on their conventional or hybrid cars for longer trips. In the short term, the advent of the EV may wind up increasing the number of car registrations, and a driver with a conventional car or hybrid may wind up adding an EV as a fun member of the family fleet. We’ll join the transformation, but we’ll also hedge our bets.
If you think the 100-mile range of the Leaf or Focus Electric is the end of it, think again. That’s like saying the development of renewables will end in 2030. If the Tesla can build a car with a range of 245 miles, the Leaf, the Focus Electric and all the others can’t be far behind. It’s just a matter of time. Most people will be happy to pay a little more for greater range and, thus, greater convenience.
Predictions By 2015, cars will be lighter, with carbon fiber and other high-tech materials; EV batteries will exceed the range of current conventional cars; and charging times will shrink to what it now takes at the pump. The market will demand it, and, with the research and development made possible by EV sales, the technology will be more mind-boggling and the industry will easily find a way. Like computer chips, capacity will grow logarithmically, while prices go lower and lower.
Right now, EVs are more expensive than conventional cars and many buyers will depend on rebates and tax credits. EV owners also enjoy free use of county and state parking facilities and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. If government reduces these incentives before EVs reach critical mass, EV sales will be impacted and EVs could again fall out of the mainstream. As EVs pass critical mass, their prices will go down, ensuring their success. Just as free auto registration for Hawaii EVs has ended, at some point, rebates and tax credits will go away.
The mobility offered by cars defines our quality of life and our economy. Our cars are our most interactive tools, protectors and friends, especially when you add computers and software. People love their cars for business, recreation and everything in between. We’ve had a century to perfect that relationship, and that’s why this transformation is so disruptive, and so important.
Cars will change more dramatically than ever in the next few years, and we will be that much more dependent. They’ll change the way we drive, work and live. They’ll be better transportation, smarter and more dedicated to serving our every wish, and adding new dimensions to our lives. Watch what happens.
Has the age of the EV finally come? Will it succeed, or will it be seen as a golf cart? We can answer those questions by our actions. Manufacturers won’t build what we don’t buy, no matter how advanced the tech may be. Remember the laser disk and digital audio tape? These technologies didn’t fail because they were defective. They failed because not enough of us bought them.
Right now, it costs $6 to $7 to charge an EV. Not bad for 100 miles. Some say EVs are only as good as what powers the grid, and, if the grid is powered by oil, then EVs are powered by oil. Nevertheless, an EV running on today’s grid is more efficient than a conventional car running on oil. Where the efficiency of conventional cars is limited to 30 percent because of energy lost in heat and friction, EVs can get 60 percent. If energy losses in grid transmission could be avoided by charging directly from rooftop photovoltaic cells, EV efficiency could be more like 90 percent.
You will hear much more about the EV this year. Before you reject buying one or diss the people that do, remember that every great technology has had early adopters, from the light bulb to the cell phone, and each was ahead of its time. As digital cameras have transformed photography in only a few years, EVs are likely to transform transportation. Pay attention, or you’ll be left standing in the road.
Jay Fidell, a Honolulu business lawyer, is a founder of ThinkTech Hawaii. He was assisted on this article by Maria Tome Dave Rolf, Stan Masamitsu, Joe Nicolai, Dennis Short, Todd Yee, Mark Piscioneri and his law partner, Keith Agena. Related video is available at [thinktechhawaii.com]
Geothermal is a bigger deal than we thought
ThinkTech in the StarAdvertiser on January 16, 2011
Geothermal is a proven, firm source that could keep us going for thousands of years. Will geothermal be the next big renewable in the development of our statewide energy initiative, or will it be constrained by present limitations?
Right about now, 30 megawatts of wind is going online from Kahuku. If you add the 100MW we are getting from the new biofuel Peaking Plant in Kapolei and the 70MW of additional wind we will be getting from Kawailoa, we will soon have 200MW of Oahu-based renewables, still only a fraction of Oahu's demand.
But renewables take land, and the barrier on Oahu is the lack of industrial land. Oahu is crowded, and no one wants renewables in his backyard. This NIMBY (not in my backyard) demeans our clean energy aspirations, but the hard reality is that to run Oahu on renewables we'll need to bring them in from neighbor islands.
The undersea cable becomes essential. The deal announced last week between Castle & Cooke and Hawaiian Electric Co. contemplates 200MW from Lanai and 200MW from Molokai. That deal requires the cable to create an interisland grid that would make these renewables, mostly wind, available to Oahu. No cable, no deal.
Enter the magma. Mainland, not local, researchers have recently found that Hawaii's magma is as shallow as 1.9 miles from the surface, making it much more accessible for geothermal than we thought. With this new accessibility, geothermal on the Big Island and Maui could be substantially increased. If we extend the cable to the Big Island, its geothermal would be available to Oahu.
The pace and popularity of public meetings about statewide renewables is quickening. The January calendar is bedecked with pre-session meetings by and with energy officials, legislators, industry and the public, focusing on renewable development, including geothermal, and the cable. The Energy Policy Forum will present its next briefing on Jan. 21 at the Capitol.
Puna Geothermal Venture is now producing 30MW and will soon be able to go to 38MW, but given its potential against wind and PV, that's small and a small fraction of its capacity. Are we limiting it because we don't want to keep all our renewables in one basket? Is it because we want to keep the peace among competing developers? Or is it because the protest of the 1990's isn't over?
Those who fought again geothermal in the 1990s seem to have had a change of heart. Attorney Mililani Trask and her colleague Robbie Cabral would like to see the Hawaiian community get a benefits package from geothermal, like the model that has been developed to satisfy cultural concerns in New Zealand.
Richard Ha, a sustainability farmer in Hamakua, is on board. He wants to put lots more emphasis on geothermal. Ha is also part of the group led by former DBEDT energy administrator Ted Peck that would like to acquire HECO. Their plan, long on geothermal, has been met with skepticism, but that's based on concerns about the group's viability rather than the viability of geothermal.
Interconnection is more than a cable, it's the conceptual connection of our islands, a notion that will hopefully survive the project itself. With all these current happenings, and discovery of the magma, the outlines clarify. If you weren't excited about renewables until now, this would be a great time to start.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
Geothermal is a proven, firm source that could keep us going for thousands of years. Will geothermal be the next big renewable in the development of our statewide energy initiative, or will it be constrained by present limitations?
Right about now, 30 megawatts of wind is going online from Kahuku. If you add the 100MW we are getting from the new biofuel Peaking Plant in Kapolei and the 70MW of additional wind we will be getting from Kawailoa, we will soon have 200MW of Oahu-based renewables, still only a fraction of Oahu's demand.
But renewables take land, and the barrier on Oahu is the lack of industrial land. Oahu is crowded, and no one wants renewables in his backyard. This NIMBY (not in my backyard) demeans our clean energy aspirations, but the hard reality is that to run Oahu on renewables we'll need to bring them in from neighbor islands.
The undersea cable becomes essential. The deal announced last week between Castle & Cooke and Hawaiian Electric Co. contemplates 200MW from Lanai and 200MW from Molokai. That deal requires the cable to create an interisland grid that would make these renewables, mostly wind, available to Oahu. No cable, no deal.
Enter the magma. Mainland, not local, researchers have recently found that Hawaii's magma is as shallow as 1.9 miles from the surface, making it much more accessible for geothermal than we thought. With this new accessibility, geothermal on the Big Island and Maui could be substantially increased. If we extend the cable to the Big Island, its geothermal would be available to Oahu.
The pace and popularity of public meetings about statewide renewables is quickening. The January calendar is bedecked with pre-session meetings by and with energy officials, legislators, industry and the public, focusing on renewable development, including geothermal, and the cable. The Energy Policy Forum will present its next briefing on Jan. 21 at the Capitol.
Puna Geothermal Venture is now producing 30MW and will soon be able to go to 38MW, but given its potential against wind and PV, that's small and a small fraction of its capacity. Are we limiting it because we don't want to keep all our renewables in one basket? Is it because we want to keep the peace among competing developers? Or is it because the protest of the 1990's isn't over?
Those who fought again geothermal in the 1990s seem to have had a change of heart. Attorney Mililani Trask and her colleague Robbie Cabral would like to see the Hawaiian community get a benefits package from geothermal, like the model that has been developed to satisfy cultural concerns in New Zealand.
Richard Ha, a sustainability farmer in Hamakua, is on board. He wants to put lots more emphasis on geothermal. Ha is also part of the group led by former DBEDT energy administrator Ted Peck that would like to acquire HECO. Their plan, long on geothermal, has been met with skepticism, but that's based on concerns about the group's viability rather than the viability of geothermal.
Interconnection is more than a cable, it's the conceptual connection of our islands, a notion that will hopefully survive the project itself. With all these current happenings, and discovery of the magma, the outlines clarify. If you weren't excited about renewables until now, this would be a great time to start.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
Medical mission gets and receives in Nepal
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on December 26.
In October, 26 surgeons and operating room nurses traveled from Hawaii to Dhankuta in eastern Nepal. They went there planning to do as much surgery on the townspeople as they possibly could, in a word, to "reach the unreached."</p>
ThinkTech was fortunate to interview Honolulu surgeon Brad Wong, leader of the Aloha Medical Mission, which arranged the trip. He shared his footage, and we made a movie for OC16. The story is powerful, and putting it together was a powerful experience. See OC16.tv and AlohaMedicalMission.org.</p>
<p>In the First World we're used to surgery by skilled surgeons who use high-tech operating rooms and equipment. Not so in Dhankuta and the developing world where this kind of surgery is unknown, unavailable and akin to cargo cult.
Namaste is a Hindu greeting. You put your hands together, tilt your head and greet someone in peace. When the mission arrived, that's what everyone in Dhankuta did, filling the town's one street for hours. It spoke volumes.
Nepalese are a graceful people with a notable purity of spirit. They were responsive and openly appreciative to people with the mission who came so far to help them. It was a coming together of cultures and participants; no further words required. The benefits were personal and fully reciprocal.
Members of the mission made good on their plan. They improved the lives of hundreds of people in Dhankuta. As patients were wheeled from the makeshift operating room (three tables), they whispered, "Thank you, thank you." Touching and healing by surgical hands has a lasting effect, inside and out.
The doctors and nurses who come overcome their fears. The mission is not a vacation, but a plunge into hard work that requires the courage to deal with deprivation and the respiratory and intestinal challenges of remote areas. They rediscover their medicine, unconstrained by big-city politics and risks that might have dampened their enthusiasm at home. Their testimonials are tearful and touching.
It's not every day we stumble into a transformation of the human spirit. They worked so hard, but the gift of it was enormous and transcendent. They are lucky to have found this experience, and we are lucky to have found them.
My hat's off to the mission. Hippocrates lives and so does our special aloha. The Aloha Medical Mission is proof again of the sometimes elusive but always essential human need to help others. It's a fine example of what we aspire to in Hawaii—education, health, tech, building a bridge to Asia and helping people.
Dhankuta won't be unreached forever—it's not unlike the areas in Zimbabwe and Afghanistan written up recently in The New York Times. By fits and starts, modern medicine is reaching these people, even if they have to pay for it with chickens. Once they've had it, can they ever again be satisfied with less?
The global flow of tech and medicine is to reach everywhere and be accessible to everyone. Modern medicine inevitably will come to Dhankuta, not only from organizations like Aloha Medical Mission, but also from its own locally trained health care workers. Cuba is known for practicing and teaching medicine in the developing world. Nepal and any country can have its own medical schools.
