Even though I've stated that I'm not as interested in sustainability as I used to be, it doesn't mean I don't think about it. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with investing and my own work in the electronic industry.

Growth is a very important component to the electronics business. It's priced into many stocks and it drives much of the electronics food chain. Moore's law has helped for a long time too. Shrinking the geometry of silicon every 18 months really required manufacturers to update their equipment often. This then drives the equipment manufacturers to advance technology to make the new fabrication possible. The analog engineers (ok, digital too) out there utilize the new chips and make requests for the next generation. The ripple effect continues all the way down the line, requiring input from the manfacturers and returning revenue to the shareholders of said manufacturers. Like I said, this growth is an assumption and is priced into how people invest in companies involved in electronics manufacturing.

There's no denying that electronics are a dirty business. Not oil-gushing-from-a-hole-in-the-ocean dirty, but still, not exactly the most environmentally friendly situation either. The chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing are not known for their safety nor their easy disposal; I've only had training on how bad they can mess people up but it goes beyond that; there are entire departments in semiconductor manufacturing facilities devoted to containing and disposing of the chemicals. Outside of the semiconductor world manufacturers have had to drastically reduce the amount of lead in products (in the solder and otherwise) but there are still elements of boards and parts that are not good for the environment. And given both the amount of turnover in the products that people consume year to year and the fact that very few products are designed for long term use, almost all electronics are bound for a landfill within a 10 year time frame (unless recycled). All of this adds up to a nasty picture for the planet.

A business built on growth and components that are not biodegradable nor regulated in their disposal. Is this model sustainable? Can manufacturers continue making products that are not safe for disposal and yet expect people to continuously update their personal electronic portfolio at home? Can manufacturers continue to crank out new devices ad nauseum and not be held responsible for the impact they make?

I do not believe the long term growth of electronics will plateau. While this may be good for my own career, part of me is very conflicted by the idea that my own success could be tied to the fact that we will have to consume more and more over time. Growth will always be driven by the next "must have device", updating of previous generation devices and bringing electronics to a greater percentage of the population. But how can we rectify the needs (or perceived needs as it may be) with the very real issues and impacts associated with modern electronics? The material and energy inputs required and the waste from technology churn all make for hundreds of miles worth of disposed and forgotten cellphones and CRT monitors which took large amounts of the earth's resources to make.

So assuming that growth of the electronics industry will continue unabated for various reasons, I think the question is better asked: Is a sustainable world possible with the electronics industry as we know it today?

I don't usually say it on this site, but I have no clue about the answer to this question. Do you? Is it possible for there to be a healthy electronics industry when taking the planet into account? How does this affect the business model and should the people that manufacture products be responsible for what happens to the at the end of the products' lifetime? Please let us know in the comments.

Although I've been busy working on Electricio.us lately (thereby neglecting this site), I have been able to continue listening to my local NPR station (which, like any good nerd, I love). A program the other day spoke to a local community trying to build up the economy through the arts.

I was intrigued. I had never thought of that before. Why would anyone ever try to develop an arts community first? Where are the jobs? Well folks, we have a bona fide Chicken and Egg paradox here. It really goes both ways. What happens if a community only has day jobs and no culture? What happens if you develop a thriving arts community before there are "Economic Drivers" and jobs for people moving there?  Does the absence of one element slow the growth of the other?

I would tend to think the jobs come first. And of course when I think jobs I think of technical jobs, not those silly financial jobs that got us into this mess of a recession. I mostly think of technical jobs first because I've never really experienced anything else and I've heard technical jobs can have a multiplicative effect (helping to create some of the other jobs I'm not as fond of). But what happens in locations where there are only jobs and no culture to go along with it? Who really wants to live there?

