Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts

a post on 이해영's Facebook: lessons from Germany's reunification

Hae-Young Lee, March 29, 2014, on his Facebook
  
소위 '통일대박론'의 모델이 독일이란다. 해서 독일 총리 메르켈도 이왕 오신 손님에게 립서비스차원에서 이리 말했다. “독일 통일은 정말 행운이자 대박”이라며 “대박이란 말이 나의 느낌도 반영하고 있고 저 역시 통일의 산물이라고 말씀드리겠다”. 이어 아주 귀담아 들어야 할 말도 덧붙였다. “통일이 되면 모든 상황이 바뀌게 된다. 그 전 다른 삶을 산 사람들에게 개방적 자세를 취해야 한다. 그들이 이야기하는 부분에 귀를 기울여야 한다”고 당부했다. “그를 위한 마음의 준비도 필요하다”.
독일말로 Gluecksfall -움라우트를 못찾겠다 ㅎ- 은 그냥 '운좋은 케이스', 행운이란 일상용어다. '대박'을 노다지란 의미인 bonanza 로 번역한다면, 이와는 분명 어울리지 않는다.
그럼 어떤 ''이 독일에는 따라 주었나.
1. 구동독 민중의 자발적 저항과 봉기였다.
2. 하지만 잘사는 이웃을 둔 탓에, 'Wir sind das Volk' (우리가 인민이다) '우리가 이 나라의 주인이다'에서 출발했지만 곧 'Wir sind ein Volk' (우리는 '하나의' 인민이다)로 획기적인 패러다임의 전환을 이룬다.
3. 선거를 앞두고 있던 레알폴리티커(Realpolitiker), 당시 수상 헬무트 콜등 서독 보수정치의 동독에 대한 매우 신속하고 정교한 개입으로 단 329일만에 구소동구권에서 가장 잘 나가던 국가 하나를 해체후 '폭풍흡입'해 낸다.
4. 여기서 두가지 결정적인 요인이 있었다. 첫째는 구동독을 '' 수 있는 구서독의 경제력이다.
5. 둘째는 고르바쵸프다. 통일된 강력한 독일의 부상은 인접국에겐 악몽이다. 여기서 고르바쵸프의 승인과 마침 진행중이었던 EU통합에다 독일통합을 '얹어서 슬쩍 끼워넣은'(embedding) 독일외교의 탁월함이 작동한다. 특히 구동독 군부의 저항움직임을 사전에 차단하고 정리해 준것은 뭐니 뭐니 해도 고르바쵸프다.(그래서 무장충돌이 없었다)
6. 구동독 시민운동에게 통합은 '의도하지 않은 결과'에 가깝다. 하지만 선택은 순응하던지, 그만두던지 둘중 하나였다. 지금 총리 메르켈은 전자의 가장 성공적인 경우다. 후자에게 독일통합은 말그대로 재앙이자 사고Unfall였다. 구동독의 '건강한' 비판세력에게 독일통일은 '식민화'에 다름아니었다는 말이다.
7. 하지만 급하게 먹었는데 소화가 잘 될 리 만무하다. 세금으로 엄청난 경제적 비용을 감당해야 했다. 재주는 구동독 민중이 부리고, 구전은 독일 보수정치가 챙긴셈이다.
8. 그 후의 과정을 좀 아카데믹하게 정리하면, 시스템통합에는 성공했을 지 몰라도, '사회통합'에는 실패한 것이 독일모델이다. 이를 나는 십여년전 <독일은 통일되지 않았다>고 썼다. (아래 책광고 ㅋㅋㅋ) 위 메르켈이 말한 '마음의 준비'라는 지적의 맥락이 여기에 있다.
이 모델을 한반도에 적용해 보자. 1. 북한민중의 자발적 봉기와 이를 지도할 정치(시민)세력 2. 남한의 초막강 경제력 3. 고르바쵸프 역할을 할 자(시진핑?) 즉 북한 군부를 완전 통제할 만큼의 북한내 정보망과 실력을 갖추어 무력충돌을 제어할 자 혹은 세력의 존재 4. 남북한 통일의 국제적 조건, 예컨대 EU에 비견될 동아시아 통합 5. 비용조달을 위한 대규모 증세에 대한 남한내의 사회적 합의.
현재로서 독일모델의 한반도적용을 위한 필요충분조건은 준비되지 않았다. 가까운 미래에 그렇게 될 가능성도 없다. 따라서 그것은 Gluecksfall이 아니라 Unfall(사고, 재앙)이 될 가능성이 차라리 높다.
* 참 아래 책은 안사셔도 된다 ㅎㅎㅎ