Dhankuta teaches us that among our health professionals there are people who are truly dedicated to reaching the unreached. They beckon us to go with them. If you accept, go soon and stay longer. If not, there's no reason why you can't join Aloha Medical Mission to help people right here in Hawaii.</p>
After all, namaste, like aloha, means more than just saying hello.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
In October, 26 surgeons and operating room nurses traveled from Hawaii to Dhankuta in eastern Nepal. They went there planning to do as much surgery on the townspeople as they possibly could, in a word, to "reach the unreached."</p>
ThinkTech was fortunate to interview Honolulu surgeon Brad Wong, leader of the Aloha Medical Mission, which arranged the trip. He shared his footage, and we made a movie for OC16. The story is powerful, and putting it together was a powerful experience. See OC16.tv and AlohaMedicalMission.org.</p>
<p>In the First World we're used to surgery by skilled surgeons who use high-tech operating rooms and equipment. Not so in Dhankuta and the developing world where this kind of surgery is unknown, unavailable and akin to cargo cult.
Namaste is a Hindu greeting. You put your hands together, tilt your head and greet someone in peace. When the mission arrived, that's what everyone in Dhankuta did, filling the town's one street for hours. It spoke volumes.
Nepalese are a graceful people with a notable purity of spirit. They were responsive and openly appreciative to people with the mission who came so far to help them. It was a coming together of cultures and participants; no further words required. The benefits were personal and fully reciprocal.
Members of the mission made good on their plan. They improved the lives of hundreds of people in Dhankuta. As patients were wheeled from the makeshift operating room (three tables), they whispered, "Thank you, thank you." Touching and healing by surgical hands has a lasting effect, inside and out.
The doctors and nurses who come overcome their fears. The mission is not a vacation, but a plunge into hard work that requires the courage to deal with deprivation and the respiratory and intestinal challenges of remote areas. They rediscover their medicine, unconstrained by big-city politics and risks that might have dampened their enthusiasm at home. Their testimonials are tearful and touching.
It's not every day we stumble into a transformation of the human spirit. They worked so hard, but the gift of it was enormous and transcendent. They are lucky to have found this experience, and we are lucky to have found them.
My hat's off to the mission. Hippocrates lives and so does our special aloha. The Aloha Medical Mission is proof again of the sometimes elusive but always essential human need to help others. It's a fine example of what we aspire to in Hawaii—education, health, tech, building a bridge to Asia and helping people.
Dhankuta won't be unreached forever—it's not unlike the areas in Zimbabwe and Afghanistan written up recently in The New York Times. By fits and starts, modern medicine is reaching these people, even if they have to pay for it with chickens. Once they've had it, can they ever again be satisfied with less?
The global flow of tech and medicine is to reach everywhere and be accessible to everyone. Modern medicine inevitably will come to Dhankuta, not only from organizations like Aloha Medical Mission, but also from its own locally trained health care workers. Cuba is known for practicing and teaching medicine in the developing world. Nepal and any country can have its own medical schools.
Dhankuta teaches us that among our health professionals there are people who are truly dedicated to reaching the unreached. They beckon us to go with them. If you accept, go soon and stay longer. If not, there's no reason why you can't join Aloha Medical Mission to help people right here in Hawaii.</p>
After all, namaste, like aloha, means more than just saying hello.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
Stand down, protestors, so isle can harness wind
ThinkTech in the StarAdvertiser on December 5, 2010
It's a great day to build a wind farm on Lanai.
Actually, every day is a great day to build a wind farm on Lanai.
There is a remote wind-swept area on the west side called Garden of the Gods. This could be the most productive source of wind in the state. Castle & Cooke, owner of Lanai, hopes to generate 400 megawatts there. Depending on the size of the windmills, this is between 100 and 200 windmills.
Once the undersea cable is built, it could deliver this power to the grid connecting Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai. Wind on Lanai is a visionary plan long held by David Murdock, owner of Castle & Cooke. To make it happen, you need a power-purchase agreement from Hawaiian Electric Co., approval by the state Public Utilities Commission, an environmental impact statement and a myriad of permits. These requirements are interdependent and challenging.
Although not legally required, and although it makes the project more complex, you would probably also want to get a buy-in from the people of Lanai. The hotel staff we spoke to were generally opposed to the project, but their opposition was based on misinformation. They didn't understand the project or its benefits. Nor had they thought about the troubling consequences of stopping it. The Friends of Lanai; oppose the project; they're setting their sights on the profits they say Murdock will make.
This project would not damage Lanai, but save it. Murdock's two hotels are losing millions each year. Occupancy is a fraction of what it is on other islands. So far, Murdock has covered those losses. But he's elderly, and when he can't continue, fiduciaries will step in. They will be less likely to cover the losses and more likely to close the hotels and sell the assets.
Without the hotels, there will be no jobs. Food and fuel on Lanai are expensive, and many if not most people will have to leave. The irony is that those who stay for the nostalgia will largely be the affluent who came from somewhere else and who have been so vociferous in opposing the project.
The people I talked with didn't understand the ghost of that Christmas future. They thought if they opposed the project, Murdock would have to continue the status quo, covering the losses, and that they could continue in their jobs and lives without disruption.
Not true. Although plant-closing laws could delay things a little, Murdock or the fiduciaries that follow him can close the hotels, and that'll be that. If the people of Lanai want to force that outcome, they'd be calling up a scenario that could trigger a disastrous result.
In a better Christmas future, the project goes ahead. Murdock's operations become sustainable. The hotels stay open, and the people of Lanai stay employed. Clean energy goes on the grid, and we wean ourselves off foreign oil. Lanai looks good. Hawaii looks good. What's not to like?
But things get twisted in the world of protest. First, protesters protested for clean energy. Now, new protesters protest against it. Can they please talk with the old protesters? We can't have one generation of protesters protesting against what the previous protesters supported.
The protesters don't want wind because they say Murdock won't let hunters shoot deer under the windmills. But the land they hunt on is Murdock's, and he could terminate their access any time. The people at the hotels don't factor this in. Maybe it's because most of them don't hunt.
Murdock, with all his legendary irascibility, has cared for and preserved Lanai. He has covered the losses and continued to operate the hotels. He has built a successful photovoltaic farm that shows that clean energy can work well on Lanai. But no good deed goes unpunished. This is a protest without a cause, a regrettable expression of the destructive separatism we sometimes see in the islands.
The gentle people of Lanai should reconsider. They should reject calls to action that would cost them so dearly. They should take a closer look at the energy future of our state. They should not bite the hand of noblesse oblige that would build a clean energy future for them and our state.
Perhaps the best answer is negotiated. Although the protesters are not entitled to demand a share of Murdock's return, I expect Murdock would negotiate a reduction in the cost of power or perhaps new recreational areas on the west end. You get so much more when you're realistic.
The world waits to hear what the people of Lanai will do. Will they risk the end of the chapter, or will they make Lanai a shining example of clean energy? The right thing seems clear.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on the tech and energy sectors of Hawaii's economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
It's a great day to build a wind farm on Lanai.
Actually, every day is a great day to build a wind farm on Lanai.
There is a remote wind-swept area on the west side called Garden of the Gods. This could be the most productive source of wind in the state. Castle & Cooke, owner of Lanai, hopes to generate 400 megawatts there. Depending on the size of the windmills, this is between 100 and 200 windmills.
Once the undersea cable is built, it could deliver this power to the grid connecting Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai. Wind on Lanai is a visionary plan long held by David Murdock, owner of Castle & Cooke. To make it happen, you need a power-purchase agreement from Hawaiian Electric Co., approval by the state Public Utilities Commission, an environmental impact statement and a myriad of permits. These requirements are interdependent and challenging.
Although not legally required, and although it makes the project more complex, you would probably also want to get a buy-in from the people of Lanai. The hotel staff we spoke to were generally opposed to the project, but their opposition was based on misinformation. They didn't understand the project or its benefits. Nor had they thought about the troubling consequences of stopping it. The Friends of Lanai; oppose the project; they're setting their sights on the profits they say Murdock will make.
This project would not damage Lanai, but save it. Murdock's two hotels are losing millions each year. Occupancy is a fraction of what it is on other islands. So far, Murdock has covered those losses. But he's elderly, and when he can't continue, fiduciaries will step in. They will be less likely to cover the losses and more likely to close the hotels and sell the assets.
Without the hotels, there will be no jobs. Food and fuel on Lanai are expensive, and many if not most people will have to leave. The irony is that those who stay for the nostalgia will largely be the affluent who came from somewhere else and who have been so vociferous in opposing the project.
The people I talked with didn't understand the ghost of that Christmas future. They thought if they opposed the project, Murdock would have to continue the status quo, covering the losses, and that they could continue in their jobs and lives without disruption.
Not true. Although plant-closing laws could delay things a little, Murdock or the fiduciaries that follow him can close the hotels, and that'll be that. If the people of Lanai want to force that outcome, they'd be calling up a scenario that could trigger a disastrous result.
In a better Christmas future, the project goes ahead. Murdock's operations become sustainable. The hotels stay open, and the people of Lanai stay employed. Clean energy goes on the grid, and we wean ourselves off foreign oil. Lanai looks good. Hawaii looks good. What's not to like?
But things get twisted in the world of protest. First, protesters protested for clean energy. Now, new protesters protest against it. Can they please talk with the old protesters? We can't have one generation of protesters protesting against what the previous protesters supported.
The protesters don't want wind because they say Murdock won't let hunters shoot deer under the windmills. But the land they hunt on is Murdock's, and he could terminate their access any time. The people at the hotels don't factor this in. Maybe it's because most of them don't hunt.
Murdock, with all his legendary irascibility, has cared for and preserved Lanai. He has covered the losses and continued to operate the hotels. He has built a successful photovoltaic farm that shows that clean energy can work well on Lanai. But no good deed goes unpunished. This is a protest without a cause, a regrettable expression of the destructive separatism we sometimes see in the islands.
The gentle people of Lanai should reconsider. They should reject calls to action that would cost them so dearly. They should take a closer look at the energy future of our state. They should not bite the hand of noblesse oblige that would build a clean energy future for them and our state.
Perhaps the best answer is negotiated. Although the protesters are not entitled to demand a share of Murdock's return, I expect Murdock would negotiate a reduction in the cost of power or perhaps new recreational areas on the west end. You get so much more when you're realistic.
The world waits to hear what the people of Lanai will do. Will they risk the end of the chapter, or will they make Lanai a shining example of clean energy? The right thing seems clear.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on the tech and energy sectors of Hawaii's economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
Use your talents to bring a 'new day' to the state
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on November 14, 2010
Don't let anyone fool you about the economy -- we have some very pressing economic problems, and we haven't yet addressed them. Actually, the election could not have come at a better time. The economy was central in the election and will be central in the administration to follow. We have lots of work to do.
Neil Abercrombie agrees.
His "I want you" ad in this week's paper was no less than inspiring. He says he's looking for exceptional public servants, including Cabinet leaders. They must be dedicated to advancing the New Day in Hawaii agenda, committed to building a sustainable economy, dedicated to creating strong communities, invested in Hawaii's people and able to work effectively with diverse communities. They also must have excellent work skills and be ready to face the political and the fiscal challenges in Hawaii today.
That's a great pitch to bring in applicants, and it's also a great profile for our public officials. Does this interest you? Would you change your life for public service? It's an ad and attitude we haven't seen before. It rings resonant, as an open call to "a few good men and women" to help him do the heavy lifting.
