MSU students create first-ever event to showcase biofuels proposals
by Andy Henion
April 9, 2008 - From examining corn genetics to exploring fungus and enzymes, the future of Michigan’s biofuel economy may be in the hands of college students.
Inventors Day, which takes place from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Friday, April 11, at the Henry Center for Executive Development, is a first-time event created by students at MSU’s James Madison College to showcase student innovation and ideas to help improve the biofuel economy.
“We want companies that aren’t in Michigan yet and companies that don’t even exist yet to look at Michigan as a place where there is an environment for growth, entrepreneurship and talent,” said Alex Plum, an international relations and political theory senior and one of 11 undergraduate students who created the event. “We want to expose the student talent.”
The first-ever event is part of the annual Michigan Futures Seminar, a public policy research consortium at James Madison College. The seminar focuses on the biofuels economy and how assets of Michigan’s universities can provide connections with corporate and government sectors.
Sponsored by a grant from Lansing-based Prima Civitas Foundation, Inventors Day will allow undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students to showcase their ideas and research and present their work to business leaders, government officials and university faculty and administrators.
University students from across the state submitted proposals. Those with the top five proposals will be awarded $1,000 and will give a 20-minute presentation to industry and government experts at the event Friday. All proposals will be on display.
The five winning proposals address the topics of biogas; marginal lands; corn genetics; carbon sequestration; and fungus and enzymes.
“This has been a student-directed and student-led initiative,” said Ross Emmett, James Madison associate professor. “While it comes out of the research of the (Michigan Futures) seminar, it was not an assignment for the class. The students are taking Inventors Day on as a way to publicly demonstrate what students of Michigan universities have to contribute to the thinking of technological developments in the biofuel economy.”
Permanent University link
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
MSU hosts inaugural Inventors Day
April 12, 2008
MSU hosts inaugural Inventors Day
Students attempting to improve Michigan biofuels industry
Derek Wallbank
Lansing State Journal
EAST LANSING - Sang-Hyuck Park has a vision for Michigan's economy.
It involves complicated terms like carbon sequestration and bioprospecting. In short, he hopes to make renewable fuels created from agricultural products more efficient.
"We need to lower the cost of bioenergy," Park said.
Park presented his ideas as part of Michigan State University's first Inventors Day, a student-created event where five research teams presented research-based solutions aimed at improving Michigan's biofuels industry.
The event, hosted by the Michigan Futures Seminar, a public policy group based at MSU's James Madison College, was intended to connect students, business and government leaders and create an opportunity for dialogue.
"One of the things we saw is that universities, business and government officials weren't communicating," said Matt Stuart, a political theory and constitutional democracy student who helped organize the event.
George Seroka, an engineering manager for DTE Energy, was one of the industry leaders at Inventors Day.
"As a utility, we are very interested in reducing our carbon footprint," Seroka said, adding that the utility was trying to move its energy portfolio toward more renewable energy.
The difficulty now in providing more alternative energy options, he said, is the difference in cost for consumers between fossil fuels and renewable fuels.
"If there's a way the research can close the economic gap between resources, then that would help us make the optimum choices in the future," he said. "We want to do what's right for the customers and for us."
Kristin Sulewski, a 22-year-old international relations and social relations senior who helped organize the event, said she was particularly intrigued by a proposal to use land that can't be commercially farmed to grow plants for biofuels.
"It's a step in the right direction," she said.
Other ideas include:
• Genetically engineering crops to yield more biofuels
• Modifications to internal combustion engines that could optimize ethanol-based fuels
• Using animal waste products to create biofuels.
"There are a lot of solutions out there to address the bioeconomy," said MSU student Alex Plum, another event organizer. "Maybe we're one small step on the way to that."
MSU hosts inaugural Inventors Day
Students attempting to improve Michigan biofuels industry
Derek Wallbank
Lansing State Journal
EAST LANSING - Sang-Hyuck Park has a vision for Michigan's economy.
It involves complicated terms like carbon sequestration and bioprospecting. In short, he hopes to make renewable fuels created from agricultural products more efficient.
"We need to lower the cost of bioenergy," Park said.
Park presented his ideas as part of Michigan State University's first Inventors Day, a student-created event where five research teams presented research-based solutions aimed at improving Michigan's biofuels industry.