Hae-Young Lee : 메르켈에 대해 정치적으로 동의하지 않지만, 요 지적 "다른 삶을 살아온 사람들"이란 시각이 문제의 본질중에 본질입니다. 우리는 북한 민중의 "다른 삶"을 존중할 하등의 준비가 되어 있지 않은 거죠. 통일되면 그 저 북한에 있는 우리 조상땅 찾기에 혈안이 될 겁니다. 독일의 경우 이런 내땅 찾기 소송이 200만건 벌어 졌습니다. 만에 하나 통일 되면 독일의 동독출신 여성 정치인 메르켈처럼, 북한 출신 누구에게 권력을 줄 수있을까요. 우리가? 절대 안될 겁니다. 북한출신은 영구낙인이 될 겁니다. 한반도판 주홍글씨라 봐야겠죠

Hae-Young Lee : 독일의 사례로 제가 예측해 보건대 일단 부동산입니다. 평양중심가가 절대 유리합니다. 아 소매상으론 포르노산업이 유망합니다. 통일이후 베를린의 비디오대여점이 대호황이엇으니까요.

Hae-Young Lee : 북한땅 찾기 소송 전문 변호사 분명 나올 겁니다 ㅎㅎ. 근디 독일의 경우 구동독이 독일의 연방에 '가입'하면서 구서독의 모든 사법체계를 그대로 수용했기 때문에 사실 구동독주민들로서는 황당한 소송이 빈발할 수 밖에 없었습니다. 구동독이 사회주의국가였지만 개인적 소유도 허용되었거든요. 그런 데 통일이후 어느 날 갑자기 서독의 집주인, 땅주인이 나타나 내 놓으라고 하는 거죠. 그런데 구동독의 국가성 자체가 불법이었기 때문에 구동독국가에 '등기'된 재산의 소유권을 주장할 수 없게 되었습니다.


Hae-Young Lee : 만에 하나 '독일식으로 된다면', 북한의 '국가'를 이루는 모든 것 화폐, 은행, 군대, 경찰, 학교, 병원은 물론이고 모든 정부기관은 해체됩니다. 그리고 여기에 가담했던 자들은 우리 헌법상 북한은 국가를 '참칭'한 불법집단이기 때문에 전원 형사처벌의 대상이 될 겁니다. 피의 숙청이 시작되곘죠 

Jeremy Rifkin: Creating a New Economic Paradigm (Ceres Conference 2012)


Dear Friends,

Recently I had the pleasure of presenting a keynote lecture at the Ceres Conference in Boston, MA. Please see the link below to view my talk: 

Jeremy Rifkin, author and president at the Foundation on Economic Trends delivered an insightful talk about our economic and environmental future and what he calls, the Third Industrial Revolution. Rifkin spoke at the annual Ceres Conference held April…

.

.

Angela Merkel's political and personal background


NPR, Morning Edition 11:00 AM EST
December 8, 2011 Thursday
Can Angela Merkel Save Europe From Economic Turmoil?

ERIC WESTERVELT: But CDU politician Elmar Brok, a member of the European parliament, says Merkel is using the crisis as an opportunity to reshape European fiscal policy more in tune with German postwar sensibilities of frugality, caution and historical fear of inflation.

She wants to have a long-term solution, not a cheap way. This is sometimes difficult in politics, which look for the next election date.

That cautious, methodical manner is rooted in Merkel's personality, as well as her political and personal background.  She is a bit of an anomaly as leader of her Christian Democratic Union, a party deeply influenced by Catholic social teachings with its core support traditionally in Western Germany. By contrast, she's the daughter of a Protestant minister who grew up in the then-Communist east of the country and trained to be a physicist before entering politics.  

Merkel biographer Gerd Langguth says her family had two cars and traveled relatively easily between East and West Germany, leading him to conclude that her pastor father had what he calls a sympathetic relationship with the Communist dictatorship. He says little in her orderly upbringing suggests she's capable of truly courageous leadership.

GERD LANGGUTH: She is not a dreamer, she is not a historian. She does not have big visions. She does not like to create big pictures of the future. She is a step-by-step decision-maker.