The ad shows that Abercrombie recognizes how important it is to populate his administration with our best talent. They will not only run the government, but will help reshape it. From the remarks he made at the ThinkTech-HVCA Agricultural Renaissance program last month, we can expect Abercrombie to provide not only resources, but also subject-matter experts who understand the projects that state agencies will be working on.
Amen. We need to do just that to build new sectors, companies and jobs and diversify into a more resilient economy. These things don't drop from heaven -- we have to provide an enabling environment for them. We have to remove political, bureaucratic and activist distractions that separate our government agencies from their duties to the public. This takes thoughtful, unwavering determination.
Where do we start? With new leaders for the agencies that hold the keys to business development -- DLNR, agriculture, transportation, tax, DCCA and DBEDT. These leaders will need to rationalize the rules and advocate for funding, resources and staff sufficient to achieve excellence. They will need to lie awake nights thinking of how they can make their agencies shine. It's no small task, but this is a New Day and Abercrombie should expect nothing less.
That's why it's important that the public and the media give our new governor fair elbow room to find great people and empower those people to reshape these agencies, loosen the constraints of the Lingle years and cultivate a new local confidence and creativity. It's all doable, with the right kind of leadership.
Think of what a Cabinet like this could achieve. State government could move ahead into a truly diversified economy that would play out way beyond the Abercrombie years. This Cabinet could define the economy of our state for decades to come and signal a new time and place in the world for Hawaii.
The ad asks those interested to apply at newdayhawaii.org. Review of applications will begin tomorrow. If you think you qualify, this could be a great time to do public service for the greater good and be part of the New Day in Hawaii. And filing an application is actually lots easier than running for office.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net. .
Don't let anyone fool you about the economy -- we have some very pressing economic problems, and we haven't yet addressed them. Actually, the election could not have come at a better time. The economy was central in the election and will be central in the administration to follow. We have lots of work to do.
Neil Abercrombie agrees.
His "I want you" ad in this week's paper was no less than inspiring. He says he's looking for exceptional public servants, including Cabinet leaders. They must be dedicated to advancing the New Day in Hawaii agenda, committed to building a sustainable economy, dedicated to creating strong communities, invested in Hawaii's people and able to work effectively with diverse communities. They also must have excellent work skills and be ready to face the political and the fiscal challenges in Hawaii today.
That's a great pitch to bring in applicants, and it's also a great profile for our public officials. Does this interest you? Would you change your life for public service? It's an ad and attitude we haven't seen before. It rings resonant, as an open call to "a few good men and women" to help him do the heavy lifting.
The ad shows that Abercrombie recognizes how important it is to populate his administration with our best talent. They will not only run the government, but will help reshape it. From the remarks he made at the ThinkTech-HVCA Agricultural Renaissance program last month, we can expect Abercrombie to provide not only resources, but also subject-matter experts who understand the projects that state agencies will be working on.
Amen. We need to do just that to build new sectors, companies and jobs and diversify into a more resilient economy. These things don't drop from heaven -- we have to provide an enabling environment for them. We have to remove political, bureaucratic and activist distractions that separate our government agencies from their duties to the public. This takes thoughtful, unwavering determination.
Where do we start? With new leaders for the agencies that hold the keys to business development -- DLNR, agriculture, transportation, tax, DCCA and DBEDT. These leaders will need to rationalize the rules and advocate for funding, resources and staff sufficient to achieve excellence. They will need to lie awake nights thinking of how they can make their agencies shine. It's no small task, but this is a New Day and Abercrombie should expect nothing less.
That's why it's important that the public and the media give our new governor fair elbow room to find great people and empower those people to reshape these agencies, loosen the constraints of the Lingle years and cultivate a new local confidence and creativity. It's all doable, with the right kind of leadership.
Think of what a Cabinet like this could achieve. State government could move ahead into a truly diversified economy that would play out way beyond the Abercrombie years. This Cabinet could define the economy of our state for decades to come and signal a new time and place in the world for Hawaii.
The ad asks those interested to apply at newdayhawaii.org. Review of applications will begin tomorrow. If you think you qualify, this could be a great time to do public service for the greater good and be part of the New Day in Hawaii. And filing an application is actually lots easier than running for office.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net. .
Hawaii needs to invest in its own energy future
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on October 24, 2010
More and more, Hawaii's natural energy resources will be developed not by utility companies, but by energy entrepreneurs.
Because our energy resources have become so famous, offshore interests see Hawaii as the Energy State and are coming here to develop them. In the process, we often treat those interests more favorably than our own.
Is energy the new tech industry we've been waiting for? No, not really. Make no mistake: Energy is not tech although it certainly consumes tech. Tech generates intellectual property; energy generates energy. And most of the capital for energy projects is coming from offshore, leaving us more as installers and early adopters than as principals and stewards.
We may be tempted to let global interests like First Wind do the heavy lifting for the development of our energy resources, but that's too easy.
We should learn from them and emulate what they do, but we should focus on developing a local industry with local companies like Sopogy.
The first thing we do is raise local capital. Hawaii did not invest much capital in tech, and so far it's not investing much capital in energy. Not Kamehameha Schools nor the state Employees' Retirement System nor the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has made any significant cash investment in energy development.
Of course, homeowners invest in their solar rooftops, but the big money is still coming in from far away, and you can be sure the profits will go back to where that came from.
In five years we'll be known around the world for our natural energy projects. But who will own these projects?
This requires a hard look, and soon. In varying degrees, both candidates promise energy development, so chances are we'll have some action soon after inauguration.
Despite our dour economy, that action should funnel local money into local energy and do the job Act 221 was intended to do. We're at a tipping point, and a squander would be tragically irreversible.
On Dec. 16 the state's Strategic Development Corp. will hold a symposium on best practices in state-supported entrepreneurial development programs, namely from Ohio, Oklahoma and Kansas.
We can only wish it well and hope it encourages local entrepreneurs and legislative action that will provide capital and incentivize investment.
Is it too much to ask that we take the reins and the risks and invest in our own future? For the lack of investment, we haven't reached critical mass in local tech. Let's do better with energy. Let's build our own windmill farms and geothermal plants and keep the profits at home.
Exactly why can't we organize a people's investment fund to invest in our own energy projects, as is clearly the case in so many other places? Or would we prefer to let the other guy, the offshore investor, have the field?
If we find there's no big local money here that will invest in energy, then what about small local money? I believe there's a pent-up demand for a popular fund that would invest in energy, and if someone found a way through the securities laws, the public would be eager to participate.
Even the public knows by now that energy is critical to the economy and has enormous value.
Surely, we can find a way to keep the $7 billion we've been sending away for foreign oil. Or have we completely lost it?
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
Hard Economic Times will Try New Leaders
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on September 12, 2010
In the ThinkTech-Hawaii Venture Capital Association recovery and transformation program last month, developer Dick Gushman spoke of the extraordinary changes in Hawaii's leadership. He listed 22 major leadership changes, including new leaders in the big banks, the three utilities, Alexander & Baldwin, the James Campbell Co. and Kamehameha Schools, University of Hawaii, Chaminade, Hawaii Pacific University and the Department of Education. Many are from elsewhere.
Soon enough, we'll elect a new governor, lieutenant governor, Honolulu mayor, legislators and a congressional representative. We just got a new chief justice, and there will be changes in the Hawaiian organizations, Kamehameha Schools, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It's also statistically likely we'll have a new senator in the next few years.
As Gushman said, the scope and velocity of these changes is unprecedented, and their cumulative effect will be complex. It's clear that we live in transitional times, and that this new generation of leaders will inherit the burdens and baggage we have accrued, and they will be tested as few before them.
We need to move to self-reliance in energy and food, but those initiatives also have their costs. Clean energy requires improvements to the grid, arguably including a billion-dollar undersea cable. Diversified agriculture requires irrigation infrastructure and costly incentives to encourage farmers.
Where are our new leaders going to find this money? Just as we've never had such a plenary transition in state leadership, we've never had such a convergence in financial demand. It's the perfect storm, and they're going to have to come up with some great solutions to re-energize our mono-economy.
Tax incentives or not, they're going to have to broaden the private sector to rebuild the tax base and pay these costs. And they're going to have to find a way to dramatically reduce the price of housing so our three-job work force will be left with some disposable income and won't wind up on the beach.
They'll need to find a way to build diversified agriculture when landowners and banks are reluctant to provide land and loans to farmers. They'll need to get the public to invest in clean energy even if it costs more than oil costs, and to buy local produce even when big boxes sell offshore produce at a fraction of the price.
These new leaders can either take us through the storm or put us on the rocks. They'll need a white-hot focus on both diversification and discipline. They'll need to be towers of strength and clarity faithful to the common good, and remind us daily of where we're going, even if the voyage is painful.
If Dick Gushman's new leaders can do that, they'll be heroes in a new chapter for Hawaii. If not, we'd all better learn to live on the beach. A good conversation was started at the recovery and transformation program, and we must hope they will work with each other to address the gauntlet of these complexities. That program, including Gushman's wake-up keynote, will be available on thinktechhawaii.com and olelo.org.
ThinkTech in the Star-Advertiser on August 22, 2010
Clean Energy Summit will Showcase Hawaii
Although it may have caught us by surprise, there's a significant tech event coming Aug. 30 through Sept. 2: the Asia-Pacific Clean Energy Summit at the Hawai'i Convention Center.
In 2009 the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism's inaugural summit attracted 800 people from 14 countries and Pacific islands. Some considered it a modest success. Others felt it was a platform built for the governor to crow about her 2008 Clean Energy Initiative.
This year the summit is more ambitious. DBEDT has outsourced management to CTSI, a mainland energy "coordinator" charging from $395 to $1,095 for admission. It's designed to appeal to heavy hitters in Washington and the Pacific and to lead to "partnerships" among industry, government and utilities.
The top speakers are a who's who, including Gov. Linda Lingle, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye and VIP officials from the Department of Energy and the Navy, with a myriad of energy executives and policymakers from Hawaii, the Pacific and the mainland. There are 125 in all, populating two courses, five tracks and multiple keynotes.
Going in, DBEDT and CTSI are optimistic that the program will go beyond gubernatorial legacy bites and that the payload for Hawaii will be tangible. But do we really need mainland management? Maybe, if it helps us get the VIPs and visitors in the door to exchange with local entrepreneurs and students.
They want it to be an exhibition for technology and a showcase for Hawaii as a melting pot for clean energy. Despite expectations, it's not yet clear that 2010 will exceed 2009 -- this is an election year and the events calendar is bristling.
Last week, Darren Kimura's Energy Industries Corp. was awarded an energy efficiency retrofitting contract by a large packing plant in Oregon. This is all part of Kimura's plan to bring Hawaii energy to the world.
And it's what DBEDT Energy Administrator Ted Peck means when he talks about making Hawaii an energy model for the world. We have the resources, so what we need to do is get the world to think of us as a global leader.
That's why the summit holds so much promise. It means that the world might beat a path to our door for our energy expertise and development experience, not just for sand and surf. These energy ideas could be a lucrative export.
The summit is perfect for a Hawaii-based global event, and like APEC that's what Hawaii needs, much more than endgame political rhetoric. It can help us get connected and respected. The networking, like that at meetings of the Pacific Telecommunications Council, could be worth its weight in gold.
We know we're behind where we wanted to be by 2010. And although no one seriously expects brilliant energy deals and investments to spring right out of the first cocktail party, there is the possibility that will happen.
