Plant-e is a technology that generates electricity from living plants through a process known as microbial fuel cells (MFCs). MFCs use the natural metabolic processes of certain bacteria to break down organic matter, such as the sugars and other compounds produced by plants during photosynthesis, and generate electricity in the process.
Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs) have been aptly described by Du et al. (2007) as “bioreactors that convert the energy in the chemical bonds of organic compounds into electrical energy through the catalytic activity of microorganisms under anaerobic conditions”.
In Plant-e's technology, electrodes are placed in the soil near the roots of the plants, and the bacteria living in the soil around the roots consume the organic matter and produce electrons, which can then be captured and used to generate electricity. The technology has potential applications in renewable energy, agriculture, and environmental monitoring.
While the technology is still in its early stages of development, it has shown promise as a sustainable and environmentally-friendly alternative to traditional forms of energy generation.
Performance indicator is a type of performance measurement and is expressed as quantified amount, cost, or result of any process for indicating how much and how well the products or services are provided to customers during a given time.
Performance measurement involves determining what to measure, identifying data collection methods, collecting the data, and analysis of data. The major expected benefits for measuring performance are:
To learn and improve
To control and monitor people & process
To report externally and demonstrate compliance
Being in a digital era we have opportunity to access virtually unlimited data and several parameters which may or may not be useful to us. In case of business performance, there should be the indicators which can quantify performance of process and people and help management to plan, control and monitor improvement activities. Such selective indicators are called Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
One part of the performance management process is to translate the future state of affairs into long and short-term objectives, output and outcome performance indicators and targets against which performance and progress can be measured (Mackie, 2008).
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are instruments / tools used in performance management that monitor the performance of key result areas of business activities, which are absolutely critical to the success and growth of the business (smartKPIs.com, 2010).
Nowadays, key performance indicators (KPIs) are common management tools that enable managers to better understand their business and improve performance. Although their terminology may vary from one company to another (performance indicators, performance measures or KPIs), in essence all these terms have the same meaning. According to The KPI Institute, a key performance indicator is a measurable expression for the achievement of a desired level of results in an area relevant to the evaluated entity’s activity.
The field of performance management is a relatively new area, where tools and techniques may not be very well structured and terminology is sometimes ambiguous. Bringing more clarity in regards to key concepts can reveal a more efficient way of using KPIs.
Selecting KPIs is an important step in the process of measuring performance. In order to ensure the right KPIs are chosen for each objective, managers should have a wide understanding on what KPIs are. KPI typologies present various ways to look at performance indicators and create logical clusters. Grouping KPIs on specific criteria provides more clarity in regards to what is measured in relation to the objective assigned.
In terms of developing a strategy for formulating KPIs, the team should start with the basics and understand what organizational objectives are, what is the plan on achieving them, and who can act on this information. This should be an
iterative process that involves feedback from analysts, department heads and managers. As this fact finding mission unfolds, team will gain a better understanding of which business processes need to be measured with a KPI dashboard and with
whom that information should be shared.
The development and use of the KPIs should form the basis for the analysis of an organisation’s current performance, its future requirements and the improving strategies required for ongoing success.
The anatomy of a structured KPI includes:
A Measure – Every KPI must have a measure. The best KPIs have more expressive measures.
A Target – Every KPI needs to have a target that matches your measure and the time period of your goal. These are generally a numeric value you’re seeking to achieve.
A Data Source – Every KPI needs to have a clearly defined data source so there is no gray area in how each is being measured and tracked.
Reporting Frequency – Different KPIs may have different reporting needs, but a good rule to follow is to report on them at least monthly.
Why using KPIs?
Perspective: KPIs indicate the health, improvement and / or success of an organisation’s strategy, project, process or area of service delivery
Focus: KPIs are focused, relevant, measurable, repeatable and consistent
Evaluation: measurement of critical success factors
Management: support decision making process for performance management
Strategy implementation: KPIs create a powerful linkage between the strategy and the initiatives / activities.
Typology
The usage of KPIs can range from measuring the achievements of a department in relation to a business area or the enterprise overall. Based on the impact stage, we can have:
Input KPIs: used as input elements within a process or project, such as financial or human resources.
Process KPIs: used to improve a process, its efficiency and results: time variance, budget variance, employees training etc.
Output KPIs: cost of a specific deliverable or functionality relative to plan, budget or benchmark, functional capacity relative to plan, budget or benchmark, usage factors, system downtime expressed as a percentage for all time and/or peak business hours etc.