An example is contained within Eric Weiner's book, The Geography of Bliss (which I first read about at Get Rich Slowly). He is traveling the world, looking to explain why some locales are happier than others. In the midst of his travels, he goes to Qatar (one of the richest regions in the world) where he encounters a city booming with jobs (mostly for migrant workers) to fill the "need" of those rich from petrodollars. However, he notes the absence of culture and even references how the richest from that country travel the world buying up impressive art collections in a hope to obtain culture. The result is a city full of people being shuttled to and from chain restaurants and malls, without any interesting things in between. Even the history museum is filled with artifacts toil and struggle in the desert...and not much else. Because the jobs in the region are scarce, no one really wants to be there, but no one working there can really leave.

The other extreme is when a city has a strong art and culture community but is lacking in jobs. An example is New York City in the current recession. Even though the current unemployment numbers are hovering around 10.3%, people continue to move to the city. Why? Because you can't find many other places in the world with a similar art and culture scene. Where else can you find so many museums in a 10 mile radius? But when it comes to being practical? No, not so much. The fact that the unemployment is only 10.3% is likely because of the high costs associated with living in or even near the city.

So back to the original example. Would starting an arts community allow for eventual development of a thriving economy? It depends. Are there other nearby communities that can feed into this new community? Are those other communities lacking in culture or interesting events of their own, thereby necessitating people in that community to travel? Are there people in the existing community that will be benefactors to the new community? And most importantly, are there people willing to move to and develop a new arts and culture based community?

If there is a willing population, both moving to and surrounding a new (or revitalized) community, then I believe it would be possible to use arts and culture to build up a local economy. I think that it is a non-standard way to draw young and artistic people into a new place and to centralize events and gatherings; this, in turn, could help to draw people that aren't contributing to the art and cultural scene directly but want to experience and patronize it. I know that Cleveland, with excessive sprawl and thinly populated suburbs, could really benefit from a community such as this (really it will be supplementing many other creative and culturally rich regions). Although the travel required between regions is undesirable, I think creating an arts community can really help to bring people together, which is really what drives economic growth over the long term. Do I think there will ever be large corporations moving in and bringing thousands of jobs to this revitalized community? No, I don't; but that's not really the point anyway.

I'm interested to know if anyone has heard of other communities built first around cultural and artistic endeavors that later blossomed into vibrant communities. If you have ever heard of one or have an opinion about what they're trying in Cleveland, please leave a note in the comments.

I will be attending Sustainable Cleveland 2019 later this week. It has given me a renewed interest in renewable energy and has really been great motivation to learn more about my city.

The summit will be a gathering of more that 600 people from different walks of life in Cleveland, all trying to figure out what we need to do in order to become a leader in various fields of sustainability. The 2019 part of the title refers to the Cleveland 30 year from now, when all of the areas of sustainability will hopefully have been achieved. These sustainability initiatives could include:

• Renewable energy production
• Advanced energy (infrastructure)
• Advance material fabrication and advanced manufacturing operations
• Sustainable, local food sources
• Green buildings (LEED certifications)
• Stringent environmental policies, especially to protect our water source, Lake Erie
• Sustainable Business Practices

So what can we do as a group of non-policy makers to actually drive any change in this city? A question I'm not completely sure of the answer. At the most basic level, I think this summit will give the citizens and drivers of change in the city a chance to tell the administration what they think. In fact, the entire summit is being hosted by the mayor, Frank Jackson, so I am guessing that's exactly what he's looking for. Beyond the basics, there is a methodology being implemented known as Appreciative Inquiry; I'm not into organizational behavior, but from what I've read it's a popular method. The leading researcher in this field, David Cooperrider, will also be present at the summit to lead and guide us. I was surprised to later learn that Dr. Cooperrider is a sitting professor at my alma mater, Case Western Reserve University. From what I have learned about the method so far (which in all honesty seems a bit touchy-feely to me), it is about bringing people together while they are still excited about a prospective idea, instead of after problems have developed and that same group is only trying to fix the problem. It has proven successful for many groups thus far so I am eager to learn more about it.