The energy bell is ringing, so let's all plan to go down to the Convention Center and see what we can do. It's not only for the benefit of those who show up; it's for the future of the summit itself, as an event that could continue and prosper under administrations and generations yet to be born.
Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii's tech and energy sectors of the economy. He can be reached at fidell@lava.net.
ThinkTech in the Honolulu Advertiser on June 6, 2010
Coming to terms with a one paper town
After decades of speculation as to which daily would survive, tomorrow the Star-Advertiser will be "it," and will inherit the circulation of both. It will be a broadsheet, and will in that way remind us of The Advertiser, rest its soul.
Most people don't treat information as news unless it's from a newspaper, the kind you can spread out under your elbows like a ritual box of chocolates with your morning coffee. Your friend and adviser, it helps you plunge into your day.
Despite the iPad and its ilk, it's not clear that people will go online for their dose of daily news. For many, the net means e-mail, research and shopping, but not necessarily news. They'll go to the Star-Advertiser, or just give up.
EARNING OUR TRUST
The wolves of backwater are always lapping at Hawai'i's door. Crossing the Rubicon to a one-daily town brings them closer. But it's also an opportunity for the surviving paper, and us, to come together as never before in a trust relationship where readers and writers develop new levels of engagement.
Will the Star-Advertiser be worthy of that trust? Hawai'i has so much work to do, and it's hard to organize and promote important initiatives in our state without the support of the press. Put another way, the press can scuttle an initiative with one strident editorial. People trust the printed word, and that makes a newspaper powerful. The power of a single daily is greater still.
We live in interesting times, with a myriad of unresolved problems eating our prospects. As in the case of the frog, the gradual boil of this deterioration is deadly. To escape the dangers of stalemate and complacency, the public needs to have thoughtful, well-founded opinions. That's where the press comes in.
Our community lives in the pages of the press. It gives us the information and feedback by which each of us can have a kind of oversight of public affairs and a fair place where we and our leaders can meet, and they can see what we're thinking. It's hard to overestimate the power and benefit of that process.
UNSETTLING LOSS
In a two-paper town, one looks across the street to see what the other is doing, and reporting, a kind of checks and balances. That's the nature of competition and invidious comparison. It's not the same, however, in a one-paper town.
What would have happened had there been only one paper when the Advertiser declined to print Broken Trust? The revelations reported would not have come out; the abuses found might not have been addressed. But it's the way things work — the probability of publication decreases with the number of papers.
The possibilities for other transformational journalism are endless, and the levels of trust and power we repose in our newspapers are still critical to our society. That's why the loss of one of two dailies in Hawai'i is so unsettling.
With two papers, competition in the industry keeps the fire going. With one, the survivor is in charge. You want to submit a letter or op-ed piece? If the Star-Advertiser doesn't take it, you're out of luck. Who do you complain to?
A FEW SUGGESTIONS
Let's have more articles like Broken Trust. We should encourage investigative reporting and public commentaries. We should go behind press releases. We should continue to e-mail and post stories on the paper's website. We should not accept anonymous online comments — they're a license for tastelessness.
The paper doesn't have to be loaded with crime and sports and wire services. The news most people want from a local paper is local news, good and bad. Of course, we'd like to see more in-depth reporting on tech and economic issues.
If the paper finds that it's losing money, tell us. It just may be that the public would be willing to pay more for a copy or a subscription to keep our last daily running. Who knows, that approach might have saved the Advertiser.
Make old stories accessible to the public, forever and for free. This would be a great service for the public, other journalists and for the kids in school. With today's search technology it's not expensive. Leave the classifieds to Craigslist.
So here on the cusp of a one-paper town, we can be sad but perhaps also optimistic. Farewell to the Advertiser and good luck to the Star-Advertiser. This will be a new journey for all of us, and God bless us all in the transition.
ThinkTech in the Honolulu Advertiser on May 23, 2010
Transportation woes hurt our island state
Hawai'i's troubled transportation system is standing in the way of a recovery. Without good transportation, our Islands are becoming more isolated and our economy more frustrated.
We don't have the benefit of contiguous counties or states. Our island configuration is unique and remote. Years ago, this was charming. Now, it's a challenge we need to meet.
Getting around always requires energy. The governor's clean-energy initiative has lost its priority in the recession, and we're way off schedule. This loss of momentum has slowed down advances we might have made in energy for transportation.
INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS
A destination resort island state needs to give good welcome to its visitors. Here, too, we're in crisis. Honolulu International, as everyone knows, is embarrassing. It's out of date and badly maintained. It needs an overhaul, but don't hold your breath.
Hawai'i is dependent on tourism. Tourism is dependent on transportation. Hawai'i therefore depends on transportation. As transportation costs increase, tourism decreases, shrinking our jobs, businesses and tax base — the price of dependency.
With oil up, it's no surprise that Japan carriers have reduced their flights to Hawai'i. Kudos to Mazie Hirono for organizing a new route to Haneda, but where are the China flights Linda Lingle promised us? The Chinese travel everywhere, but not here. Without them, our tourism economy will continue to slip.
INTERISLAND BARRIERS
Interisland air travel is more expensive than we can afford. Clearly, this is related to Aloha's demise and the fact that we now have only one major airline. Fuel surcharges keep getting tacked on to marine cargo costs, but never seem to come off.
Any increase in transportation costs makes prices and the cost of living higher everywhere in the state. Sure, a quart of milk costs more, but it's not only the milk — it's everything. The quality of our lives is affected on a daily basis by those prices. This is worse for people with low-paying jobs or with no jobs.
Medical specialists are leaving the Neighbor Islands at an alarming rate, so an aging population now has to travel to O'ahu for routine care. The formidable cost of those trips drives health costs way up. Can't we give them a break?
MEMORIES OF SUPERFERRY
The Superferry was a visionary idea calculated to bring the state together, giving us logistics we never had before. You could take your car, family, pets and plants. Everyone, especially farmers, could go to market at a fraction of the barge.
Coastal and island states everywhere have ferries. One would have expected our state officials to develop a statewide ferry system decades ago, but they could never do it. When private enterprise did it, those officials couldn't find a way to save it.
Someday, the enormity of losing the Superferry will dawn on us. We need a ferry again, but we don't have one, and we won't have one, and for the lack of it we're steadily slipping into a kind of transportation abyss. The interisland gap is widening.
ON THE GROUND
Demographics have doubled, but our roads certainly haven't. We need timed lights, traffic sensors, automated lanes and smart intersections. Rail won't do this for us. It will serve Kapolei, but most people don't live there, and rail won't help them. The billions would be better spent in traffic technology.
After they leave the airport, what will Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation heads of state think when their motorcades are engulfed in the flash jams paralyzing our roads? Will our transportation systems give them confidence in Hawai'i? Flowers on Nimitz won't help.
But the Hele-On bus system under Mayor Billy Kenoi on the Big Island is a breath of fresh air. It's free, and reflects a caring and kindness for riders, many of whom need to travel long distances to low-paying jobs. We should make it statewide.
Government has shown it is not adept at building transportation. The key is creative privatization where a right-of-way is leased to a contractor who arranges financing and recoups the cost through invisible tolls. This is happening on the Mainland, Europe and China.
A BETTER SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
These transportation issues distance the Islands and make us less cohesive and less effective as a state. How can our people achieve their potential if getting around isn't easy and cheap?
As with other infrastructure, we have not attended to our transportation systems. The resulting crisis constrains our ability to get to work and build the state's economy. As an island state, we need to catch up if we hope to compete in a world that demands new levels of mobility and logistics.
Honolulu will spend tons of money to look good for APEC, but we need to do more than showboat Waikīkī for one event. We need a heads-up statewide transportation system that is world-class and worthy, not only for heads of state but all of us. At this point, we need to put the pedal down for transportation.
We don't have the benefit of contiguous counties or states. Our island configuration is unique and remote. Years ago, this was charming. Now, it's a challenge we need to meet.
Getting around always requires energy. The governor's clean-energy initiative has lost its priority in the recession, and we're way off schedule. This loss of momentum has slowed down advances we might have made in energy for transportation.
INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS
A destination resort island state needs to give good welcome to its visitors. Here, too, we're in crisis. Honolulu International, as everyone knows, is embarrassing. It's out of date and badly maintained. It needs an overhaul, but don't hold your breath.
Hawai'i is dependent on tourism. Tourism is dependent on transportation. Hawai'i therefore depends on transportation. As transportation costs increase, tourism decreases, shrinking our jobs, businesses and tax base — the price of dependency.
With oil up, it's no surprise that Japan carriers have reduced their flights to Hawai'i. Kudos to Mazie Hirono for organizing a new route to Haneda, but where are the China flights Linda Lingle promised us? The Chinese travel everywhere, but not here. Without them, our tourism economy will continue to slip.
INTERISLAND BARRIERS
Interisland air travel is more expensive than we can afford. Clearly, this is related to Aloha's demise and the fact that we now have only one major airline. Fuel surcharges keep getting tacked on to marine cargo costs, but never seem to come off.
Any increase in transportation costs makes prices and the cost of living higher everywhere in the state. Sure, a quart of milk costs more, but it's not only the milk — it's everything. The quality of our lives is affected on a daily basis by those prices. This is worse for people with low-paying jobs or with no jobs.
Medical specialists are leaving the Neighbor Islands at an alarming rate, so an aging population now has to travel to O'ahu for routine care. The formidable cost of those trips drives health costs way up. Can't we give them a break?
MEMORIES OF SUPERFERRY
The Superferry was a visionary idea calculated to bring the state together, giving us logistics we never had before. You could take your car, family, pets and plants. Everyone, especially farmers, could go to market at a fraction of the barge.
Coastal and island states everywhere have ferries. One would have expected our state officials to develop a statewide ferry system decades ago, but they could never do it. When private enterprise did it, those officials couldn't find a way to save it.
Someday, the enormity of losing the Superferry will dawn on us. We need a ferry again, but we don't have one, and we won't have one, and for the lack of it we're steadily slipping into a kind of transportation abyss. The interisland gap is widening.
ON THE GROUND
Demographics have doubled, but our roads certainly haven't. We need timed lights, traffic sensors, automated lanes and smart intersections. Rail won't do this for us. It will serve Kapolei, but most people don't live there, and rail won't help them. The billions would be better spent in traffic technology.
After they leave the airport, what will Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation heads of state think when their motorcades are engulfed in the flash jams paralyzing our roads? Will our transportation systems give them confidence in Hawai'i? Flowers on Nimitz won't help.
But the Hele-On bus system under Mayor Billy Kenoi on the Big Island is a breath of fresh air. It's free, and reflects a caring and kindness for riders, many of whom need to travel long distances to low-paying jobs. We should make it statewide.
Government has shown it is not adept at building transportation. The key is creative privatization where a right-of-way is leased to a contractor who arranges financing and recoups the cost through invisible tolls. This is happening on the Mainland, Europe and China.
A BETTER SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
These transportation issues distance the Islands and make us less cohesive and less effective as a state. How can our people achieve their potential if getting around isn't easy and cheap?
As with other infrastructure, we have not attended to our transportation systems. The resulting crisis constrains our ability to get to work and build the state's economy. As an island state, we need to catch up if we hope to compete in a world that demands new levels of mobility and logistics.
Honolulu will spend tons of money to look good for APEC, but we need to do more than showboat Waikīkī for one event. We need a heads-up statewide transportation system that is world-class and worthy, not only for heads of state but all of us. At this point, we need to put the pedal down for transportation.