Outcome KPIs: customer satisfaction, stakeholder satisfaction - used as benchmark comparisons with comparable agencies or private sectors organizations.
Various attributes can be used in examining, selecting, designing and using KPIs:
Financial / non-financial
Customer / process / learning and growth (Balanced Scorecard perspectives)
Lagging / leading / coincident
Inputs / process / outputs / outcomes
Binary / absolute / comparative / trend based
Example of a KPI typologies is:
Qualitative vs quantitative – this is probably one of the most popular approach to defining KPIs. Usually, KPIs that measure personal traits and perceptions are considered qualitative, while the rest are quantitative. In practice, it all comes down to quantitative data when measuring a KPI, even if this data reflects qualitative aspects, such as opinions.
Examples:
Qualitative: # Customer satisfaction index, # International corruption index, # Service quality rating;
Quantitative: # Transactions processed per hour, % Orders delivered on time, # Production cycle time.
Rules for using KPIs
KPIs are a particular category of Performance Indicators and provide an organization with quantifiable measurements of factors that are important for long-time success. The skill in applying KPIs is in the selection of the optimum number and appropriateness of KPIs. This maximizes the benefit of using them whilst minimizing the cost of using them.
During the use and application of KPIs, certain principles should be taken in consideration:
KPIs should not be an end in themselves, but be considered as an aid to management. They are a start to a proper informed debate that should lead to a plan for improvement.
KPIs should be seen within their local context and have more a meaning as a comparison over time than as a comparison between organisations.
A set of KPIs should be balanced. For example, measures of efficiency should be set against measures of effectiveness and measures of cost against quality and user perception.
After being proposed and applied, KPIs should be reviewed and updated. The review determines the management utility of each indicator and the feasibility of getting source data for continuing use.
The targeted performance description, which is described in measurable terms through the KPIs, must be deployed to the organisational level that has the authority and knowledge to take the necessary action (smartKPIs.com, 2010).
References
Mackie, B. (2008), Organisational Performance Management in a Government Context: A Literature Review, available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/236340/0064768.pdf (accessed 12 December 2010).
smartKPIs.com (2010), KPIs, KRIs, PIs, metrics and measures, available at: http://www.smartkpis.com/pages/context/info-i8.html (accessed 16 August 2010).
smartKPIs.com (2010), Using KPIs, available at:http://www.smartkpis.com/pages/context/info-i13.html (accessed 16 August 2010).
Think of an economy as reflecting three fundamental features: capital, labor and what I will call the “efficiency factor.” A country’s stock of capital consists of machinery, buildings, land, etc. Labor consists of the country’s human resources that are used in production. The efficiency factor determines how well the country turns capital and labor into output.
Now let’s jump to the bottom line: which of these three factors is most responsible for differences in GDP per person in countries around the world? The answer: it’s the efficiency factor.
by Scott A. Wolla
"Open markets offer the only realistic hope of pulling
billions of people in developing countries out of abject poverty, while
sustaining prosperity in the industrialized world."1
—Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General
Many people mark the birth of economics as the publication
of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Actually, this classic's full
title is An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and
Smith does indeed attempt to explain why some nations achieve wealth and others
fail to do so. Yet, in the 241 years since the book's publication, the gap
between rich countries and poor countries has grown even larger. Economists are
still refining their answer to the original question: Why are some countries
rich and others poor, and what can be done about it?
"Rich" and "Poor"
In common language, the terms "rich" and
"poor" are often used in a relative sense: A "poor" person
has less income, wealth, goods, or services than a "rich" person.
When considering nations, economists often use gross domestic product (GDP) per
capita as an indicator of average economic well-being within a country. GDP is
the total market value, expressed in dollars, of all final goods and services
produced in an economy in a given year. In a sense, a country's GDP is like its
yearly income. So, dividing a particular country's GDP by its population is an
estimate of how much income, on average, the economy produces per person (per
capita) per year. In other words, GDP per capita is a measure of a nation's
standard of living. For example, in 2016, GDP per capita was $57,467 in the
United States, $42,158 in Canada, $27,539 in South Korea, $8,123 in China,
$1,513 in Ghana, and $455 in Liberia (Figure 1).2
NOTE: Liberia's GDP per capita of $455 is included but not
visible due to the scale. The Republic of Korea is the official name of South
Korea.
SOURCE: World Bank, retrieved from FRED®, Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eMGq, accessed July 26,
2017.