ERIC WESTERVELT: Langguth knows Merkel and finds the popular image of her as charismatically challenged and aloof unfair.  She's a logical, unpretentious woman, he says, who still lives in the same apartment that she did before becoming chancellor, with her husband, a chemist who hates media or public attention.  Yet Langguth says Merkel was not shaped by history the way her CDU predecessors Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl were.  Kohl, he notes, as chancellor would sprinkle his speeches with personal memories of hardship, of American aid in the rough years after the war. His late wife had been raped by the Red Army and thrown out a window as a preteen.  Experience shaped Kohl's efforts to build a united Europe and a strong trans-Atlantic relationship

GERD LANGGUTH: Helmut Kohl was much more European by heart.  He knew what European unity means because he lived during the Second World War.

ERIC WESTERVELT: But Langguth says for Merkel the European project is much more a rational, matter-of-fact decision. She was born in 1954, nine years after the war, and learned about the conflict in school.  It was an ideologically loaded communist curriculum, the biographer notes, which glorified so-called anti-fascist fighters, downplayed atrocities, and sidestepped the full historical picture.

GERD LANGGUTH: It was not treated in the political and civic education in the same manner as in Western Germany. And of course, younger people do not feel personally responsible for the Second World War and for the Holocaust. So the experience never made Angela Merkel in her youth.

ERIC WESTERVELT: She is acutely aware of the European sensitivities toward a powerful, resurgent, economically dominant Germany,  Langguth says, but adds she may not appreciate it the same way as her predecessors did. Merkel often says if the euro fails, so does Europe.  But some wonder if she really feels the weight of history and her crucial role at this moment. As one biographer put it, in her years in power, Merkel has not made a single truly memorable speech. Yet that may not matter. A majority of Germans embrace their even-keeled chancellor. Her personal approval rating today remains near 60 percent, and more than half of her countrymen say they trust her to guide Europe out of the crisis. Eric Westervelt, NPR News, Berlin.

Germany reopens investigations into Nazi death camp guards – JCE II


Germany reopens investigations into Nazi death camp guards – JCE II
Poland reopens investigations into Nazi-era crimes

Germany reopens investigations into Nazi death camp guards
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 October 2011

Prosecutors in Germany have reopened hundreds of investigations of former Nazi death camp guards and others who might now be charged under a precedent set by the conviction of John Demjanjuk, a guard at Sobibor camp in Poland in 1943.

the head of the German prosecutors' office dedicated to investigating Nazi war crimes , Kurt Schrimm

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre's chief Nazi-hunter, Efraim Zuroff, said he would launch a campaign in the next two months – a successor to his Operation Last Chance – to track down the remaining war criminals.

He added that the Demjanjuk conviction had opened the door to prosecutions that were never thought possible.

Demjanjuk, now 91, was deported from the US to Germany in 2009 to stand trial. He was convicted in May of 28,060 counts of accessory to murder for serving as a guard at the Sobibor death camp.
It was the first time prosecutors were able to convict someone in a Nazi-era case without direct evidence that the suspect participated in a specific killing.
He has appealed against his conviction.

In bringing Demjanjuk to trial, Munich prosecutors argued that if they could prove he was a guard at a camp like Sobibor, which had been established for the sole purpose of extermination, it would be enough to convict him of being an accessory to murder.

After 18 months of testimony a Munich court agreed and found Demjanjuk guilty, sentencing him to five years in prison. Demjanjuk, a retired car worker who denies having served as a guard, is currently free and living in southern Germany as he waits for his appeal to be heard.

Schrimm said his office was poring over its files to see if others fit into the same category as Demjanjuk.  He could not give an exact figure, but said there were probably "less than 1,000" possible suspects living in Germany and elsewhere who could face prosecution.

It has not yet been tested in court whether the Demjanjuk precedent could be extended to guards of Nazi camps where thousands died but whose sole purpose was not necessarily murder.

Murder and related offences are the only charges that are not subject to a statute of limitations in Germany.  Even the narrowest scenario – investigating the guards of the four death camps: Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka – plus those involved in the Einsatzgruppen could lead to scores of prosecutions, Zuroff said.

Immediately after the war senior Nazis such as Hermann Göring were convicted at war-crimes trials run by the allied powers, while investigations of lower-ranking officials fell to German courts.  But there was little political will to aggressively pursue the prosecutions, and many of the trials ended with short sentences or the acquittal of suspects in greater positions of responsibility than Demjanjuk allegedly had.

