It was a good general discussion in terms of the issues addressed and the possibility to grasp the reasoning of those CEOs, reflecting to a certain extent the standpoint of their respective industries. However, I think the discussion was understandably not deep enough. There are more topics and subtopics to address, as well as other countries and regions. Due to the importance of the subject, I suggest continuing with this panel discussion series, inviting CEOs from diverse industries and regions, and addressing more in depth those topics by region and industry. That will surely help uncover relevant insights, deepen our understanding of the subject, and accelerate our problem-solving activities around the world.

This is a very tidy and reasoned editing of what was a session that also showcased the frustration and impasse that these executives are facing.

While presenting the issues broadly, and these have been defined in greater depth and with more supporting data in many places, it fails to present pathways of thought or current practice that could have inspired an audience of soon-to-be-minted MBAs. There were few questions afterwards - always a troublesome sign - despite Mr. Nyquist’s excellent call to wealth generation by deployment. Perhaps there should be a followup session that drills down on “wealth generation by deployment.”

Much appreciation is due to these capable people and their solid thinking. Obviously their planning thoughts are limited to the possibilities that are known, though the concept of carbon capture is so far from being proven that it might not really belong in serious planning. Even battery technology is seriously short of being real to the extent that it is an affordable part of vehicle systems. Both carbon capture and battery technology depend on new science to make these affordably realistic.

I represent a company with an interest in an energy system approach that is not widely recognized but is potentially very real. That system is the idea of cutting energy use for transportation of people and cargo by a large percentage, in the range of about 80 percent. A secondary part of this is a way to use personal cars in cogeneration systems where the heat needs of individual households use the inevitable discharged heat from power production with fossil fuels. If natural gas is the fuel, this doubles or triples the amount of electricity from that natural gas.

Though it is very fortunate that there is more natural gas than we thought a few years ago, it is still important to make the best possible use of it. Using it in the manner I described will displace much coal use. Using it to power 18 wheelers over the Rockies is a very poor use in comparison.

I concur with much of the thinking about how world society should function and I shape my approaches to solutions that support the choices people actually make and the indications of the future choices from the way we choose to do things now. Thus, the imperative is to provide solutions that fit within our existing way of doing things, and that means also that they be within our affordable constraints. Because high efficiency vehicles are possible without new scientific breakthroughs, they should be first on the list. They might represent the needed silver bullets. All the unaffordable and unobtainable solutions represent bird-seed-buckshot solutions. Even so, adaptation is needed and this is always difficult. The panel discussion was helpful in providing a realistic assessment of the future possibilities for CO2 reduction that show the need for serious innovation and adaptation.

Policy making in a democratic society requires that citizens are informed with a reasonable degree of accuracy. In the US, we are faced with competition in media, driven by talking heads at each end of the political spectrum making exaggerated claims that are undermining confidence that any political leader is seeking a balanced solution. The result is polarization and confusion amongst the electorate. Surely to break such a deadlock we need to encourage local community leaders to discover local solutions and put them to the test. If Community A decides to ‘Go Green’ by introducing a series of initiatives that motivate and favor sustainable behavior, this might be compared with Community B that does not. For example by giving parking preference to owners of hybrid and all-electric vehicles, how much will this change purchase decisions away from gasoline-driven SUVs and lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions? We need more grass-roots capitalism.

This was a great discussion that clearly highlighted the decision triangle between: Humanity, Nationalism, and Capitalism.

Can we explain the market failure of capital to form around non-carbon fuel sources? Ten years of readiness have gone by for fuel-cell technology adoption in cars, but Big Auto went down making internal combustion SUVs. Shale extraction has bad effects on water tables. Offshore drilling costs more than investing in wind, and still requires the US Military subsidy for the foreign oil biz models.

This conversation seems to be about micro-economics which never addresses the many external costs in the calculus, like US military support for oil operations all over this planet. Unaccounted for external costs now hurting the most delicate eco-systems, won’t ever show up in this efficient market talk about pricing demand in California. CO2 levels in the air are already at dangerous levels. While we’re at it, why does the information marketplace fail to tell US voters the real truth so much so their perceptions are noticeably different from other consumer surveys about environment around this planet? The disaster isn’t happening in 30-50 years. It is happening now.