Because GDP per capita is simply GDP divided by the
population, it is a measure of income as if it were divided equally among the
population. In reality, there can be large differences in the incomes of people
within a country. So, even in a country with relatively low GDP, some people
will be better off than others. And, there are poor people in very wealthy
countries. In 2013 (the most recent year comprehensive data on global poverty
are available), 767 million people, or 10.7 percent of the world population,
were estimated to be living below the international poverty line of $1.90 per
person per day.3 Whether for people or nations, the key to escaping poverty
lies in rising levels of income. For nations specifically, which measure wealth
in terms of GDP, escaping poverty requires increasing the amount of output (per
person) that their economy produces. In short, economic growth enables
countries to escape poverty.
How Do Economies Grow?
Economic growth is a sustained rise over time in a nation's
production of goods and services. How can a country increase its production?
Well, an economy's production is a function of its inputs, or factors of
production (natural resources, labor resources, and capital resources), and the
productivity of those factors (specifically the productivity of labor and
capital resources), which is called total factor productivity (TFP). Consider a
shoe factory. Total shoe production is a function of the inputs (raw materials
such as leather, labor supplied by workers, and capital resources, which are
the tools and equipment in the factory), but it also depends on how skilled the
workers are and how useful the equipment is. Now, imagine two factories with
the same number of workers. In the first factory, workers with basic skills
move goods around with push carts, assemble goods with hand tools, and work at
benches. In the second factory, highly trained workers use motorized forklifts
to move pallets of goods and power tools to assemble goods that move along a
conveyer belt. Because the second factory has higher TFP, it will have higher
output, earn greater income, and provide higher wages for its workers.
Similarly, for a country, higher TFP will result in a higher rate of economic
growth. A higher rate of economic growth means more goods are produced per
person, which creates higher incomes and enables more people to escape poverty
at a faster rate. But, how can nations increase TFP to escape poverty? While
there are many factors to consider, two stand out.
Institutions
First, institutions matter. For an economist, institutions
are the "rules of the game" that create the incentives for people and
businesses. For example, when people are able to earn a profit from their work
or business, they have an incentive not only to produce but also to continually
improve their method of production. The "rules of the game" help
determine the economic incentive to produce. On the flip side, if people are
not monetarily rewarded for their work or business, or if the benefits of their
production are likely to be taken away or lost, the incentive to produce will
diminish. For this reason, many economists suggest that institutions such as
property rights, free and open markets, and the rule of law (see the boxed
insert) provide the best incentives and opportunities for individuals to
produce goods and services.
North and South Korea often serve as an example of the
importance of institutions. In a sense they are a natural experiment. These two
nations share a common history, culture, and ethnicity. In 1953 these nations
were formally divided and governed by very different governments. North Korea
is a dictatorial communist nation where property rights and free and open
markets are largely absent and the rule of law is repressed. In South Korea,
institutions provide strong incentives for innovation and productivity. The
results? North Korea is among the poorest nations in the world, while South
Korea is among the richest.4
NOTE: While the Republic of Korea (the official name of
South Korea), China, Ghana, and Liberia had similar standards of living in
1970, they have developed differently since then.
SOURCE: World Bank, retrieved from FRED®, Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eMGt, accessed July 26,
2017.
While this seems like a simple relationship—if government
provides strong property rights, free markets, and the rule of law, markets
will thrive and the economy will grow—research suggests that the
"institution story" alone does not provide a complete picture. In
some cases, government support is important to the development of a nation's
economy. Closer inspection shows that the economic transformation in South
Korea, which started in the 1960s, was under the dictatorial rule of Park
Chung-hee (who redirected the nation's economic focus on export-driven
industry), not under conditions of strong property rights, free markets, and
the rule of law (which came later).5 South Korea's move toward
industrialization was an important first step in its economic development (see
South Korea's growth in Figure 2). China is another example of an economy that
has grown dramatically. In a single generation it has been transformed from a
backward agrarian nation into a manufacturing powerhouse. China tried market reforms
during the Qing dynasty (whose modernization reforms started in 1860 and lasted
until its overthrow in 1911) and the Republic Era (1912-1949), but they were
not effective. China's economic transformation began in 1978 under Deng
Xiaoping, who imposed a government-led initiative to support industrialization
and the development of markets, both internally and for export of Chinese
goods.6 These early government-supported changes helped develop the markets
necessary for the current, dramatic increase in economic growth (see Figure 2).