However, Schrimm said it makes sense to try to bring new cases to trial once the Demjanjuk case is through the appeals process, rather than expend the resources needed to charge a suspect only to have the case thrown out if Demjanjuk wins.

Zuroff said he hoped the appeal would be fast-tracked so new charges could be filed. "This is a test for the German judicial system to see if they can expedite this in an appropriate manner to enable these cases to go forward," he added.

Germany reopens hundreds of Nazi investigations
October 5th, 2011

"This signals that there is a new generation of prosecutors who want to take a fresh and serious look, and it means that the larger German bureaucratic machine is paying attention to the importance of finding these criminals."

Germany Reopens Nazi War Criminal Investigations
October 9, 2011

the defense attorney for Demjanjuk, he has often made the argument that his client is effectively a stand-in and a kind of scapegoat. That he essentially stood by and did nothing and participated, but that a great many Germans at that time did the same thing. And I guess I'm wondering what you feel about that assessment



Poland reopens investigations into Nazi-era crimes
Thu Oct 27, 2011

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland has reopened investigations into crimes committed at the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz during World War Two, in an effort to track down any surviving camp employees before they die.

Up to 1.5 million people, mostly Jews, perished at Nazi German hands at Auschwitz, near the city of Krakow in southern Poland, during the war that ended in 1945.

In the postwar communist era, Warsaw launched probes into crimes committed at Auschwitz, but closed them in the 1980s because questioning witnesses and perpetrators based abroad was too hard at a time when Poland was part of the Soviet bloc.

"We do not exclude the possibility of finding alive former employees of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp," Piotr Piatek of Poland's Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) told the PAP state news agency Thursday.

Jewish groups welcomed Thursday's announcement by the IPN.

Poland reopens investigation into Auschwitz crimes
By VANESSA GERA, Associated Press   Oct.27, 2011

Nazi Germany opened Auschwitz in 1940, months after it invaded and occupied Poland. Over the next five years of war, German and Austrian Nazis murdered up to 1.5 million people there at the expanded Auschwitz-Birkenau camp complex, most of them Jews from across Europe, but also Poles, Roma, gays and others

A leading international Nazi hunter, Efraim Zuroff, praised Poland's reopening of the investigation

Poland reopens investigations into Auschwitz crimes
By Matthew Day, Warsaw , 27 Oct 2011

Many of the old cases were started in the 1970s and 1980s but failed to progress owing to difficulties caused by the Iron Curtain,

Most of the staff who served at the camp were captured and punished but a 1956 amnesty stopped trials and led to the release of some of those imprisoned for crimes committed at Auschwitz 

Jeremy Rifkin: "The Third Industrial Revolution" - The Diane Rehm Show ; Paul Krugman


Jeremy Rifkin: "The Third Industrial Revolution"
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 11:06 a.m. The Diane Rehm Show 

=== ---===== ==== ==  ====

DO –
why the third industrial revolution ? See  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27krugman.html  Fuels on the Hill, PAUL KRUGMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/opinion/21krugman.html  Running Out of Planet to Exploit, PAUL KRUGMAN

why Germany is way ahead of other states, including the US, in this game plan ? See

===== ==== ==== ==== 

MS. DIANE REHM
Jeremy Rifkin argues we're missing the real threat to the world economy. He's a best-selling author. He's advisor to the European Union on climate change, and energy security. In a new book titled "The Third Industrial Revolution," he says the global economy will face more meltdowns followed by shorter and weaker recoveries as long as it relies on fossil fuels. He joins me in the studio to describe a new economic development plan based on the merger of internet technology and renewable energy.  

MR. JEREMY RIFKIN11:08:23
Nice to be here, Diane, thank you.

You're talking about the democratization of energy. What do you mean?

We have been living under two industrial revolutions, the first in the 19th century, the second in the 20th century. And, you know, the great economic changes in history as you said leading into the show occur when new energy revolutions converge with communication revolutions. When they come together, it changes the whole way we live.

In the 19th century, print technology became very cheap. We introduced public schools. We created a mass workforce with the literacy skills to organize the complexities of a coal and steam-powered revolution. In the 20th century, the telephone was absolutely essential, and radio and television later to become the communication medium to organize a very complex auto oil and suburban age.

Those two industrial revolutions provide us a little bit of a framework of the problem we face now, and if I may, let me just spend a little moment on the crisis.

We've missed the real crisis here. The real economic crisis occurred in July 2008. When oil hit $147 a barrel that July, you remember what happened.

