Who knows where market prices will go? Former colleagues like Matthew Hunter and Eric Plateis have schooled me well.. and have me convinced that anyone who thinks they can time commodities markets is taking too much risk. I was speaking to one former colleague about current energy markets and he said that when you see a market sell off in the midst of cold weather, of the sort we saw last week, it indicates a bearish market that may have some downward momentum. But then again, natural gas doesn't have much farther down to go, does it? And if we really are in a true recovery, we wouldn't expect much more downward momentum. In general, we see this as a favorable time to cover open positions for 2011, 2012.
The Megawatt Hour is a subscription service that helps businesses procure and manage power. Transactions are simple, decisions are hard. The Megawatt Hour puts customers in charge of energy and power costs.
Monday, January 24, 2011
There's nothing the matter with Kansas... or with changing the debate
There have been a number of articles in various publications that have resonated with me as we build a business that attempts to appeal to good common sense. Until recently, it seemed we'd gotten bogged down, as thinkers, consumers, policy and business people in an intractable debate over climate change science and policy. As Michael Shellenberger points out in his excellent post at Forbes.com dated Jan 11, 2011, the debate really boiled down to what sort of politics people tended to agree with, and was not so much a discussion of the climate science. See (http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2011/01/11/why-climate-science-divides-us-but-energy-technology -unites-us/). We have re-posted this on TheMWh.com home page as well.
Certainly there is enough complexity in the climate science discussion to make meaningful agreement on the subject impossible in a time of political strain. What was most frustrating to those of us who don't feel any need to debate climate science was the fact that there are ample reasons to address all of the challenges that climate change can bring that just make good sense from economic and national security points-of-view. Why debate the climate science? Who here is a climatologist? Would it kill us to be pragmatic?
There is more and more evidence that many communities, corporations and individuals are reaching these same conclusions, as this October article about a town in Kansas suggests. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=energy%20independence%20Kansas%20town&st=cse
The article describes a competition among Kansas towns set up "to extricate energy issues from the charged arena of climate politics". Brilliant idea since it attempts to change behavior and energy consumption by appealing to sensible objectives like reducing dependence on foreign oil, saving money and ensuring economic prosperity. The competitive nature of the project engaged people in different communities-- schools, businesses, churches, households. The towns got results.... "energy use in the towns declined as much as 5 percent relative to other areas — a giant step in the world of energy conservation, where a program that yields a 1.5 percent decline is considered successful" and will expand to 16 communities in 2011.
The link between information, competition, behavior change and reduced energy consumption could be a powerful one-- that drives more efficient markets and more engaged energy consumers.
Certainly there is enough complexity in the climate science discussion to make meaningful agreement on the subject impossible in a time of political strain. What was most frustrating to those of us who don't feel any need to debate climate science was the fact that there are ample reasons to address all of the challenges that climate change can bring that just make good sense from economic and national security points-of-view. Why debate the climate science? Who here is a climatologist? Would it kill us to be pragmatic?
There is more and more evidence that many communities, corporations and individuals are reaching these same conclusions, as this October article about a town in Kansas suggests. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=energy%20independence%20Kansas%20town&st=cse
The article describes a competition among Kansas towns set up "to extricate energy issues from the charged arena of climate politics". Brilliant idea since it attempts to change behavior and energy consumption by appealing to sensible objectives like reducing dependence on foreign oil, saving money and ensuring economic prosperity. The competitive nature of the project engaged people in different communities-- schools, businesses, churches, households. The towns got results.... "energy use in the towns declined as much as 5 percent relative to other areas — a giant step in the world of energy conservation, where a program that yields a 1.5 percent decline is considered successful" and will expand to 16 communities in 2011.
The link between information, competition, behavior change and reduced energy consumption could be a powerful one-- that drives more efficient markets and more engaged energy consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)