Trade
Second, international trade is an important part of the
economic growth story for most countries. Think about two kids in the school
cafeteria trading a granola bar for a chocolate chip cookie. They are willing
to trade because it offers them both an opportunity to benefit. Nations trade
for the same reason. When poorer nations use trade to access capital goods
(such as advanced technology and equipment), they can increase their TFP,
resulting in a higher rate of economic growth.7 Also, trade provides a broader
market for a country to sell the goods and services it produces. Many nations,
however, have trade barriers that restrict their access to trade. Recent
research suggests that the removal of trade barriers could close the income gap
between rich and poor countries by 50 percent.8
Conclusion
Economic growth of less-developed economies is key to
closing the gap between rich and poor countries. Differences in the economic
growth rate of nations often come down to differences in inputs (factors of
production) and differences in TFP—the productivity of labor and capital
resources. Higher productivity promotes faster economic growth, and faster
growth allows a nation to escape poverty. Factors that can increase productivity
(and growth) include institutions that provide incentives for innovation and
production. In some cases, government can play an important part in the
development of a nation's economy. Finally, increasing access to international
trade can provide markets for the goods produced by less-developed countries
and also increase productivity by increasing the access to capital resources.
Notes
1 Globalist. "Kofi Annan on Global Futures."
February 6, 2011; https://www.theglobalist.com/kofi-annan-on-global-futures/.
2 Data from the World Bank retrieved from FRED®;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=erxy, accessed July 26, 2017.
3 World Bank. "Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2016:
Taking on Equality." 2016, p. 4;
http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity.
4 Olson, Mancur. "Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why
Some Nations are Rich, and Others Poor." Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Spring 1996, 10(2), pp. 3-24.
5 Wen, Yi and Wolla, Scott. "China's Rapid Economic
Rise: A New Application of an Old Recipe. Social Education." Social
Education, March/April 2017, 81(2), pp. 93-97.
6 Wen, Yi and Fortier, George E. "The Visible Hand: The
Role of Government in China's Long-Awaited Industrial Revolution." Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Third Quarter 2016, 98(3), pp. 189-226;
https://dx.doi.org/10.20955/r.2016.189-226.
7 Santacreu, Ana Maria. "Convergence in Productivity,
R&D Intensity, and Technology Adoption." Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis Economic Synopses, No. 11, 2017; https://doi.org/10.20955/es.2017.11.
8 Mutreja, Piyusha; Ravikumar, B. and Sposi, Michael J.
"Capital Goods Trade and Economic Development." Working Paper No.
2014-012, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014;
https://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2014/2014-012.pdf.
Factors of production: The natural resources, human
resources, and capital resources that are available to make goods and services.
Also known as productive resources.
Capital resources: Goods that have been produced and are
used to produce other goods and services. They are used over and over again in
the production process. Also called capital goods and physical capital.
Standard of living: A measure of the goods and services
available to each person in a country; a measure of economic well- being. Also
known as per capita real GDP (gross domestic product).
Trade barrier: A government-imposed restriction on the
international trade of goods or services.
Coronaviruses are well-known to us. In fact, you are probably an unknown host to millions of them now. Coronaviruses cause various illnesses ranging from the common cold to severe and often deadly respiratory infections. This new strain, COVID-19, is short for coronavirus disease-2019. This novel coronavirus is responsible for the current global outbreak. Although coronaviruses are well-known, this new strain has no cure or prevention. This fact has jeopardized millions of human beings worldwide, particularly the elderly or immune suppressed.
“The coronavirus outbreak has seen widespread changes in human behaviour, encouraging companies to alter everyday operations by suggesting employees work from home, reducing congestion and enhancing air quality.”
It is
possibly too soon to arrive at conclusions concerning the consequences of the
new sickness. Still, at present, we see the significant impact the topic has on the mass media and how this is being transmitted into drastic
individual decisions that affect the smooth functioning of our society,
particularly the economy.
According to Green Connect CEO Kylie Flament, there's been a 25 per cent increase in people wanting to buy fruit and vegetables from her organisation's Lake Heights farm.
She also saw a significant increase in people looking to other environmentally friendly alternatives to cushion the impact of COVID-19 social distancing and self-isolation.
"Coronavirus is causing enormous health, social and economic upheaval, and that shouldn't be underestimated, but there are silver linings and some of these are environmental," she said.
She pointed out that local nurseries have been selling out of plants, especially edible ones, and said she had noticed an increasing demand for people wanting backyard chickens.
"These might have been things at the back of people's minds, and suddenly it's become an urgent priority," she said. "So the silver lining in all this is that people are being pushed to more sustainable living."