Prices went through the roof for every other product, pesticides, fertilizers, construction materials, pharmaceutical products, synthetic fiber, power, transport, heat and light, because our whole civilization is either made out of and/or moved by fossil fuel. So when the price of oil starts to go over 80 a barrel, all the other prices go up on the supply chain, and at 147 a barrel in July 2008, people stopped buying.

The prices were through the roof, and the whole engine of the global economy shut down. What I'm suggesting, that was the economic earthquake.  The collapse of the financial market 60 days later, that was the aftershock.

We're not going to the crisis. And the reason this is happening, Diane, and it's really peaked globalization.  At least in the business communication, we now know the outer limits of how far we can actually globalize this economy based on fossil fuels.  It's about 150 a barrel and we'll hit the wall. The reason is something called peak oil per capita, which is related to global peak oil production, but a little bit different.

Peak oil per capita occurred in 1979, and there's no controversy about this.  If we had distributed all the crude oil that we had at that point to everyone alive on the earth, that's the most each person could have if we shared it.  Of course, we found more oil since then, but population rose quicker. So if we distributed all the oil we have to 6.8 billion people, there's simply less to go around.

So when China and India made a bid in the 1990s that at any 10, 12 percent growth rate to bring a third of the human race into the game, the demand pressure against the supply of crude oil was overwhelming, and we bottomed out at 150 a barrel, and here's the proof this morning. You remember after the crisis in 2008, the economy stopped and oil went down to $30 a barrel because there was no economic activity.

In 2010, we started to replenish inventory around the world. We started to grow again. We tried to turn back the engine on and what happened? Oil shot from 30 up to 100 a barrel.

It's 106, crude oil today, and what's happening? Once again, all the prices are going up for everything else and purchasing power is plummeting and the engine is shutting off again. So here's the message.

Every time we try to regrow the economy at the same rate we were growing before July 2008, we will see this terrible, terrible attempt to rejuvenate it, and within three-year cycles, every time we try to rejuvenate it, oil prices go up, all the other prices go up, purchasing power goes down, we collapse.

So we're in a very dangerous period over the next 30 years of growth and collapse, growth and collapse. This is an end game, so we really need to address this and figure out how we move to a new energy regime and new economic paradigm.

Again, it's based on the premise that the great revolutions occur when communication revolutions emerge to actually organize the complexity of new energy regimes. You know we've had this very powerful Internet communication revolution, Diane, in the last 15 years. And what's so interesting for me as an older person, is I grew up on centralized electricity communication top down.

What's interesting about the Internet is it's distributed and collaborative in nature, and the power is lateral, which sounds like an oxymoron, lateral power, but -- because we think of power as pyramidical. But a later power suggests side by side power.  What we're beginning to see in Europe in the last 24 months is emerging of this very powerful communication medium, the Internet, which is distributed in collaborative with a new energy regime, renewable energies, which by nature are distributed in collaborative.

So when distributed Internet communication starts to organize distributed energies, we have a very powerful third industrial revolution that could change everything, and here are the five pillars as we've laid them out. This is the formal plan of the European Union. I was privileged to develop the plan, it was endorsed by the European Parliament in 2007, Germany is leading by far in this plan, the leading exporting power in the world, and here are the five pillars quickly.

Pillar one - the EU is committed to 20 percent renewable energy by 2020. That's a mandate. Every one of the 27 states has to fulfill that.  That's a third of the electricity of Europe has to be green by 2020.  Pillar two, and this is an interesting one, how do we collect these distributed renewable energies, because the sun and the wind and the geothermal heat and the garbage and the ocean tides and forestry waste, they're found everywhere.

You can find some renewable energy in every square inch of the world. So how do we collect them? This got us to pillar two, and our first idea in Europe was okay, let's go to the Mediterranean, they've got a lot of sun. The Irish have the wind, the Norwegians have the hydro, centralize it and put it in a high voltage line and ship it out. Now, we're smiling now because we were thinking 20th century energies which are centralized because they're only found in a few places like coal, oil, gas, and uranium. Old ways of thinking

And we began to ask a question two years -- no, four years ago, that seems ridiculously simply now. If renewable energies are found in every square inch of the world in some frequency or proportion, why would we only collect them in a few central points?