Although this was the first time they decided to host such a summit, the organizers required an application for entry, to ensure people who were signing up were serious about their pledge to attend (the summit requires a 3 day commitment). I thought including some excerpts of my application would help illustrate why I think attending a summit like this is important (Warning: I was very interested in attending, so I felt it necessary to toot my own horn a bit. You've been warned) :

Describe what draws you to this summit.

I understand that a 10 year plan is only as good as the people that are writing and later following it. I want to be an integral part of the planning progress so I can help shape a future city that is sustainable and one that I can continue to be proud of. I am interested in meeting others that are passionate about moving Cleveland  towards a future that is sustainable, successful and forward-looking. The people at this summit will be the leaders of the next phase of Cleveland's evolution and I would like to start working with them as soon as possible.

What unique aspects will you bring to the summit (education, life experience, etc.)?

I currently write a blog that discusses electrical engineering and renewable energy. I write on topics relating to my profession (analog electrical engineering), my generation (Gen Y) and I tie it into content about emerging renewable technologies. I also have a unique perspective, being a student that left the area for a job after college, thereby contributing to the “brain drain” that has affected much of Cleveland; I have since been one of the few that has returned (in 2008) so that I could help contribute to the city and pursue my passion at a company that is a leader in the measurement industry. My work at Keithley Instruments has given me insight into the needs of renewable energy producers and allowed me to work with some of the finest engineering minds in Cleveland.

I feel that I bring a fresh perspective on the technological aspect of building a sustainable Cleveland. As someone who works in an industry that serves renewable energy and as someone who aspires to work more directly in the renewable energy sector, I feel that I can help define where Cleveland will be able to best capitalize on new technologies and strong business opportunities. These will drive the future growth of Cleveland as both an economic hub and as a model for hosting sustainable and eco-conscious companies.

What do you think are Cleveland’s biggest strengths or best assets?

I believe that the students graduating from local Universities will be the foundation upon which the next phase of Cleveland will be built. Enticing them to stay in Cleveland and encouraging them to create new companies will generate revenue and jobs in Cleveland. The technology and companies that are created will drive local development and help bring in more residents and investment. Furthermore, I believe the Universities that are producing these students are an asset and that they should be assisted in post-graduate retention and building businesses out of commercialized research efforts.

A second more obvious but yet untapped resource is Lake Erie. In terms of energy, I believe Lake Erie can produce a great deal of clean and sustainable power for residents in Cleveland and surrounding areas. From a sustainability perspective, the availability of fresh water must be considered and protected, as this will become an increasingly scarce resource as the world warms. Additionally, the wildlife and food sources the lake provides must be taken into consideration when planning for a more sustainable city and region.

What do you envision for Cleveland in the year 2019?

I envision a vibrant job market based on renewable energy companies that have sprung up over the past 10 years. More importantly, I see educational and research hotbeds such as Case Western Reserve being used as a launch point for multiple new industries and technologies. I see renewable energies being harvested from Lake Erie in the form of wind turbines and wave harvesting. I see axillary industries such as test & measurements adding even more to local economies and highlighting what Cleveland has to offer the world. I see tight-knit communities encouraging conservation and recycling and teaching these concepts in schools. I see programs in place to help every city have affordable recycling. I imagine local and regional governments encouraging restructuring and consolidating existing infrastructure as opposed to creating new sprawl. I see those same governments encouraging outside investment in the newly reconstructed and consolidated areas and in the new companies that have helped revitalize it . And hopefully, I see my own renewable energy company creating products that change the way we consume energy or how we cleanly produce it for use in energy efficient devices.

I feel that if nothing else, I will get the opportunity to meet others interested in sustainability and renewable energy in Cleveland. That alone could provide a great foundation for forming companies and coalitions later to help advance the city towards a sustainable future. On the other hand, I am hopeful that our work using Appreciative Inquiry will help lay a groundwork for where the city needs to go and what we need to do as a community to achieve our goals. I know there will be many planned follow up activities and I plan on discussing them more on here later. I would hope that my albeit limited audience might help to publicize the actions the city will take in the future.