The event, hosted by the Michigan Futures Seminar, a public policy group based at MSU's James Madison College, was intended to connect students, business and government leaders and create an opportunity for dialogue.
"One of the things we saw is that universities, business and government officials weren't communicating," said Matt Stuart, a political theory and constitutional democracy student who helped organize the event.
George Seroka, an engineering manager for DTE Energy, was one of the industry leaders at Inventors Day.
"As a utility, we are very interested in reducing our carbon footprint," Seroka said, adding that the utility was trying to move its energy portfolio toward more renewable energy.
The difficulty now in providing more alternative energy options, he said, is the difference in cost for consumers between fossil fuels and renewable fuels.
"If there's a way the research can close the economic gap between resources, then that would help us make the optimum choices in the future," he said. "We want to do what's right for the customers and for us."
Kristin Sulewski, a 22-year-old international relations and social relations senior who helped organize the event, said she was particularly intrigued by a proposal to use land that can't be commercially farmed to grow plants for biofuels.
"It's a step in the right direction," she said.
Other ideas include:
• Genetically engineering crops to yield more biofuels
• Modifications to internal combustion engines that could optimize ethanol-based fuels
• Using animal waste products to create biofuels.
"There are a lot of solutions out there to address the bioeconomy," said MSU student Alex Plum, another event organizer. "Maybe we're one small step on the way to that."
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Inventors Day accepting proposals
The following story is about a one-day event being hosted by the students in the Michigan Futures in the Global Economy research seminar that Drs. Emmett and Ritchie run. For more, see the Inventors Day website
The story was published in The State News on February 10, 2008
Students interested in the renewable energy and biofuel industry in Michigan can present their research and invention proposals to field experts at Biofuel Inventors’ Day.
Undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students must submit proposals relevant to the renewable energy and biofuel industry in Michigan by March 14.
Students should submit a two-page proposal describing their research, invention or idea, as well as its potential commercial value.
The top five submissions will present their findings at the conference and will receive a $1,000 award.
The conference, to be held April 11 at the James B. Henry Center for Executive Development in Lansing, is a collaboration between the Michigan Center for Innovation & Economic Prosperity and MSU’s James Madison College.
For more information, visit www.mciep.org/InventorsDay.
Published on Sunday, February 10, 2008
The story was published in The State News on February 10, 2008
Students interested in the renewable energy and biofuel industry in Michigan can present their research and invention proposals to field experts at Biofuel Inventors’ Day.
Undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students must submit proposals relevant to the renewable energy and biofuel industry in Michigan by March 14.
Students should submit a two-page proposal describing their research, invention or idea, as well as its potential commercial value.
The top five submissions will present their findings at the conference and will receive a $1,000 award.
The conference, to be held April 11 at the James B. Henry Center for Executive Development in Lansing, is a collaboration between the Michigan Center for Innovation & Economic Prosperity and MSU’s James Madison College.
For more information, visit www.mciep.org/InventorsDay.
Published on Sunday, February 10, 2008
Sunday, November 18, 2007
High taxes can spur growth?
The headline caught my attention: “MSU researcher says high taxes can spur growth.”
The source—MSU’s bulletin of events and news—went on to say that the researcher found that “cities with high taxes and spending on public infrastructure and welfare … tend to experience more commercial growth.” On its own, such a statement might be simply a statement of the fact that vibrant cities will see both tax revenues and spending rise as growth occurs, although it seems to get the causation backwards. But the article suggested that the author’s point was different: the argument about taxes and growth was offered as a defense of high tax policy. The latter claim sounded wrong to me, so I went to see what I could make of it.
Igor Vojnovic's article, “Government and urban management in the 20th century: policies, contradictions, and weaknesses of the New Right,” was published in GeoJournal last December. Vojnovic is a professor of geography at MSU. Turns out that the article has little to do with the relationship between tax levels and economic growth: most of its thirty pages is a critique of neo-liberalism as a philosophical framework for urban development. While I could spend time on Vojnovic’s rather confused understanding of both neo-liberalism and its alternatives, my point in pursuing his argument was to see how he could be lead to believe that high taxes could led to economic growth. So I’ll stick to that argument here. We finally get to the point on page 19. Vojnovic summarizes the claim he is making this way: “Simply, U.S. cities that follow the minimal government strategy are not ranked as top private corporate investment destinations. The urban regions that attract private capital, in terms of concentrations of multinational headquarters and first-level subsidiaries, maintain some of the highest taxes and social service expenditures in the country.”