Big solar parks, big wind parks, geothermal parks. We don't oppose that. They're essential, but not sufficient, and they're a small part of this third industrial revolution. So pillar two lead us to buildings. The number one user of energy in the world is buildings. The number one cause of climate change is buildings. By the way, I should say, Diane, I always feel I need to, the number two cause of climate change is beef production and consumption, and related animal husbandry. Nobody mentions it. Number three is transport. So in EU, we have 191 million buildings there. The goal is to convert every (building) single office, home, and factory into your own micro power plant over the next 30 years so that you collect the sun on the roof, the wind off the side walls, the heat under the ground, et cetera.

But who's going to pay for that?
Germany has an interesting plan, because Germany is way ahead of the game here, and pillar one they just reached last month, 20 percent renewable energy.  Ten years ahead of time, and they're heading to 35 percent renewable for electricity in nine more years.

Here's the way they did it. They put in feed in tariff, which means you get premium -- if you convert your facility to renewable energy, and you want to sell your energy back to the grid, you get a higher price than the normal energy.  It's paid for in this way.

The electricity bill is raised just slightly, so small you don't even notice it, but then the money that's available is used for early adopters to put solar on their roof or winds next to the building, et cetera.

And so all over Germany, and now across Europe, buildings are being converted. The new buildings, Diane, are actually positive power. They create so much energy that they can use it and surplus back to the grid. Olivia (word?) Construction has a beautiful office complex in Paris, just went up next to the OECD headquarters. It's positive power.

Pillar two jump starts the European economy, that's the idea. Millions and millions and millions of jobs. Thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises have to convert 190 million buildings to power plants over the next 40 years. So I think, Diane, the best way for the listeners to think of it is, think mainframe computers 1970s, now you have your own desktop.  Think centralized power in the 20th century, now you have your own power.

Pillar three, that's the tough one, storage. The sun isn't always shining in Germany, or in Europe, or here, and the wind isn't always blowing when you need the electricity. These are intermittent energies, so we have to store them. So the EU has committed to all the storage technologies, batteries, flywheels, capacitors, water pumping, but we're putting the big Euros into hydrogen.

Eight billion Euro commitment of public/private funds in the next few years, because, you know, hydrogen is the basic element of the universe. It's the stuff of the stars. It carries other energy. It's modular so you can use it for small homes and big factories. So here's how it works. You put photovoltaic solar panels on your roof, you generate electricity.

If you have some electricity you don't need for the moment, you put the electricity in the water. Hydrogen bubbles out of the water into a tank. It's real simple. When the sun isn't shining on your roof, you turn it and the hydrogen goes from the tank back to electricity. A very small thermodynamic loss.

All right. Pillar one, renewable energy. Pillar two, your buildings become your own power plants. Pillar three, you have to store it with hydrogen.  And then Pillar four, that's the most interesting. This is where the internet communication revolution completely merges with new distributing energies to create a nervous system, an infrastructure for a new economic paradigm.

We actually use off-the-shelf internet technology and convert the power lines of the United States, Europe and the world, the transmissions lines into an energy internet that acts exactly like the internet. So when millions and millions of buildings are collecting their own green energy on site, storing it in hydrogen like you store digital in media, if you don't need some of that electricity, the software can connect you and you can share it across entire continents. Just like we now produce our own information, store it in digital and share it online.

And it's interesting, in Germany, they have six test sites that have been set up by the federal government and they are actually testing the most interesting things. They're connecting every appliance -- every appliance to the transmission central grid -- to the distributed grid. So we will know what every washing machine is doing across an entire region, every thermostat, every air conditioner. So if there's too much demand for energy and the price is going up, the software can direct a million washing machines to say, forget the extra rinse. If you, the consumer, bought that particular program you'll get a credit and a check from the utility company.

They're even testing weather conditions on the software so each homeowner or business will know moment to moment the change in weather conditions and how that would affect how they use their energy.  And you'll have a dial that will tell you the price of electricity moment to moment so that your software can tell you when to get off the grid, sell back to the grid, et cetera. It's just beginning, just beginning.

Pillar five is electric plug-in transport.  The electric vehicles came out this year. Fuel cell hydrogen vehicles are coming out -- this is a done deal -- in mass production by Daimler, General Motors and the other car companies in 2014.  So you'll be able to plug your vehicles in anywhere on the grid, get green electricity. Then anywhere you travel, you can connect up to a plug, parking garages, whatever, and either get green electricity from the grid or if your computer says sell 'cause the price is right, you can sell yours back.