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on May 9, 2010
State should sell land to ease budget woes
The state is our largest landholder. If land isn't owned privately, federally or by the counties, it's owned by the state, which tends to hold it forever. Most of this state land lies fallow and doesn't contribute anything to the tax base.
There are 6,400 square miles of land in Hawai'i. It's time to take stock of unused public lands, and it's probably time to start selling some. They're selling state land in states like California and island states like Singapore. Why shouldn't we?
IMPROVe ECONOMY The recession makes us ask how we can raise money to balance our tenuous budget. Given the inexorable deterioration of tourism and our tragic failure to diversify, the sale of state land could be a magic bullet and our only way out.
It's more than a fiscal matter. Hawai'i's real estate market is disconnected from its people, who can't afford to buy or even rent. They go homeless. Businesses can't afford to take space or grow. The cost of occupancy is simply too high.
On an island, land is a scarce commodity, and scarcity pushes up prices. With more land in the market, prices would be moderated.
So if the state doesn't need some of this land and its sale would improve the economy, why doesn't the state sell it?
But what land to sell? You inventory everything, then exclude private land, county land, federal land, ceded and cultural land, conservation land, agricultural land and land otherwise unmarketable. What's left is what we're talking about.
Past RESISTANCE The state has traditionally had a hard time selling land. Officials don't want to be blamed for squandering the "public trust" by those who expect them to hold on to everything. Remember the uproar about the Alexander & Baldwin Kaka'ako condo project?
Because the monarchy owned everything doesn't make it right. Government doesn't have to own the land to do good government. That might have been defensible in the 19th century, but like the gold standard it's no longer useful.
Holding all this land is neither realistic nor appropriate. This is the 21st century and it's time for government to move ahead. The state should not be sitting on unused and marketable assets that could be used to improve our economy.
NO DOWNSIDE There's no downside in selling. You can worry about losing the land bank effect of state ownership, but the state can always condemn or, for that matter, reserve rights to buy it back. It's not as if the state can't get land when it needs it.
Some people might be concerned that this land would wind up in the hands of buyers from out of state or from other countries. But such buyers have been buying Hawai'i land for decades.
There's absolutely nothing new about that.
The solution is to dispose of land in bite-sized pieces and not in big parcels. That would make it more difficult to assemble land into large holdings, which is exactly where we want to go — more land for the little guy, as in other places.
Make deals The state should not handle these deals in-house. We have well-developed real estate brokerage, property management, escrow and title companies. We have legal, accounting, insurance, banking and design professionals, and contractors and workers waiting to help. Think of all the people who would be kept busy.
First, we need a careful inventory. This could be done on contract.
The state could then decide what land to offer and list it with brokers, as you and I would. The state might also try some less conventional ideas, like Internet auctions.
Buyers could find financing, but to incentivize them the state could self-finance by taking back mortgages or other security instruments and get higher interest than it does on state bonds. That interest would be another source of revenue.
DLNR already has statutory authority to dispose of state land. The procurement code may need changes to expedite selection of brokers and escrows, but we don't need a Constitutional Convention or an act of Congress to get things going.
DLNR has been offering leases of random parcels to raise money to repair state recreational facilities. That's a good beginning, but to cover the ground we've got a long way to go, in the sale of unimproved fee-simple land and in creative long-term leasing and monetization of other marketable state properties.
IT'S TIME Sooner or later, we'll need land reform to break down larger holdings into smaller ones.
Campbell has sold its land, Brewer has sold its land and Dole is about to sell its land. We are in a transition, and the direction is to smaller, kinder landholders.
The benefits of selling unused state land are huge — the state gets the proceeds and improves its tax base. As land is added into the system, the leasing market is moderated, new properties are developed, new housing, businesses and jobs are created, and the economy is thus revitalized. So what's not to like?
This could be a great equalization, a democratization of ownership, even a new mahele. Sure it'll be an issue for those who feel the state should hold on to every inch, but at this point in our economy, what would you rather do? Gambling?
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on April 25, 2010
AQUACULTURE IS THE NEW ACTIVIST TARGET
Some say aquaculture is Hawai'i's next great sector, growing fish to provide us with food security, jobs and tax revenues for the state. The market is assured because the oceans can't meet world demand. Others say aquaculture will be the next whipping boy for the activists who are determined to bring it down.
Why would activists target such a promising new industry, especially where Hawai'i has lost self-sufficiency and imports 90 percent of its seafood? Maybe it's because the activists, like everyone else, are suffering in the recession, and desperate times call for desperate causes.
Activism is an industry dedicated not to building things, but stopping them. As others, activists have to pay for office space, staff, lawyers and PR. To pay their bills, they have to identify with causes. Old causes are old hat — they need fresh controversies to raise fresh money. No cause, no protest, no money.
TARGET OF CONVENIENCE
Aquaculture seems like a good target. Startups have to run the gauntlet and bear lengthy delays in dealing with government. Activists know that this burns capital and decimates cash. They know how hard it is for startups to raise capital in Hawai'i. In desperate times, aquaculture is all the more vulnerable.
The activists don't know much about aquaculture, so they've connected with Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit in Washington and San Francisco. It's a multi-million dollar organization with 65 employees. It's big business.
FWW attacks Starbucks and water bottlers because they use water, a public resource, to make a profit. They also oppose aquaculture nationally. Hawai'i is a perfect laboratory for aquaculture and thus for FWW. If aquaculture can be stopped here, it can be stopped across the country, mission accomplished.
PITCHED BATTLE OF WEBSITES
The result is lots of protest — blogs, websites, brochures, bulk mail, fuming letters to the editor, "embargoed" reports, and over-the-top press releases. It's a full-tilt campaign to scare the public with stories of evil corporations spilling tons of GMOs, pernicious antibiotics and toxic chemicals into the ocean.
Those stories, like Avatar, are untrue.
Then add regular appearances at government meetings and moratorium bills by suggestible legislators. The activists want their new aquaculture cause to resonate with earlier ones against GMOs and Superferry, telescopes and geothermal. For 2010, aquaculture is the cause of the day.
The activists attacking aquaculture are professionals who have been involved in every cause you can think of, from Kingdom Title forward. With help from FWW, their new alliance is Pono Aquaculture, but the players are the same few people and organizations that have been protesting causes in Hawai'i for years.
MISSTATEMENTS GALORE
From a factual point of view, the FWW attack on aquaculture is unbridled. In many ways, its hostility surpasses that of the Superferry opponents. Perhaps that's because there is less to support it. Instead of a reasoned conversation, we get exaggerations, misstatements, mischaracterizations, and lots of name calling.
After working to slow down and undermine the aquaculture sector on every level, they claim "factory fish farming" is unprofitable and failing. There it is — first you create misfortune for your adversary, and then you criticize him for it.
Beyond that, they tap into our local culture to sell their cause to people who are disaffected, fabricating an array of arguments for the proposition that aquaculture, which has long been designated as a top priority in our state policy, now somehow violates exclusive native Hawaiian fishing rights.
MEDIA VULNERABILITY
We can't run a state if we take our signals from those who are opposed to virtually everything. We need to know science and do critical thinking. We need someone to regularly investigate the facts and inform an unwary public.
Unfortunately, the media does not always do this. That's not fair to the readers. Activist organizations try to foment public opposition using the media. If the media takes everything they say at face value without further inquiry, you can be sure the public will be misinformed. If the media doesn't do critical thinking to identify misinformation, who will?
HAWAII, THE CONSUMER STATE
By not developing aquaculture, we have no food security and we're spending almost as much buying foreign fish as buying foreign oil. As an island state, we should have the best ferry system in the world. We should also have the best aquaculture in the world. We don't. There's no good reason for that.
For their own agenda, the activists are ignoring state policy and creating an imbalance that is not fair or pono. The sooner our officials realize this, the sooner the imbalance can be corrected and we can catch up. Short of that, we're headed for backwater, where we really will need those ancient fishponds.
In Hawai'i, it's been politically incorrect to argue with activists. If the majority cares about our future, they'll have to speak out. Democracy is more than anti-policy imposed by a militant few. A passive majority is the ultimate complicity.
Will aquaculture be the next Superferry? You decide.
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on April 11, 2010
We need some tech staying power
Venture capitalist Jeff Au recently did a video on ThinkTech. He recalled the sad story of 221 in the Lingle years. See ThinkTechHawaii.com for the video. From him, it sounds like we've lost our way in those years.
Calls to Action have recently been circulated reporting that SB 2401 and SB 2001 might be passed. If SB 2401 is passed, investors won't be able to claim remnant 221 credits until 2013. If SB 2001 passes, 221 will be repealed May 1 even though it doesn't expire until Dec. 31. Have we forgotten the promises that 221 would be permitted to run its course?
SCR 173 is an effort to remind the Legislature that it will have to fund the Energy Administrator office at DBEDT when the temporary federal funds being used for that purpose will expire. Have we forgotten the promise of the Clean Energy Initiative that was so important to everyone in 2008?
After the sound bites, we've had a short attention span for information technology, life sciences, innovation economy and even clean energy, losing interest in each in turn. We fail to insist on what was promised, dooming ourselves to an eternal repetition worthy of Sisyphus himself.
PETITE MADELEINE
In "Remembrance of Things Past," Marcel Proust, a French writer in the 19th century, found that certain experiences (tasting a French breakfast roll called a Petite Madeleine) let him drill down into the details of his past. We should use similar mnemonics to remember what we hoped to do before. Dopamine drugs are not necessary; common sense will do.
Working at it, perhaps we could recapture JABSOM II and Ed Cadman's medical research campus at Kaka'ako, with KS's Asia Pacific Innovation Center and the Bio-Safety Laboratory and the Cancer Research Center that were planned there. We should press for completion on every one.
The biggest lapse of all is that we forgot the need for planned economic diversification. It was visionary before the Lingle years, but has died a slow twisting death since then. We've forgotten the hope that it offered and frankly we've frittered away the first decade of the new century.
RELENTLESS CHANGE
Like it or not, our state economy is always changing. Some sectors get stronger and others get weaker, sometimes without rhyme, reason or economic benefit. An unplanned economy evolves at random and leads to risky prospects for the future. In the 21st century, we can do better.
Some say the Legislature has become a separate industry, occupying nearly everyone for five months a year. And state government is really our largest sector, with more workers than we can afford, regulating us more than any free society can endure. Adding to that a burgeoning activist industry, where a handful of people can stop nearly anything, gives us "Hawai'i, the state that says no." Wall Street is not unaware.
We've all but forgotten that a high-tech industry does R&D, creates IP, hires Ph.D.s, then licenses or exports its IP and products for big bucks. Although it requires capital, this growth can be logarithmic and return huge profits. Ignoring that, we've fixed on a tourism land-based mono-economy under the uninspiring rubric of "just do what you're best at," which roughly translated means "good citizens stick with hospitality."
Thus uninspired, Hawai'i is defining itself as a minimum-wage state with a declining tax base that still wants to be invidiously affluent but can't come close to making ends meet. It's not a pretty picture.
FIRST, A DREAM
ThinkTech will deal with these disparities in its "Recovery 101 — Serious Solutions for a Troubled Economy" panel program Aug. 25.
The lack of support the tech community has had from government has in some ways made it stronger. The bond between tech and business filled the room at Oceanit's 25th anniversary party April 2. We need more companies like Oceanit, and we need more celebrations like that one.
