Patenting Plants

Hello Readers,

I was watching the movie The Future of Food, which describes the infamous Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMO crops. The Future of Food also goes into a variety of food production related topics. If you eat food, you really need to watch this movie!

I will not spoil the movie. Instead, I will point out just one of the topics that struck me: the fact that Monsanto has already (and has the ability to) patent crops and seeds that they did not develop!

According to the movie, an individual or corporation has the ability to patent the genes of any crop or seed that have not yet been patented regardless of the fact that such seeds probably occur naturally. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this straightforward quote from the movie; however, if this is true, it is a true outrage. Also, it is completely counter to 'novel' and 'non-obvious' requirement of patent law. See the quote below from the US Patent Office website:

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."

Clearly, any non-GMO seed genes must have been around and in use for more than a year before a patent was filed! Can somebody please explain how to patent something as 'new' that has been around for centuries if not millennia?

I highly recommend watching this movie. It was released in 2004, so it may seem like some of the references are out of date. Unfortunately, they are not. The issues presented are still current today!

Thanks,

Sean Diamond

Cities Solution to Climate Change

Hello Readers,

This weekend, I came across an interesting New York Times article about the joint efforts of Bill Clinton and Mayor Bloomberg in combating climate change from a city level. Mayor Bloomberg's private organization has donated 3 years of funding to a Clinton Foundation initiative: C40. C40 is a group of 40 of the world's largest cities working together to combat the effects of climate change.

The mayors of all 40 of these cites will be meeting in São Paulo, Brazil this week to discuss topics such as energy efficient buildings, renewable energy in urban settings, next generation buses, and other pertinent topics. The American cities involved in C40 are New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles.

As the NYT article points out, more than half of the world's population now lives in cities. These city dwellers are now using 70% of the world's energy and are responsible for 70% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Or as Mayor Bloomberg puts it: "If you address the problems of the cities, there will be no need for China and India to sign onto some international accord. And thank God, because that’s not going to get done. It’s time to say it."

While the efforts of the C40 - a top-down approach to combating climate change at a local level - are amazing and long overdue, it seems that they could be much more successful if they are complimented by citizen actions in the Transition Town model. This compliment will be especially important in smaller towns and cities, which do not necessarily have the capital or population density to organize their own public transportation and other initiatives.

Thank a soldier today!
Sean Diamond

Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age

Hello Readers,

As I indicated in my recent blog post: The Times They Are A-Changin', I am going to be exploring potential ways to improve the financial and environmental sustainability of the United States by addressing climate change and the national debt. As the first portion of this series, I am going to explore the idea of creating an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits.

According to the government's social security website, Americans only have to work 10 years in their life to receive social security. Also, for people born before 1960 the full retirement age is 66 (plus some odd months depending on the exact birth year), and for people born in 1960 or later the full retirement age is 67. The original retirement age for social security benefits was 65 as documented in the text of the Social Security Act of 1935. This means that since it's inception the social security retirement age has only increased two years.

To put this meager adjustment in retirement age into perspective, please consider that US life expectancy in the 1930s was 58 for men and 62 for women and the retirement age was 65. This means that when social security was designed the expectation was that the majority of Americans would not live long enough to collect their benefits. Compare this to today. The retirement age is 67 and the average life expectancy in the US is at least 78 according to the World Bank. This means that while the retirement age has increased 2 years over the past 80 years, life expectancy has increased by about 18 years.

A social security retirement benefits program that lacks automatic adjustments in the retirement age based on life expectancy is inherently unsustainable. Even without the additional stresses on the program presented by fluctuations in population throughout time (e.g. the baby boom generation reaching retirement age), social security will always be hard pressed to remain funded as individuals attempt to spend larger percentages of their lives in retirement.

I propose that implementing an automatic adjustment of the retirement age based on life expectancy may allow the social security retirement benefits program to remain viable indefinitely. I suggest a '3 year plan' for social security. This '3 year plan' would entail automatically adjusting the retirement age to be 3 years less than a retiree's life expectancy. This plan would not be as austere as the original draft of the Social Security Act, but it would be a significant improvement over today's model!

The chart below represents the retirement age and the time an average adult could expect to receive retirement benefits as a percentage of the time they spent working during their lifetime with the blue and orange columns representing the '3 year plan' and the current state of social security benefits respectively. As you can see the '3 year plan' would hold steady the retirement percentage around 5%.

For Americans born in the early 1900's, the percentage was less than 6%. By the time Americans born in the 1960's retire the percentage will be nearly 25%. Hypothetically, if social security were to survive into the 2070's (by the time the children born last decade reach the current retirement age) the percentage will have climbed to nearly 36%!

While it would be unwieldy to attempt to adjust the retirement age every year, I suggest that it would be possible to adjust the retirement age decade by decade during census years. Of course, it would be unpractical and unfair to adjust the retirement age immediately prior to a person's expected retirement. Instead, I recommend having the 'determination decade' (the decade in which a generation's retirement age is determined) be the decade during which they turn 50, which would allow individuals twenty years or more to plan for retirement.

The chart above estimates roughly what the retirement age would be (or would have been) for everyone born since 1900. To take myself for example, I was born in the 1980's. This means that my retirement age would be determined in the year 2030. Based on current projections, it is likely that the US life expectancy will be 81 at this time. As a result my retirement age would be 78 under the '3 year plan'.