So Diane, these five pillars together is a -- they are a new technology platform. They're the infrastructure we keep talking about in America. We keep saying we need infrastructure, infrastructure. But the key is not to mend the old 20th Century infrastructure alone because those energies and technologies are pretty well exhausted, but to create the new infrastructure for a 21st Century third industrial revolution.

What happens to nuclear power in all of this?
I've been advising the EU for a long time and the chancellor of Germany -- after Fukushima, I got a call from the chancellor's office saying would I join Chancellor Merkel in September to talk about how we grow a sustainable economy in the 21st Century. And Germany is certainly leading in all these five pillars.
I think nuclear's -- it's really over.  I think Fukushima was just the last point of departure. I notice that this week Siemens, the great German company, announced they're out of nuclear power.

Let me give you the business reason why it's over. And people can argue about the ideological reasons. Nuclear was dead until the 19 -- in the 1980s because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It's come back in the 1990s, was at -- least nuclear is clean. It doesn't emit CO2.  It can play a role in averting climate change. That was the whole rationale for its comeback.

(1), The problem is this. There's about 400 nuclear power plants in the world. They're very old. They only make up 6 percent of our energy mix, that's all. But our scientific community says to have a minimum impact on climate change, minimum, you'd have to have 20 percent nuclear in the mix of energy. That means you'd have to have 4,000 nuclear power plants. That means you have to replace the existing 400 and build three nuclear power plants every 30 days for the next 60 years. That's not going to happen.

(2),  the second problem is we simply don't know how to get rid of the nuclear waste.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but we spent $8 billion to build that failsafe vault at Yuka Mountain to put the nuclear material in. We can't open it up because it's already leaking.  

(3),  Number three, uranium costs go up right now with the existing power plants. We could recycle the uranium to plutonium like the French want to do, but then we've got problems with security issues around the world.

(4),  And here's the final thing your listeners should know. We don't have the water.  Forty percent of all the water consumed in France last year went to cooling nuclear reactors.  And when it comes back, the water's heated and it's dehydrating eco systems for agriculture.  So from a business point of view, I'd be surprised if we build more than 50 nuclear power plants. I think the old ones are going to go. I just don't think it's part of the equation.

All right. So in the midst of all this planning for the future you have oil companies and gas companies pushing for new exploration. What do you say to them?

It's kind of sad. In the opening chapter of the "Third Industrial Revolution" I quote a petroleum institute study because, you know, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and others are saying drill, drill, drill as if that's going to get us out of the crisis.

the petroleum institute did a study and showed that if we opened up every potential oil reservoir that we have, the Arctic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountains, the east and west coast to complete drilling, and this is the petroleum institute that represents the industry, we might be able to get 10 percent more oil out of the ground. That's infinitesimal in 20 years from now in a global aggregated market. So...

And what about gas fracking?

Gas fracking is problematic, too. Of course, remember, there's CO2 emissions there.  Secondly, there is a lot of potential gas, but the environmental consequences are potentially enormous.  That's why France, which is very, very fastidious about its power, has outlawed fracking already. And there's a big global discussion going with it.

You know, Diane, there's lots of other fossil fuels.  We have tar sands from Canada. And the government here in Washington has to decide whether that pipeline should send that tar sand down to Houston. We have heavy oil in Venezuela.  We have coal deposits around the world, but they're dirtier. They emit more CO2. They bring us into climate change even quicker. So we're trapped.

On the one hand, we have a dying fossil fuel second industrial revolution. And every time we try to re-grow it, it's going to collapse because of the price of oil.  On the other hand, we have the entropy bill for the industrial aid, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, which is now affecting agriculture and infrastructure.  So we're stuck with this, but we have to find a way to make sure the old system doesn't collapse, keep it on life support. But we have to vest our funds, our knowhow, our talent into laying down this five-pillar infrastructure for a third industrial revolution to grow millions of jobs, create a new business model and make it sustainable.

But you've got lobbyists, members of congress all locked in to that second industrial revolution with fossil fuels as its basis.

That's true and the energy industry's a very powerful lobby in Washington. They received, even today in their sunset period, they're receiving tens of billions of dollars of subsidies every year. But you know what? I think we have a more powerful lobby here, not in the traditional sense.  But when you take a look at these five pillars the industries that are represented are pretty impressive. It's the renewable energy industry. But the construction industry, the real estate industry, the IT industry, the logistics and transport industries.