Jim Kelly wrote a nice piece about roadmaps in last week's paper, and yes we'll need a fresh roadmap to get where we should be going. We'll need candidates who dream in tech, and we'll need to remember their dreams and promises, especially in election years.
Let's not forget the exuberance we had about diversification before the Lingle administration threw cold water on it. Let's support today's kids and make them great entrepreneurs. Let's invest everything we have and adopt all the incentives we can to show them how essential they are.
After a walk down memory lane, let's refresh our enthusiasm for a better future, starting right now, or at least sometime before the election. Only candidates who favor tech and have good memories need apply.
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on March 28, 2010
BIG BROTHER HAS HELP IN WATCHING ALL OF US
School officials in Pennsylvania gave laptops to 1,800 students, then used them to remotely spy on the students at home. This resulted in a class action alleging that the officials violated the Fourth Amendment, among other things.
The "laptopgate" officials all undoubtedly swore to uphold the Constitution, then roundly violated it. What they did is outrageous, but we should also be concerned about the technology that is enabling these attacks on our privacy.
RISE OF SURVEILLANCE
The Information Age has punched holes in that privacy. Did you notice how many street cameras were in play while we waited for the elusive tsunami last month? In the end, the news was not so much the wave as the technology.
Author Shane Harris recently wrote a book called "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State." He says spying on our own citizens has become increasingly easy, legal and central in our national security strategy.
Remember the movie "Sliver," a 1993 Sharon Stone and Alex Baldwin movie about a criminal-type landlord who wires a whole building and does video eavesdropping on his tenants. That would be easier now, with wireless.
And remember "Lives of Others," a 2006 film dealing with the surveillance of a writer's apartment by the Stasi, the East German Secret Police, in the dark years before the Berlin Wall came down. Are we now returning to the future?
UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGY
Terrorism has accelerated surveillance. If there weren't enough cameras on the streets before 9/11, there are a lot more today. Look at London, New York and so many other cities around the world. Business is booming for suppliers.
Today's cameras are high resolution. They shoot 360 degrees in color, low light and infrared. They are digital, wireless, durable and tamper-proof. They are programmable with remote pan-tilt-zoom. They lurk in opaque domes, along with speakers and microphones. They have software for data retrieval, and for tracking and facial recognition. James Bond would be impressed.
You could walk across a city of these and be followed block by block, handed off from camera to camera, always under surveillance. It's all in the software, and the software is more sophisticated and intrusive every time you look.
Hawai'i is no stranger to this. We have cameras for traffic, surf and security in Chinatown (they helped deal with the gangland violence last year). The police like them, citizens like them, and some neighborhood boards demand them.
INVASIVE MINiATURIZATION
Better surveillance cameras are being developed every day. Fear of terrorism has given government the most powerful electronics ever devised to intrude into our lives. Also troubling is that they are easily available to the public.
The Internet has revolutionized the security industry, which is expanding by leaps and bounds. These cameras are for sale at big box stores. Anyone can buy them, and given their easy availability and cost, there is no reason not to. Many Web sites candidly offer them for "spying," and that's what they do.
The resulting coverage goes beyond the streets, and also beyond sensitive facilities like government offices, bases, schools, hospitals and airports. New and more unobtrusive cameras are being installed anywhere and everywhere.
You can buy "pinhole" cameras on the Net — Google "surveillance equipment." But so can the bad guys, and there's been a rash of prosecutions against jerks who pushed them through walls to spy on people. Should sales be regulated?
PRIVACY IS GONE
with the wind George Orwell's Big Brother has come of age since 1984, and with current high tech equipment he's been watching us as never before. What's ironic is that we are finding that Big Brother is not only government — these days, he's all of us.
How does being watched affect the quality of our lives? You can argue that only terrorists and criminals would protest, but the reality is that none of us has the same privacy we had before. This does not bode well for a free society.
The Patriot Act has again been renewed. Last month, Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit wrote a blistering dissent against the court's refusal to rehear U.S. v. Lemus, a warrantless residential search and seizure case. He lamented that "the Fourth Amendment is gone — welcome to the fish bowl."
Technology changes our world, and the effects are not always desirable. Could school officials in Hawai'i make the same mistake as those in Pennsylvania? Should we be watching our children by remote control? Or should we focus instead on teaching them about the importance of the Fourth Amendment?
After all, one day they could be school officials too.
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on March 7, 2010
LOOKING AT THE FUTURE OF NEWS
The owner of the Star-Bulletin is buying the Advertiser, and now it's anyone's guess what will happen. This is symptomatic of the decline of newspapers.
Now that we may have a one-horse newspaper town, it's time to take a closer look at the migration of news to the Net. As if on cue, ThinkTech and others are presenting NewsMorphosis on March 18. (www.Thinktechhawaii.com)
In a print paper, editors vet the news. This is not so on the Net, where there are legions of more liberated sources, including untrained citizen journalists. Will their copy be properly readable, reliable and responsible?
AUTOMATED EDITORS
Given advances in programming over recent years, there's no question that we have the technology to create automated editors to choose the news for us.
Can we be confident about automated news editors? Can automated editors separate fact from fiction in a world of disinformation? Can they understand right from wrong and impose journalistic ethics?
The success of any editor, human or automated, is a function of the quality of the original data, the sources of hard news. As newspapers decline, so do the sources of hard news. This is doubly troubling.
It's one thing to edit straight news stories, but it's another to make judgments about opinions, editorials and commentaries. How should these be handled, and should they be vetted using the same system?
How can we program and perfect an automated editor? What rating data and algorithms would be trustworthy? How would ratings be gathered? Would this be under the hood as in Google News, or visible as in YouTube?
I suggest it'll be a combination of techniques, generally ordering stories by the most recent and popular and then individually on user preferences. In Google News, Google uses your search history to silently select recommended stories.
Google also lets you "star" certain stories, and it's experimenting with what it calls "Living Stories" to let you follow threads going forward. This is not the same as a human editor, but customization gives you some degree of control.
What Google is doing is the way to the future. I think its opening page will become the standard — smart, personal and sticky. Google and its followers will develop algorithms to make it breathlessly easy for you to be informed.
THE NEW READING
This week, Fortune Magazine covers the future of reading. People don't read the same way on the Net as in print. The language of the Net is faster and jumps off the page, but people don't drill down when they read online.
Text on the Net is evolving into a different language, with different rules and cadences. Video on the Net, in the endless stream of rhythmic videos on the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, is another kind of language.
Will these systems draw the same readers who've been reading the newspaper all their lives? Some of those readers may not be prepared to relocate to the Net. Likewise, some of today's Net readers weren't raised reading newspapers.
NO TURNING BACK
Regrettably, it's a one-way street. As the conventional infrastructure crumbles, will we ever be able to rebuild it? When we lose layers of the editorial process, it's difficult or impossible to bring them back. The trend is hardly reversible.
And can we go back to an earlier time when people spread out the news with their morning coffee and read to the point of being fully informed on Election Day? How can we redirect their interest and restore their trust in the media?
Can the new news replace the newspapers? Can citizen journalists gain access to public officials and gather the information necessary to be credible? Can the new model sustain itself? Moreover, can it sustain us in a free society?
News is more than news — it's the continuing education that enriches our lives. The loss of conventional media could be devastating, but the emergence of a new "have-it-your-way" medium could redefine our way of looking at the world.
The genie is well out of the bottle. There is no turning back now.
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on February 21, 2010
Revamped Hawaiian Tel Betting on BAIO to survive
If you've had anything to do with the new cell phones, you know about their extraordinary functionality. No area of electronics is moving faster, and many people are using cell phones as their only phones.
Voice over IP (VOIP) on landlines has also gone on steroids. Consumers have marvelous choices, and the market is flooded with VOIP products, some better than others. Analog landlines will soon be obsolete.
Where is our local telephone company, Hawaiian Telcom, in all this? It lost customers to the point of filing Chapter 11 in 2008, and seeking special help from the Legislature in 2009. But is it keeping up with the technology?
NEW PLAN
Carlyle's equity and $500 million in bonds will be wiped out in the bankruptcy; creditors will be paid off in fractions; and secured creditors will be the new owners. This restructuring is traumatic. Telcom can't afford to fail again.
Telcom submitted a plan of reorganization to the Bankruptcy Court last fall, and in December the court confirmed the plan subject to approval by the PUC and the FCC.
On Jan. 4, 2010, Telcom asked the PUC to approve the plan, and on Jan. 22, 2010, it asked the FCC to approve the plan. These regulatory approvals may take a while.
Since the court has already vetted the plan, CEO Eric Yeaman has told Telcom employees that they should start acting as if Telcom had already emerged from bankruptcy.
"BUSINESS ALL IN ONE"
In an effort to enter the VOIP market, Telcom has added software to a "soft switch" it had acquired earlier, and it is now rolling out a new product called Business All in One.
BAIO's base component is high speed Internet access for voice and data. This is nothing new, but Telcom says its integrated control over the network allows it to provide guaranteed priority for voice and the result is better voice quality.
BAIO provides a variety of advanced functions too numerous to mention here. A key function is "single number service" — when someone calls that number the call rings anywhere you like.
Customers can change these functions through Telcom's Web portal. Although competing VOIP providers already have these portals and many of these same functions, Telcom maintains that its product makes things easier for business.
PRICE AND SERVICE
The price is a flat $60-$80 per month per phone. This includes a router, an Ethernet switch, the IP phone instrument itself and unlimited domestic calls. For voice and data, these prices are competitive with other local providers.
Telcom offers up to 11 megabits per second for business VOIP. It hopes to take VOIP to the residential market, but its aged network is fraught with last-mile challenges, and that aspect of the network will ultimately have to be upgraded.
Telcom has had problems with service over the years, but now promises to install BAIO within 15 days. It also promises service 24/7, and guarantees response in four hours and resolution within eight hours.
Jennifer Dotson at MADD is happy using BAIO. She pays $70 per phone, half of what she paid before. She likes the voice clarity, the free long distance, the voicemail to e-mail, the level monthly payments and the local service hotline.
ADAPTING TO SURVIVE
BAIO can't be the end of it. Telcom will have to keep moving, and show its users it has embraced high tech and is ready to meet the competition. That includes giving great service and better back office, as well as providing a continuing stream of innovative products.
"We're like every other business trying to survive in a changing world," said Telcom's Jeff Coomans. "We've got to adapt to new markets and embrace the future. No one in this industry can afford to stand still."
A strong and healthy telephone company is important to the future of the state. We should wish Telcom well in its efforts to emerge, and survive.
Revamped Hawaiian Tel Betting on BAIO to survive
If you've had anything to do with the new cell phones, you know about their extraordinary functionality. No area of electronics is moving faster, and many people are using cell phones as their only phones.
Voice over IP (VOIP) on landlines has also gone on steroids. Consumers have marvelous choices, and the market is flooded with VOIP products, some better than others. Analog landlines will soon be obsolete.
Where is our local telephone company, Hawaiian Telcom, in all this? It lost customers to the point of filing Chapter 11 in 2008, and seeking special help from the Legislature in 2009. But is it keeping up with the technology?
NEW PLAN
Carlyle's equity and $500 million in bonds will be wiped out in the bankruptcy; creditors will be paid off in fractions; and secured creditors will be the new owners. This restructuring is traumatic. Telcom can't afford to fail again.
Telcom submitted a plan of reorganization to the Bankruptcy Court last fall, and in December the court confirmed the plan subject to approval by the PUC and the FCC.
