Would A Greentech Bubble Be Such A Bad Thing?

from the maybe-not dept

Paul Kedrosky highlights a key point all the way at the end of an article in the new business magazine, Portfolio, about the the growing interest from venture capital investors in “green tech” or “clean tech.” What Kedrosky notes is Kleiner Perkins partner Ray Lane saying he expects there to eventually be a “bubble” in the space, as too much money starts chasing deals. Lane notes that a bubble can be bad for late investors, but usually works out for early investors. However, he misses the more important point about what bubbles mean for everyone else. As we’ve noted in the past, while bubbles may be bad for investors who pick the wrong players, overall, they can be very good for innovation. That’s because investment bubbles allow for an awful lot of excess cash to be thrown at a large variety of attempts to innovate in a certain area. In other words, they allow a lot of ideas to be tried in a very short period of time to see what sticks. Obviously, lots of them will fail, but a few key ideas tend to survive and make it through. That’s competition at its best — and the net result is that some really innovative ideas are developed, tested and proved (or disproved) very quickly. While it may not work out for some of the investors in the space, the net result in terms of innovation can be quite beneficial.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Would A Greentech Bubble Be Such A Bad Thing?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Kewl

We could really use a new infusion of good ideas to help save the world from our stupidity.

Its not stupidity that is causing us to consume resources faster than they can be replaced, it is overpopulation.

The ONLY to solve that problem is to get rid of excess population. The good news is we only need to kill off about 70-80% of the population.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Kewl

>>”We could really use a new infusion of good ideas to help save the world from our stupidity.”

>”Its not stupidity that is causing us to consume resources faster than they can be replaced, it is overpopulation.”

Can we instead use the term “disconnectedness?” Stupidity doesn’t address the heart of the issue, which is that we have become poorly connected, and insulated from each other and what we’re creating, particularly in the west.

Reconnecting is important, and one promise of the net is not just downloading goat porn, but its facilitation of dialog.

I fundamentally disagree that large numbers of people on this planet must be extinguished for the planet to thrive. We just cannot continue down the same path, pretending that we can grow our economy and use of resources forever.

This recognition and reconnection will clearly will happen after the tipping point of destruction, at the latest. Can we help to avoid things getting that far before we wake up to the changes required?

Look at reconnecting with each other, with your community, and with your planet. Pass it on!

vin says:

lets start with people like anonymous coward

overpopulation is certainly a problem, but clearly not the only problem. killing people, or even the slightly more humane Chinese policiy of forced abortions, obviously don’t really work. There are many possible aspects to the solution, like a change in consumption patterns, efficiency technological breakthroughs, alternate energy sources, and an eventual reduction in population. There is still enough ecosystem left, that if we were to even just hold our level of ecological destruction at current levels, we would be OK for a little while, long enough to continue to innovate and change social persepctives on affluency, as is currently happening. the change to a smaller population can be a transition rather than a holocaust

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: lets start with people like anonymous coward

Thats a ridiculous comment, population expansion is exponential, look at demographic transition data, there is no concievable way to plateau population expansion, furthermore, if you enter a period of population growth decline the world will have more older people than young, exacerbating the “aging population” problem. Honestly the best thing would be a disaster to wipe out alot of people, as long as Im not in it… 😉

Wyatt says:


Yeah, no kidding. Killing all them Iraqis has got us off to a good start.

There are plenty of ways to solve the problem. For instance, space travel. Build a ship to hold millions of people and send it off into space to look for another earth. Once there we can kill all the aliens and take the world. Bush can and will lead the way in that endeavor.

vin says:


there is no doubt that there is a finite limit of the number of people that can exist sustainably in the world, as there is a finite amount of energy the Earth absorbs from the sun. there are other practical limits as well, and I really don’t think that everyone hopping on the Internet and talking about things is going to solve actual problems of overconsumption or overpopulation. Reconnecting to nature and each other is great but the problem with that it is espoused by ridiculous hippies who can’t seem to grasp actual problems. that does NOT mean I am advocating the holocaust solution as above, it just means that anyone who thinks they have the “one solution” is a retard

Anonymous of Course says:

Save yourself

The earth doesn’t need saving. It’s quite capable
of existing on its own and free of humans. It did
so for a very long time and probably will again.

Population is a self-limiting problem. Once the
population is too large there is famine, disease and

The environmental movement is human centric,
trying to maintain the status quo. All the while
denying that humans are a part of nature, not
seperate from it. More adaptable than dinosaurs,

That said…

I hate waste. If we could just reduce the wasteful
consumption it would go a long way to improving
the situation and maybe reducing the suffering.
(Although I fear it is inevitable.) Waste is evil, doubly
evil if it’s done knowingly to prop up a sagging ego.

I do what I can. I’ve a small efficient house and
car that gets 50mpg. Frankly, I’d sick and tired of
being chastized by failed politicians living in mansions
and rock stars who own six private jets… both of
whom stand to profit from the hysteria they foment.

Charles Griswold (user link) says:

Getting Rid of People

There are a lot of people who are saying that the world would be better off with a lot fewer people. My take on this issue: OK, why don’t those people commit mass suicide? Then the rest of us can see if that makes the world a better place.

No? Yeah, I didn’t think so. It’s funny how said people usually blithely assume that they will be among the 10% (or less) of the population that is left after the troublesome masses die.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...