Low to no NO2
The NO2 is a noxious gas. It generates from motor vehicles. Thus, it is clear that the recent plummet of this gas was due to the nationwide shutdown of vehicle movement. The fewer vehicles on the road mean low-to-no NO2 in the air. Evidence of the reduction of pollution started in Wuhan and spread over the entire mainland China.
We see reduced production in the Chinese industry,
which has resulted in a considerable drop in China's pollution. We also understand
that many international conferences, summits or events that concentrate thousands
of individuals from different countries are being cancelled or made virtual
because of the fear of extending the infection of coronavirus. This is
happening in tech, business, science, and other sectors, even museums and
Disneyland in several places in Asia. Venice, in the distant past a lovely town
of canals, but converted in recent decades into a pathetic unpleasant
attraction park with mass tourism of 20-30 million visits per year, is now
deathly silent. What a respite for the Venetians! What good news for the
ecologists and tourist-haters! This positively affects the reduction of CO2
emission and the whole wave the destruction associated with holiday and
professional conference tourism. Possibly not so good for airline companies or
travel agencies. It is certainly not very good for the economy in general, but
it is fantastic for the environment.
For
decades, we have witnessed the struggle between the expanding forces of the
economy and the restoring forces of ecology. Conclusions that may be derived from
observing this confrontation are that:
1) an
ecological/green/sustainable capitalist economy is an oxymoron; that is,
capitalism and sustainability are mutually exclusive ideas, and
2) the
economy is winning almost all of the hands of the battle down. A prominent
example of the failure to arrive at a green solution within the current model
of our western-style societies in developed countries is illustrated in global
warming conferences: a perfect example of hypocrisy in which climate scientists
and many politicians, administrators and people living on the green lobbies
behave as a "jet-set" among the highest ratio contaminators. At the
same time, they exert their moral authority to demand that people in less
privileged groups of our society, such as coal miners, teamsters working on oil
pipelines, and mining-dependent workers sacrifice their own economic well-being
to fight climate change. One of the latest failed attempts to find solutions
came from the COP25 in Madrid of 2019 summit; another one in the long list of fruitless
negotiations to try to stop or mitigate the adverse effects of the global
warming already knocking on our doors.
The
implicit or explicit explanation for the long list of unsuccessful negotiations
is always the same: "yes, yes, we see the problem, but... you know, we
have the economy to think about, and many people will suffer if we
significantly modify any of its parameters, so let us continue to live as
usual, even increasing our consumption habits, and we will meet again at next
summit to eat in good restaurants, enjoy tourism and take beer with colleagues
to try to find a solution". Putting it bluntly, there is no solution, and
we are damned to a disaster unless a miracle happens.
Suddenly,
much to the surprise of the economic and political gurus, the solution is
spontaneously arising in front of our very eyes: a virus. As in H. G. Wells'
The War of the Worlds, a microscopic Earth lifeform has finally proved to
reverse the victory in what has so far been a losing war to reduce the excesses
of a crazy, self-destructive world. Neither Greenpeace, nor Greta Thunberg, nor
any other individual or collective organization have achieved so much in favor
of the health of the planet in such a short time. A miracle happened, and,
suddenly, all the excuses to avoid a reduction of contamination have been shown
to be spurious. In less than two months, worldwide organizations have shown us
how it is indeed possible to close museums, shut down whole towns, including
such top touristic destinations as Venice, reduce the number of flights, and
cancel many of the most important conferences and summits, etc. And this is
only the beginning.
When I
said in a previous article that we should ban conferences or hugely reduce
their numbers, I knew that almost nobody would take this advice seriously, but
it now comes as a complete surprise that I am now witnessing the very thing I
was recommending. Suddenly, we realize that all the excuses to avoid the
reduction of contamination were just excuses, and that we can perfectly live in
a world without conferences, a world of academicians and scientists without
beer-drinking with colleagues and feeding the narcissism of some researchers,
an expensive luxury that we should not be able to afford in these times of
climate crisis.
"Yes,
we can", said the slogan of a former US president. Certainly, we can; we
can stop the world if necessary and keep the people alive and healthy and happy
without an expanding and destructive economic system. But words are not enough
to move the world; arguments are not enough in the midst of irrational systems.
With beasts like human beings, which are moved by a more terrible and
irrational monster such as Money, only fear works, and sickness such as
COVID-19 of moderate mortality (not so dangerous so far, it is not as mortal as
the Ebola virus although it is more infectious) may be more effective than good
arguments in pushing humanity in more sustainable directions. Thanks https://www.calamitypolitics.com,https://www.illawarramercury.com.au,https://www.rt.com