On Jan. 4, 2010, Telcom asked the PUC to approve the plan, and on Jan. 22, 2010, it asked the FCC to approve the plan. These regulatory approvals may take a while.
Since the court has already vetted the plan, CEO Eric Yeaman has told Telcom employees that they should start acting as if Telcom had already emerged from bankruptcy.
"BUSINESS ALL IN ONE"
In an effort to enter the VOIP market, Telcom has added software to a "soft switch" it had acquired earlier, and it is now rolling out a new product called Business All in One.
BAIO's base component is high speed Internet access for voice and data. This is nothing new, but Telcom says its integrated control over the network allows it to provide guaranteed priority for voice and the result is better voice quality.
BAIO provides a variety of advanced functions too numerous to mention here. A key function is "single number service" — when someone calls that number the call rings anywhere you like.
Customers can change these functions through Telcom's Web portal. Although competing VOIP providers already have these portals and many of these same functions, Telcom maintains that its product makes things easier for business.
PRICE AND SERVICE
The price is a flat $60-$80 per month per phone. This includes a router, an Ethernet switch, the IP phone instrument itself and unlimited domestic calls. For voice and data, these prices are competitive with other local providers.
Telcom offers up to 11 megabits per second for business VOIP. It hopes to take VOIP to the residential market, but its aged network is fraught with last-mile challenges, and that aspect of the network will ultimately have to be upgraded.
Telcom has had problems with service over the years, but now promises to install BAIO within 15 days. It also promises service 24/7, and guarantees response in four hours and resolution within eight hours.
Jennifer Dotson at MADD is happy using BAIO. She pays $70 per phone, half of what she paid before. She likes the voice clarity, the free long distance, the voicemail to e-mail, the level monthly payments and the local service hotline.
ADAPTING TO SURVIVE
BAIO can't be the end of it. Telcom will have to keep moving, and show its users it has embraced high tech and is ready to meet the competition. That includes giving great service and better back office, as well as providing a continuing stream of innovative products.
"We're like every other business trying to survive in a changing world," said Telcom's Jeff Coomans. "We've got to adapt to new markets and embrace the future. No one in this industry can afford to stand still."
A strong and healthy telephone company is important to the future of the state. We should wish Telcom well in its efforts to emerge, and survive.
ThinkTech Hawaiii in the Honolulu Advertiser on February 7, 2010
Environmental review remains a legal quagmire
The argument over environmental review is one of Hawai'i's biggest legal battlefields. The primary weapon is HRS Chapter 343, the Hawai'i Environmental Protection Act. The Lingle administration has not provided leadership or funding for the agencies involved, and the implementation of 343 has suffered in the process.
Some recent cases have changed the landscape. Ohana Pale imposed 343 on top of other state requirements. In Superferry, the Legislature sought to avoid 343. And in Koa Ridge, the state Supreme Court extended the use of government land as a 343 "trigger." The latest issue, in Turtle Bay, involves the shelf life of a 343 document.
ASSIGNMENT TO UH
These cases were catalysts for Act 1 in 2008, in which the Legislature appropriated $300,000 to the University of Hawai'i to do a comprehensive report on how to fix 343. This is the first time in 20 years that 343 will have been revised.
Karl Kim of the Urban Planning Center, Denise Antolini of the law school and Peter Rappa of the environmental center are the principal investigators. They submitted a report to the Legislature in January, along with a proposed bill. This was introduced as SB 2185 and HB 2398.
Some environmental planners are disappointed with the report and don't think it will solve the problems in 343. They also feel that the UH team didn't sufficiently reach out to developers, landowners and affected industries. The investigators disagree. They say they interviewed 170 stakeholders, including 17 consulting firms, and had focus groups, a public meeting and a blog.
SOME PROVISIONS
Under the bills, any "discretionary" permit would trigger an environmental assessment or impact statement. Opponents are concerned that "discretionary" would cover so many permits, even building permits, that the system could collapse. The investigators say this new trigger would only apply if the project has a "probable significant and adverse effect," which is a much narrower subset.
EA/EIS documents typically include mitigation measures. The bills require that those be conditions of approval for subsequent permits. Opponents point out that EA/EIS documents are only for disclosure, and project design typically evolves afterward and should not be hampered. The investigators say follow-up is important, and the bill only requires it "where applicable." They are trying to find language to clarify the ambiguity.
The bills pass the hard issues off to a reconfigured environmental council, and empower the council to make four-year "interim" rules without public hearings or gubernatorial review. This is ironic considering 343's public comment requirements. The investigators feel that because Lingle hasn't allowed rule changes, we need new rules right away. But really, four years is too long for "interim."
The bills provide that an EA/EIS document will be stale after seven years. If you haven't gotten all discretionary permits by then, you must do a supplemental EA/EIS. But opponents say you could easily wait seven years before you get those permits. The investigators say that the applicant only has to provide a supplemental report if there have been changes and that that report would only deal with those changes.
The bills also require the council to set page limits for EA/EIS documents. Opponents say this will make it difficult for applicants to address all the required issues. The investigators say they are trying to make the system less burdensome, and that page limits have worked in other jurisdictions.
WHAT'S NEXT
The planners say the report is incomplete and that the bills should be deferred. They say the investigators didn't do what Act 1 required, and the bills would make the process slower and more costly, controversial and unpredictable.
"The development community has repeatedly offered to assist UH in completing this study, but we have been consistently rebuffed. We are still hoping to hear from them," said Lee Sichter of Belt Collins, a planning firm.
When the Senate Energy and Environment Committee heard the bill, David Arakawa of the Land Use Research Foundation and Robert Harris of the Sierra Club also asked for deferral.
The investigators recognize that there are concerns about some parts of the bill, but say other parts really can't wait, particularly those dealing with the environmental council. Perhaps the bill can be bifurcated so some parts pass now and others can be improved in the report they expect to file in June.
We can only agree that there are disagreements on how 343 should be tweaked and that there are polarized views on how it should be applied. In the words of Denise Antolini, "I wouldn't say kumbaya has happened just yet."
Environmental review remains a legal quagmire
The argument over environmental review is one of Hawai'i's biggest legal battlefields. The primary weapon is HRS Chapter 343, the Hawai'i Environmental Protection Act. The Lingle administration has not provided leadership or funding for the agencies involved, and the implementation of 343 has suffered in the process.
Some recent cases have changed the landscape. Ohana Pale imposed 343 on top of other state requirements. In Superferry, the Legislature sought to avoid 343. And in Koa Ridge, the state Supreme Court extended the use of government land as a 343 "trigger." The latest issue, in Turtle Bay, involves the shelf life of a 343 document.
ASSIGNMENT TO UH
These cases were catalysts for Act 1 in 2008, in which the Legislature appropriated $300,000 to the University of Hawai'i to do a comprehensive report on how to fix 343. This is the first time in 20 years that 343 will have been revised.
Karl Kim of the Urban Planning Center, Denise Antolini of the law school and Peter Rappa of the environmental center are the principal investigators. They submitted a report to the Legislature in January, along with a proposed bill. This was introduced as SB 2185 and HB 2398.
Some environmental planners are disappointed with the report and don't think it will solve the problems in 343. They also feel that the UH team didn't sufficiently reach out to developers, landowners and affected industries. The investigators disagree. They say they interviewed 170 stakeholders, including 17 consulting firms, and had focus groups, a public meeting and a blog.
SOME PROVISIONS
Under the bills, any "discretionary" permit would trigger an environmental assessment or impact statement. Opponents are concerned that "discretionary" would cover so many permits, even building permits, that the system could collapse. The investigators say this new trigger would only apply if the project has a "probable significant and adverse effect," which is a much narrower subset.
EA/EIS documents typically include mitigation measures. The bills require that those be conditions of approval for subsequent permits. Opponents point out that EA/EIS documents are only for disclosure, and project design typically evolves afterward and should not be hampered. The investigators say follow-up is important, and the bill only requires it "where applicable." They are trying to find language to clarify the ambiguity.
The bills pass the hard issues off to a reconfigured environmental council, and empower the council to make four-year "interim" rules without public hearings or gubernatorial review. This is ironic considering 343's public comment requirements. The investigators feel that because Lingle hasn't allowed rule changes, we need new rules right away. But really, four years is too long for "interim."
The bills provide that an EA/EIS document will be stale after seven years. If you haven't gotten all discretionary permits by then, you must do a supplemental EA/EIS. But opponents say you could easily wait seven years before you get those permits. The investigators say that the applicant only has to provide a supplemental report if there have been changes and that that report would only deal with those changes.
The bills also require the council to set page limits for EA/EIS documents. Opponents say this will make it difficult for applicants to address all the required issues. The investigators say they are trying to make the system less burdensome, and that page limits have worked in other jurisdictions.
WHAT'S NEXT
The planners say the report is incomplete and that the bills should be deferred. They say the investigators didn't do what Act 1 required, and the bills would make the process slower and more costly, controversial and unpredictable.
"The development community has repeatedly offered to assist UH in completing this study, but we have been consistently rebuffed. We are still hoping to hear from them," said Lee Sichter of Belt Collins, a planning firm.
When the Senate Energy and Environment Committee heard the bill, David Arakawa of the Land Use Research Foundation and Robert Harris of the Sierra Club also asked for deferral.
The investigators recognize that there are concerns about some parts of the bill, but say other parts really can't wait, particularly those dealing with the environmental council. Perhaps the bill can be bifurcated so some parts pass now and others can be improved in the report they expect to file in June.
We can only agree that there are disagreements on how 343 should be tweaked and that there are polarized views on how it should be applied. In the words of Denise Antolini, "I wouldn't say kumbaya has happened just yet."
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on January 24, 2010
Google-China feud displays search engine's power
When my server was attacked last week by a faraway hacker, Google found out and promptly imposed an "attack site" pop-up on my sites, effectively shutting them down.
I didn't ask Google to do that, and I didn't agree that it could. How could one search engine company, among many, shut my site down without my agreement or permission? It was disruptive, but it was also impressive.
Google's power is undeniable. And Google is now showing us that it can publicly challenge national governments, even one of the most powerful governments on Earth, China. That's unprecedented and a game-changer.
BETTING THE FARM
China continues to pressure Google to censor Web sites and may well be blocking and hacking Google's algorithms and data on dissidents. Betting the farm, Google is threatening to pull out of China, the biggest Internet market in the world. It's a cyberwar, and Michael Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, has not held back in his reports from the front.
Stiff competition by Chinese companies must somehow also affect Google's strategy. Google has aspired to be the top search engine in China, but Baidu, with 60 percent of the market, has been a daunting competitor, just as Dangdang has been for Amazon and Taobao has been for eBay. Ironically, last week a group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army hacked into and modified www.Baidu.com.
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times bets on Google. He identifies a tension between "Command China" and "Network China," and writes that "if China forces out Google, I'd like to short the Chinese Communist Party." Google's pullout would benefit Baidu, but would result in a long-term loss of face for Command China.
POLITICAL POWER
Global corporations like Google are a new model in the world, and they are not to be trifled with. If more money and information pass through their hands than through the hands of some governments, why should they not be as powerful? After all, Google is a $175 billion company.
Until now, even China didn't know the power of Google. A search engine seems innocent enough, but a search engine used every day by most of the users in the world has more influence than you think. And when you add Google apps, it's not just information — it's political power.
NOT THE END OF IT
Like Friedman, we might expect Google to win this facedown, or at least to settle on terms that will reject censorship and protect users. But whatever happens, that won't be the end of it. Google will suffer the same pressures, and we will all suffer the same risks, going forward.
