talks

i've been to a few interesting talks.

• a conference on the future of carbon mitigation in the post-midterm climate.  what i heard is that international and national -level climate change initiatives are dead.  leadership is really coming from three places:  municipalities and states (AB 32, building standards), businesses striving to cut costs through efficiency, and the tech sector.  it's made me think a lot about finance and encouraging private sector action.  also, about framing issues:  don't we want to be competitive with china?  and create jobs in a new industry?  depend less on foreign oil?  invest in infrastructure?  have clean air? 
  
• a lunch time talk about philanthropy.  i think foundations are hard to get into, but maybe i'll try.  they seem like nice places to work.  also, who's really in control -- the organization giving money or the organization asking for money?  i'd never really thought hard about the funding aspect of non-profit land.
• a talk with andrew sorkin (dealbook column) and futures regulator gary gensler on shadow banking.  okay, i didn't really listen to the talk very much.  (i'd signed up for a fancy dinner with the speakers and was obligated to attend the lecture.)  what i took away was this:  sorkin is five years older than me and has so much power as a business journalist for the times.  crazy!  also, regulators make very cautious statements and stick only to things related to their jurisdiction.  maybe being a regulator does that to you -- focus very narrowly?
  
• an ambassador's talk about aiding failed states.  the most interesting part was his discussion about the bureaucratic politics involved in creating a new organization within the state department.  organizational behavior is fascinating.  public entities are so much more complicated than private ones.  i really think policy schools should take a hint from b-schools and offer more process-oriented courses.  people in governments and nonprofits have to manage and work in really complex spaces. 
  

along that last thought, i read a great book for class, managing with power.      

policy school is convincing me that businesses are the real do-ers and innovators of the world.  (and maybe i want to play on the winning team.)  at cornerstone, there was this ethos of initiating change and working to make things better instead of complaining.  it's been really different  in politics class, where i hear explanations of why things can't get done through the government.  maybe it's just because the professor is a political scientist, not a practitioner.  maybe it's academia that's lame.

anyway, the profit motive is strong.  and while it's often in conflict with things we want as a society, it seems efficient to incentivize private actors to "do the right thing".  or maybe i've been drinking the economics cool-aid for too long :)