The leap of logic here confuses me. High taxes and social investment spur growth because urban areas that attract the head-quarters of large corporations and their major subsidiaries have high taxes and significant social investment? What does the presence of the head-quarters of large corporations have to do with economic growth in a region? And perhaps even more importantly, how is economic growth related to the decision of such corporations to set up new office locations? Few companies make significant location or relocation decisions each year (about 6%, if our research can be believed). No location or region could depend upon such relocations as the foundation for economic growth!
Most “commercial” growth, in fact, occurs among small- and medium-sized companies (note that commercial growth does not necessarily translate into growth in per-capita GDP, which is our usual measure of economic growth). Those companies often experience double-digit rates of growth as they go through the early stages of their life cycle. Their growth is quite sensitive to rates of taxation, and often do not depend upon the levels of what Vojnovic calls “social investment.” They tend to be driven by pragmatic issues: proximity to the relevant portion of their supply/value chain; access to human/intellectual capital; etc. Large centers get their share of these companies because of these issues, despite their disadvantageous tax environments! In short, Vojnovic has put the proverbial cart before the horse.
So should we adopt high taxes with correspondingly high levels of social investment to rebuild prosperity in Michigan? We already have relatively high taxes, so that is a moot point! What we need, however, is an environment conducive to the growth of innovative and entrepreneurial companies, regardless of their location within the state. Vojnovic’s development strategy is not helpful for that purpose.
The source—MSU’s bulletin of events and news—went on to say that the researcher found that “cities with high taxes and spending on public infrastructure and welfare … tend to experience more commercial growth.” On its own, such a statement might be simply a statement of the fact that vibrant cities will see both tax revenues and spending rise as growth occurs, although it seems to get the causation backwards. But the article suggested that the author’s point was different: the argument about taxes and growth was offered as a defense of high tax policy. The latter claim sounded wrong to me, so I went to see what I could make of it.
Igor Vojnovic's article, “Government and urban management in the 20th century: policies, contradictions, and weaknesses of the New Right,” was published in GeoJournal last December. Vojnovic is a professor of geography at MSU. Turns out that the article has little to do with the relationship between tax levels and economic growth: most of its thirty pages is a critique of neo-liberalism as a philosophical framework for urban development. While I could spend time on Vojnovic’s rather confused understanding of both neo-liberalism and its alternatives, my point in pursuing his argument was to see how he could be lead to believe that high taxes could led to economic growth. So I’ll stick to that argument here. We finally get to the point on page 19. Vojnovic summarizes the claim he is making this way: “Simply, U.S. cities that follow the minimal government strategy are not ranked as top private corporate investment destinations. The urban regions that attract private capital, in terms of concentrations of multinational headquarters and first-level subsidiaries, maintain some of the highest taxes and social service expenditures in the country.”
The leap of logic here confuses me. High taxes and social investment spur growth because urban areas that attract the head-quarters of large corporations and their major subsidiaries have high taxes and significant social investment? What does the presence of the head-quarters of large corporations have to do with economic growth in a region? And perhaps even more importantly, how is economic growth related to the decision of such corporations to set up new office locations? Few companies make significant location or relocation decisions each year (about 6%, if our research can be believed). No location or region could depend upon such relocations as the foundation for economic growth!
Most “commercial” growth, in fact, occurs among small- and medium-sized companies (note that commercial growth does not necessarily translate into growth in per-capita GDP, which is our usual measure of economic growth). Those companies often experience double-digit rates of growth as they go through the early stages of their life cycle. Their growth is quite sensitive to rates of taxation, and often do not depend upon the levels of what Vojnovic calls “social investment.” They tend to be driven by pragmatic issues: proximity to the relevant portion of their supply/value chain; access to human/intellectual capital; etc. Large centers get their share of these companies because of these issues, despite their disadvantageous tax environments! In short, Vojnovic has put the proverbial cart before the horse.