We have little choice but to entrust our data to Google, and perhaps we don't appreciate the risks of allowing prying or repressive governments to meddle with it, even in our own country.
Despite Google's herculean efforts at data security, the data it collects will always be a magnet to government, and the more that government wants Google to suppress or surrender it, the more threatened we should feel.
ALWAYS CHANGING
The free flow of information is an essential element of the Internet, and the right of privacy is a cornerstone of a free society. When Google challenges China on these issues, it speaks not only to China, but to all governments everywhere. What we are seeing in Google is not only the new power of the Internet, but a new profile in courage and leadership.
So we should be appreciative to Google for taking its stand, whether just for ethics or economics or both. We should support Google when these issues come up, we should encourage it to stand firm as to justify our continuing trust, and we should commend it when it does.
The Internet is always changing, however, and we need to be just a little concerned that one day Google, if there is then still a Google, might not be able to say no.
Google-China feud displays search engine's power
When my server was attacked last week by a faraway hacker, Google found out and promptly imposed an "attack site" pop-up on my sites, effectively shutting them down.
I didn't ask Google to do that, and I didn't agree that it could. How could one search engine company, among many, shut my site down without my agreement or permission? It was disruptive, but it was also impressive.
Google's power is undeniable. And Google is now showing us that it can publicly challenge national governments, even one of the most powerful governments on Earth, China. That's unprecedented and a game-changer.
BETTING THE FARM
China continues to pressure Google to censor Web sites and may well be blocking and hacking Google's algorithms and data on dissidents. Betting the farm, Google is threatening to pull out of China, the biggest Internet market in the world. It's a cyberwar, and Michael Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, has not held back in his reports from the front.
Stiff competition by Chinese companies must somehow also affect Google's strategy. Google has aspired to be the top search engine in China, but Baidu, with 60 percent of the market, has been a daunting competitor, just as Dangdang has been for Amazon and Taobao has been for eBay. Ironically, last week a group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army hacked into and modified www.Baidu.com.
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times bets on Google. He identifies a tension between "Command China" and "Network China," and writes that "if China forces out Google, I'd like to short the Chinese Communist Party." Google's pullout would benefit Baidu, but would result in a long-term loss of face for Command China.
POLITICAL POWER
Global corporations like Google are a new model in the world, and they are not to be trifled with. If more money and information pass through their hands than through the hands of some governments, why should they not be as powerful? After all, Google is a $175 billion company.
Until now, even China didn't know the power of Google. A search engine seems innocent enough, but a search engine used every day by most of the users in the world has more influence than you think. And when you add Google apps, it's not just information — it's political power.
NOT THE END OF IT
Like Friedman, we might expect Google to win this facedown, or at least to settle on terms that will reject censorship and protect users. But whatever happens, that won't be the end of it. Google will suffer the same pressures, and we will all suffer the same risks, going forward.
We have little choice but to entrust our data to Google, and perhaps we don't appreciate the risks of allowing prying or repressive governments to meddle with it, even in our own country.
Despite Google's herculean efforts at data security, the data it collects will always be a magnet to government, and the more that government wants Google to suppress or surrender it, the more threatened we should feel.
ALWAYS CHANGING
The free flow of information is an essential element of the Internet, and the right of privacy is a cornerstone of a free society. When Google challenges China on these issues, it speaks not only to China, but to all governments everywhere. What we are seeing in Google is not only the new power of the Internet, but a new profile in courage and leadership.
So we should be appreciative to Google for taking its stand, whether just for ethics or economics or both. We should support Google when these issues come up, we should encourage it to stand firm as to justify our continuing trust, and we should commend it when it does.
The Internet is always changing, however, and we need to be just a little concerned that one day Google, if there is then still a Google, might not be able to say no.
ThinkTech Hawaii in the Honolulu Advertiser on January 10, 2010
Let's start doing more to develop local agriculture
Fifty years after statehood, most of the plantations have gone fallow or become "gentleman's estates." There are 6,500 "farmers" in Hawai'i, but only half are full time. The average farmer is 59, with an annual income of $10,000.
Ignoring the need for food security, we import at least 85 percent of our food and send billions to faraway agribusinesses when we could keep the money here to strengthen our self-sufficiency, enrich our economy and employ our jobless.
We were once a world leader in agricultural production. Now farmers have overwhelming challenges in land, water, infrastructure, pests, NIMBY, encroachment, transportation costs and burdensome bureaucracy, not to mention cheap foreign competition.
Can agriculture survive in Hawai'i?
FARMS NEED LAND You can't farm without land, and land in Hawai'i is too expensive. Eighty percent of Kona coffee is grown on Bishop Estate land, and lease rents are formidable.
Some landowners won't give long-term leases to farmers, making financing for infrastructure, equipment and crop expenses impossible. To keep land in farming, farming must be profitable.
The state's "Important Agricultural Lands" program, still in its infancy, needs improved incentives and county support to work. So far, Alexander & Baldwin is the only landowner that has dedicated land as such.
Kauai Coffee Co. farms 3,400 acres, but Kaua'i County wants to uproot the coffee trees and plant a landfill in the middle of the farm. That would be wrong — we should not be taking productive land out of agriculture.
POLITICAL WILL Hawai'i's Constitution supports agriculture, but the state could do much more to advocate for the industry. The Department of Agriculture is charged with both regulating and advocating for the industry, but it doesn't have the funding to do both.
The plantations built great irrigation infrastructure, but as they crumbled the infrastructure did, too. Agriculture requires water, but the activists on Maui insist that the water remain in the stream and flow to the sea.
The Water Commission should reject that demand. Maui and the Big Island have been declared drought disaster areas, and the farmers there are already suffering from the lack of water.
LET'S MAKE MONEY The University of Hawai'i College of Tropical Agriculture teaches students how to grow crops but not necessarily companies. CTAHR should join forces with the Shidler Business College to train farmers as entrepreneurs.
You would expect environmentalists to support farming, but the activists haven't helped. Superferry was great for the farmers, replacing costly two-week barge shipments with same-day service. That benefit is gone.
The activist campaigns against genetically engineered crops also undermine our farmers. The state must reject any opposition not based on science. Genetically engineered crops are already feeding the world. The ancient Hawaiians themselves engineered kalo to where they could feed a million people.
NAMES TO WATCH • The Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, with 1,600 member families, provides support to farmers throughout the state.
• The Hawaii Agricultural Research Center, which supported the sugar industry as the Sugar Planters Association, now conducts research on a wide range of crops.
• Haliimaile Pineapple, which recently rose from the ashes of Maui Land and Pineapple Co., will sell the fruit to local hotels, restaurants and markets.
• Darren Demaya at Kai Market in the Sheraton Waikiki and other prominent local chefs are preparing sumptuous dishes with local produce, and raising awareness and support for our farmers.
• The Hawaii Crop Improvement Association is the trade association for the seed industry, which has become a new leader in Hawai'i agriculture.
THE LOOKING GLASS Even if produce from far away is cheaper, it's not as fresh, and it takes tons of fossil fuel to bring it here. As fuel costs escalate, the price of imported produce will increase. We'll be even more dangerously dependent on it, and we'll wish we'd done more to develop local agriculture.
Let's do more now. We could exclude food from the general excise tax — taxing food is so regressive. We could also lease or sell state land to farmers — after all, the state has lots of land, much of it suited for agriculture, and is already selling land to raise money for the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
We could better organize and fund the Department of Agriculture. And we could pass the barrel tax to provide funds for irrigation infrastructure. We could also revise the State Water Code to raise the priority for agricultural water.
Or we could do nothing and wait for fossil fuel, and the creek, to rise.
Let's start doing more to develop local agriculture
Fifty years after statehood, most of the plantations have gone fallow or become "gentleman's estates." There are 6,500 "farmers" in Hawai'i, but only half are full time. The average farmer is 59, with an annual income of $10,000.
Ignoring the need for food security, we import at least 85 percent of our food and send billions to faraway agribusinesses when we could keep the money here to strengthen our self-sufficiency, enrich our economy and employ our jobless.
We were once a world leader in agricultural production. Now farmers have overwhelming challenges in land, water, infrastructure, pests, NIMBY, encroachment, transportation costs and burdensome bureaucracy, not to mention cheap foreign competition.
Can agriculture survive in Hawai'i?
FARMS NEED LAND You can't farm without land, and land in Hawai'i is too expensive. Eighty percent of Kona coffee is grown on Bishop Estate land, and lease rents are formidable.
Some landowners won't give long-term leases to farmers, making financing for infrastructure, equipment and crop expenses impossible. To keep land in farming, farming must be profitable.
The state's "Important Agricultural Lands" program, still in its infancy, needs improved incentives and county support to work. So far, Alexander & Baldwin is the only landowner that has dedicated land as such.
Kauai Coffee Co. farms 3,400 acres, but Kaua'i County wants to uproot the coffee trees and plant a landfill in the middle of the farm. That would be wrong — we should not be taking productive land out of agriculture.
POLITICAL WILL Hawai'i's Constitution supports agriculture, but the state could do much more to advocate for the industry. The Department of Agriculture is charged with both regulating and advocating for the industry, but it doesn't have the funding to do both.
The plantations built great irrigation infrastructure, but as they crumbled the infrastructure did, too. Agriculture requires water, but the activists on Maui insist that the water remain in the stream and flow to the sea.
The Water Commission should reject that demand. Maui and the Big Island have been declared drought disaster areas, and the farmers there are already suffering from the lack of water.
LET'S MAKE MONEY The University of Hawai'i College of Tropical Agriculture teaches students how to grow crops but not necessarily companies. CTAHR should join forces with the Shidler Business College to train farmers as entrepreneurs.
You would expect environmentalists to support farming, but the activists haven't helped. Superferry was great for the farmers, replacing costly two-week barge shipments with same-day service. That benefit is gone.
The activist campaigns against genetically engineered crops also undermine our farmers. The state must reject any opposition not based on science. Genetically engineered crops are already feeding the world. The ancient Hawaiians themselves engineered kalo to where they could feed a million people.
NAMES TO WATCH • The Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, with 1,600 member families, provides support to farmers throughout the state.
• The Hawaii Agricultural Research Center, which supported the sugar industry as the Sugar Planters Association, now conducts research on a wide range of crops.
• Haliimaile Pineapple, which recently rose from the ashes of Maui Land and Pineapple Co., will sell the fruit to local hotels, restaurants and markets.
• Darren Demaya at Kai Market in the Sheraton Waikiki and other prominent local chefs are preparing sumptuous dishes with local produce, and raising awareness and support for our farmers.
• The Hawaii Crop Improvement Association is the trade association for the seed industry, which has become a new leader in Hawai'i agriculture.
THE LOOKING GLASS Even if produce from far away is cheaper, it's not as fresh, and it takes tons of fossil fuel to bring it here. As fuel costs escalate, the price of imported produce will increase. We'll be even more dangerously dependent on it, and we'll wish we'd done more to develop local agriculture.
Let's do more now. We could exclude food from the general excise tax — taxing food is so regressive. We could also lease or sell state land to farmers — after all, the state has lots of land, much of it suited for agriculture, and is already selling land to raise money for the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
We could better organize and fund the Department of Agriculture. And we could pass the barrel tax to provide funds for irrigation infrastructure. We could also revise the State Water Code to raise the priority for agricultural water.
Or we could do nothing and wait for fossil fuel, and the creek, to rise.