Are you attending the Sustainable Cleveland 2019 summit? If you are, please let me know! If not but you have ideas that you think I should try to talk about while I am there, please let me know in the comments. I am interested to share what ideas I already have and if I can bring more voices than my own to the summit, I think it could be beneficial for everyone.

I like it when I understand things. The universe feels like a little safer place, even if I realize feeling secure is only a state of mind. And when I watched Steven Chu talk on the Daily Show the other night, I felt safer. Not like a warm security blanket kind of safe. More like a "Hey, if stuff hits the fan, we'll probably be able to figure it out" kind of safe.

How many times have you looked at a government official and said "Hey, they seem pretty bright!"? How about "What a great sense of humor and perspective for the situation we're in."? How many times have you honestly said in the past 8, 16, 20 or 28 years have you really looked at a government official and said "Hey, I bet he has science and the earth's best interest ahead of a corporation that is whispering in his ear."? Not too many at all.

I'm not saying that there have been scores of corrupt politicians in the past Presidents' cabinets, because there haven't; the people advising the President are often capable and well tempered in their decision making. I'm also not saying Steven Chu will be completely successful in the political arena, as it's a very different world from what he's used to. It's just so damn refreshing to see such an accomplished scientist in a position to influence legislation, all the while weighing facts and data instead of political usefulness and opinion. Give me more politicians like him and I'll start to feel that the government has turned a corner.

So thank you, Steven Chu. You've restored my hope that we can get some more renewable energy initiatives moving instead of just talked about in this country. You've restored my hope that renewables might be able to help pull our country out of a recession. And from what I know about you and your plans, you've only just begun.

Also the requisite thank you to Comedy Central and Jon Stewart for interviewing him. Without you, I'd only get biased news from biased news sources

The Digital Switchover.

Not me. I almost did that a while back, but no. Not me.

Television.

Normally I wouldn't write about it. A digital television standard is long overdue and in the end this will be a good thing. When you compare Analog vs Digital, there are many more benefits on the digital side of things: lower power for transmission, better bandwidth of signal, more bandwidth usage over the spectrum. All of these are good things. I can even talk about how those digital signals still have lots of analog components as they're transmitted over the airwaves: multipath, signal loss, power calculation, reception problems, etc.

But no. I'd rather point something else out:

Technology adoption is driven by human nature. It must be adopted before it can help people.

Sure, the digital signals will be great. High Definition pictures and you don't have to give a dime to those lovely cable companies. Lower power generation required to transmit the signals will help save the environment by lowering the carbon footprint. But until the switch actually happens (today...maybe), no one gets the benefits. The switchover has been delayed to now from this past February. Lawmakers deemed the country unready to make the switchover at that time. I mean, if people can't watch TV, how will the politicians get their message out to the masses?

No matter how many new devices are introduced into the marketplace and no matter how available they make DTV switcher boxes, people still will not change until pushed. They will not go out and get the digital box or call their local politician until one day they turn on their television and the signal is not there. That is what will drive the final changeover. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a little bit more leeway from politicians before stations are officially told to shut off the analog transmitters.

This problem isn't exclusive to television. This has happened for the past 30 years in conservation and renewable energy.  Regardless of how many times climate change experts point out we're killing the planet, nothing moves until there is a scare that oil is running out (it is) or natural gas won't always be available (it won't) or coal is filthy (it is) or the power just goes out. Then people change their tune; they change gears and start thinking about buying that solar array or that home wind turbine. They start recycling again because they think it will start to help (it will, but what about the past 10 years of bottles you put in the landfill?). But the thing is, you need to think about buying the solar cells now, when there isn't a 6 month backlog of installation requests and prices are jacked up due to demand. And Solar might even already be an affordable option for you.

I'm sure people will say there's an economic aspect of it for DTV and that the people that use analog signals the most can't afford the converter boxes. Perhaps that has some truth to it. But the point remains that no matter the technology, until that last group resistant or indifferent to change decides to go out and do something about it, those people can't be helped.

What about you? Have you made the switchover yet? If not, why? Leave a note in the comments.