Through the lens of today's outdated retirement age, a retirement age of 78 seems outlandish; however, at this point I can only expect that social security benefits will cease to exist by the time I turn 60. Without correction it is expected that social security will be bankrupt during the 2030's after it starts paying out more than it is taking in annually starting in 2017. With the '3 year plan' for social security, there is little reason to suspect that social security would go bankrupt as long as the US government exists.

Obviously, it would be politically impossible to take away benefits of current and soon-to-be retirees. Thus, I would advocate starting with people born in the 1960's. Even though the '3 year plan' would push back the retirement age of my parent's generation by about 8 years (to age 75), the alternative is for social security to run out of money prior to the end of their life expectancy! Furthermore, any half-measures (perhaps a '6 year plan') for Americans born in the 1950's would help to alleviate the strain on the national debt that will begin to pile on starting in the latter half of this decade.

While this is a politically complex issue, I would suggest that fixing the social security funding problem is as simple as adjusting the retirement age. I know that there must be many ways in which I am incorrect about this issue. Please tell me how!

Thanks,

Sean Diamond

Pennsylvania HB 1580 - Fixing the SREC Market

Hello Readers,

This week I attended a press conference announcing the introduction of Pennsylvania House Bill 1580. If this bill is enacted as law, it will make great strides to fixing the recent turmoil in the Pennsylvania SREC market. In recent months the price of Solar Renewable Energy Credits in Pennsylvania has dropped from $300 in 2010 down to $100 in 2011. This has left many solar photovoltaic system owners in fear of what the payback for their systems will be. For more information about this bill, please see the blog post I prepared for MainLine Solar.

Save the Solar!

Sean Diamond

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Hello Readers,

As you may have noticed, my posting has become somewhat sparse over the past few months. I have been delving deeply into my work (and I intend to continue doing so...). I am working at a fast growing "solar integration" company - MainLine Solar - that does everything possible to get solar photovoltaic installations up and running (from connecting clients and financiers to meeting with local permitting officials to overseeing the installation). I joined up with this company for two reasons. The first was to help my brother (one of the founders of the company) maintain the company during his year-long military leave of absence with the Pennsylvania National Guard to receive training as a helicopter pilot. The second is that for a long time I have relished the thought of promoting the expansion of renewable energy in America and throughout the world as a means of moving away from the use of fossil fuels, and now I am being afforded the opportunity to take an active part (perhaps the most active part possible) in ensuring that occurs.

However, as I have had ample opportunity to focus on solar, I have not taken as much time as I would have liked to look at the bigger picture. To remedy this I have decided to take a deeper look at solving two issues that I believe are of primary importance to the sustainability of America as a country, as a society, and as a world leader. These two issues touch upon the financial, social, and environmental viability of the United States. These two issues are problems that I would like to help solve by 2030 - by the time I am 45 and my as of yet unconceived children are out of high school. These two issues are issues that have been growing since my grandparents' generation was my age, and I would like these two issues to be solidly in the realm of 'American History' when my grandchildren are my age. These two issues are actually two things I would like to see eliminated - or rather that need to be eliminated in the next twenty years if America is to hold any sort of grasp on the power it has held since World War II. These two issues are climate change and the national debt.

In order to tackle these two issues, I understand that I will need to stand fully upon the third rail of contemporary politics. However, so long as I am able to hold my balance, I shall hopefully remain unharmed. I have chosen these two issues - climate change and the national debt - not purely out of passion, though some of that is to blame, but out of necessity. If the United States fails to address either of these issues adequately over the next two decades, I firmly believe that my grandchildren will not be able to understand - even remotely - the type of country in which I became an adult.

Rather than blindly lash out at any particular political party's role in either of these issues, I am going to put forward some simple ideas on how to fix the problems presented. Then, I am going to do my best to evaluate the potential impacts such 'fixes' will have. I certainly hope that any of my readers that are interested in this endeavor will help me out by pointing me in the direction of related data, articles, and experts.

So far my list of potential fixes includes:

• Ameliorating the growing need for social security entitlements by adjusting the retirement age
• Reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods
• Reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuel powered cars
• Promoting renewable sources of electricity
• Removing loop holes in the federal tax codes
• Upgrading the electric grid infrastructure with energy storage and smart metering
• Mandating a balanced federal budget

I believe that these are just a handful of possible solutions that can help America solve climate change and the national debt issues. I also hope that by addressing these two issues through these proposed solutions, the United States will reap many other benefits including a greatly improved quality of life!

Please let me know what you think about this endeavor, and keep an eye out for related posts over the next several months.

Thanks,
Sean Diamond

Frack You!

Hello Readers,

I have run across a great blog post from ClimateProgress.org. I definitely recommend checking it out:
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/13/must-see-propublica-video-on-natural-gas-fracking/

The article is informative, but in case you don't have time to read through it I also suggest passing along this Flight of the Conchords-esque song:



Stay frack free!
~Sean

Hello Readers,

When I saw this new TED talk about literally growing batteries, I knew I had to share it. This is especially relevant to our ability to manufacture batteries and other energy storage systems (as discussed in my dissertation).

Please enjoy!

~Sean