And so when we begin to look at the possibilities of taking a stagnant American economy and laying down this new infrastructure, we're talking about thousands of new businesses and millions of new jobs to lay down the infrastructure itself. And it starts immediately. As soon as you commit yourself to this revolution in each city, in each state and begin to create public private partnerships to do this, the jobs start right away at day one.

So we hear President Obama talking about the prospect of a green economy and how it could create new business and jobs. So why are you critical of his efforts?

we looked at him as a transitional president to a new generation, the internet president. And he said the worst thing is losing his Blackberry. So I assumed when he came into office that he would understand the potential of joining internet communication to organize distributed renewable energy.

The problem with the Obama Administration is not the will. They do want to have a green economy. And to be fair, this administration has spent billions and billions of dollars in introducing various technologies and initiatives. But he doesn't have a narrative. He doesn't have a game plan. There isn't a coherent cohesive roadmap on how you do this.

So when he introduces his green economy, it's all a hodgepodge of individual projects that seemingly don't tie in, a battery factory over here, an electric car over here, a solar factory over there. And what he hasn't done is put these disparate parts into a comprehensive story that tells us about a third industrial revolution. He doesn't have these five pillars. And if you don't put them together, Diane, you can't create the new economic paradigm we're talking about.

If you've been meeting with Angela Merkel, why haven't you met with President Obama?

Well, that's a good question. In the book, there's a little chapter there in my discussions early on with some members of the congress over the years. And certainly they're aware of what we're doing in the European Union. But it hasn't blown back here in any significant way. But I think it's going to open up really in a major way in the next 24 months. You're going to see developments in Texas, California's already moving along, and northeast and other parts of the country.

Let me give you one example. When we first introduced this into Europe, the power and utility companies weren't very thrilled because they're kind of attached to the big energy companies. And they're saying, well, wait a minute. We're going to have to give up controlling energy and sell less electrons? This doesn't make sense. Then we began to introduce a new business model to the power and utility companies on how they make more money in shifting to this third industrial revolution.

I said, get used to it. In the future, millions of people in homes, offices and factories are going to produce their own energy. The new technology, solar, wind, geothermal, they're getting cheaper and cheaper. And they're going to follow the same line that the cell phones and computers did, going from very expensive to so cheap you can give them away. And once that technology becomes cheaper and cheaper to collect the energies -- the energies themselves are free, Diane. It's the wind, the sun, the heat under your ground, the garbage you collect, so in the future, millions of people are going to really provide their own energy.

What's the role of the utility companies? They'll be able to run the energy internets, 'cause that's technical. And the way they're going to make money is they're going to do the IBM shuffle.  You remember IBM was in trouble in the '90s. They were making no money selling computers.  So they decided that they had to rethink their business. And they came up with the idea that their real business is managing information.  So now every company in the world has a chief information officer.

The power and utility companies' new business is to set up relationships with thousands of corporate clients and homeowners to manage their energy flows, to keep their energy costs down and their productivity up. And here's the key for anyone in the business community listening to this. The key to survival in the next 30 years is not labor costs, it's energy costs to the extent that any business can keep its energy costs low, its productivity high and its margins there it survives. And the utility company can share those savings with the companies.

Diane, I think there's a generational problem here. The old guard in the business community, they think centralize, they think top down. The young generation in the business community and in the public thinks distributive and collaborative and lateral.  The music companies, they didn't understand distributed file sharing of music. They didn't understand it and then they went down in five years. They just tumbled. And the newspapers didn't understand the distributed computing power of a blogosphere. And now newspapers are hurriedly trying to create blogs.

But when the internet connects with energies and we create a democratization of energy, it's 100 times more powerful. Because then it means we begin to create all sorts of new business models and new ways of relating to each other.

The key is, how you get the loans. How do you finance getting a $30,000 photovoltaic on your roof? The way they do it in Europe is green loans. It's now starting in Italy and Germany. Now Italy has its problems with bureaucracy, so listen to this one, Diane. There are companies in Italy who have lined up the big national banks. You, a homeowner, can go and get a green loan. You sign a paper.

Sixty days later, the photovoltaic power plant's on your roof. Sixty days later. And the reason the banks are willing to finance this, because of the feed-in tariff, they know you're gonna save electricity on your bill and you're going to be able to pay as you say. And so they automatically know you're a good risk. In Germany they're starting green loans. In North America, only Ontario has the feed-in tariff.