So should we adopt high taxes with correspondingly high levels of social investment to rebuild prosperity in Michigan? We already have relatively high taxes, so that is a moot point! What we need, however, is an environment conducive to the growth of innovative and entrepreneurial companies, regardless of their location within the state. Vojnovic’s development strategy is not helpful for that purpose.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Raising barriers isn't 'Fair Trade'
The following appeared Sunday, 5 August 2007 in the Lansing State Journal: LSJ Link
Michigan’s future hinges on the decisions we make in the next few months regarding … trade. You were expecting me to say union contract negotiations?
As important as those, and a variety of other issues are, the possibilities of punitive tariff threats against China by the US Congress tops my list. That’s why I recently signed a petition that was released in the Wall Street Journal on August 1 opposing the proposed tariffs.
There are those in the state who think that trade is a zero sum proposition: if China gets more, we get less. If our traditional industries aren’t winning, we must be losing. They argue that it is only fair to prevent further expansion of trade with China. Making trade “fair” is their mantra; and punitive tariff protection is the means they want to employ.
The problem with the “fair trade” mantra is that what they are calling for really isn’t fair. The expansion of trade with China has led to more affordable goods for ordinary Americans and Chinese, higher productivity in both countries, expanded opportunities for businesses in both countries, and a higher standard of living for both countries. Cutting off that trade would hurt us all. The biggest losers would be those without the political clout of the advocates of “fair trade”—small and medium size businesses, individual households, and ordinary citizens and businesses in the other country that don’t get to participate in our political process. That just wouldn’t be fair. Trade with China, India and the rest of the world has been, and continues to be, a win-win proposition.
The fair trade advocates will tell you that increased trade has taken jobs in traditional Michigan industries. But those industries thrived until we forgot that innovation and expanded opportunities through trade were the keys to their success. Michigan once supported a vibrant entrepreneurial culture which competed with the world and built industries that were strong because they were good at what they did. They won, but they did so because they created value for everyone affected by their industries. We need to regain their vision of creating value for the world, knowing that in the process, the value we need will be returned to us as well.
Fair trade advocates will tell you that free trade is fine as long as the playing field is level. But the reality is that the playing field is never level; various policies create barriers, as do simple things like geography and education. It is free trade, not “fair trade” that provides the greatest range of opportunities to overcome those obstacles.
Free trade promotes innovation, entrepreneurial activity, the efficient use of our resources, and prosperity. We need to resist the call for a return to “beggar thy neighbor” policies and instead promote free trade, innovation and prosperity.
Michigan’s future hinges on the decisions we make in the next few months regarding … trade. You were expecting me to say union contract negotiations?
As important as those, and a variety of other issues are, the possibilities of punitive tariff threats against China by the US Congress tops my list. That’s why I recently signed a petition that was released in the Wall Street Journal on August 1 opposing the proposed tariffs.
There are those in the state who think that trade is a zero sum proposition: if China gets more, we get less. If our traditional industries aren’t winning, we must be losing. They argue that it is only fair to prevent further expansion of trade with China. Making trade “fair” is their mantra; and punitive tariff protection is the means they want to employ.
The problem with the “fair trade” mantra is that what they are calling for really isn’t fair. The expansion of trade with China has led to more affordable goods for ordinary Americans and Chinese, higher productivity in both countries, expanded opportunities for businesses in both countries, and a higher standard of living for both countries. Cutting off that trade would hurt us all. The biggest losers would be those without the political clout of the advocates of “fair trade”—small and medium size businesses, individual households, and ordinary citizens and businesses in the other country that don’t get to participate in our political process. That just wouldn’t be fair. Trade with China, India and the rest of the world has been, and continues to be, a win-win proposition.
The fair trade advocates will tell you that increased trade has taken jobs in traditional Michigan industries. But those industries thrived until we forgot that innovation and expanded opportunities through trade were the keys to their success. Michigan once supported a vibrant entrepreneurial culture which competed with the world and built industries that were strong because they were good at what they did. They won, but they did so because they created value for everyone affected by their industries. We need to regain their vision of creating value for the world, knowing that in the process, the value we need will be returned to us as well.
Fair trade advocates will tell you that free trade is fine as long as the playing field is level. But the reality is that the playing field is never level; various policies create barriers, as do simple things like geography and education. It is free trade, not “fair trade” that provides the greatest range of opportunities to overcome those obstacles.
Free trade promotes innovation, entrepreneurial activity, the efficient use of our resources, and prosperity. We need to resist the call for a return to “beggar thy neighbor” policies and instead promote free trade, innovation and prosperity.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Economists speak out about protectionist sentiments
Over 1,000 economists put their names to the following petition. A full-page ad ran in today's Wall Street Journal, along with an editorial by Pat Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth (sponsors of the petition). MCIEP co-director Ross Emmett was one of the signatories. The actual number of signatories was 1,028: the same number that signed a petition asking Hoover to veto the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930.
- We, the undersigned, have serious concerns about the recent protectionist sentiments coming from Congress, especially with regards to China.
By the end of this year, China will most likely be the United States' second largest trading partner. Over the past six years, total trade between the two countries has soared, growing from $116 billion in 2000 to almost $343 billion in 2006. That's an average growth rate of almost 20% a year.
This marvelous growth has led to more affordable goods, higher productivity, strong job growth, and a higher standard of living for both countries. These economic benefits were made possible in large part because both China and the United States embraced freer trade.
As economists, we understand the vital and beneficial role that free trade plays in the world economy. Conversely, we believe that barriers to free trade destroy wealth and benefit no one in the long run. Because of these fundamental economic principles, we sign this letter to advise Congress against imposing retaliatory trade measures against China.
There is no foundation in economics that supports punitive tariffs. China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest rate loans. Retaliatory tariffs on China are tantamount to taxing ourselves as a punishment. Worse, such a move will likely encourage China to impose its own tariffs, increasing the possibility of a futile and harmful trade war. American consumers and businesses would pay the price for this senseless war through higher prices, worse jobs, and reduced economic growth.
We urge Congress to discard any plans for increased protectionism, and instead urge lawmakers to work towards fostering stronger global economic ties through free trade.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
SBAM Expert Named to Entrepreneurship Board at MSU
News Release
Date: Apr 9 2007 10:26AM
SBAM Expert Named to Entrepreneurship Board at MSU
(SBAM: Small Business Association of Michigan)
Mark H. Clevey, vice president of SBAM’s Entrepreneurial Development Center and one of the nation’s leading experts on small business entrepreneurialism, has been named to the Board of Directors of the Michigan State University, Center for Innovation and Economic Prosperity (James Madison College).
Operated under the directorships of Dr.’s Brian K Ritchie and Ross B. Emmett, the Center calls for government to release the “entrepreneurial spirits of the private sector” to productively invest in the creation of an entrepreneurial culture in the state. The Center is built on four core strengths: the union of undergraduate teaching and research; a comparative political economy perspective, a focus on technology and innovation; and an applied public policy orientation
Clevey has over 30 years of successful experience in fostering economic development through robust entrepreneurship. As the previous director of Michigan’s “SBIR Support Program,” Clevey won several national and state awards for excellence, innovation and entrepreneurship. Of particular note was the “Tibbetts Award” for hosting the first conference in the nation (“Winners Conference”) focused on economic development through the robust commercialization of federally funded research by small business entrepreneurs in collaboration with Michigan universities and colleges. Clevey has also served as an SBIR/STTR Phase II Commercialization Plan reviewer for the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy and a Business Plan Reviewer for the NIST Advanced Technology Program.
Date: Apr 9 2007 10:26AM
SBAM Expert Named to Entrepreneurship Board at MSU
(SBAM: Small Business Association of Michigan)
Mark H. Clevey, vice president of SBAM’s Entrepreneurial Development Center and one of the nation’s leading experts on small business entrepreneurialism, has been named to the Board of Directors of the Michigan State University, Center for Innovation and Economic Prosperity (James Madison College).
Operated under the directorships of Dr.’s Brian K Ritchie and Ross B. Emmett, the Center calls for government to release the “entrepreneurial spirits of the private sector” to productively invest in the creation of an entrepreneurial culture in the state. The Center is built on four core strengths: the union of undergraduate teaching and research; a comparative political economy perspective, a focus on technology and innovation; and an applied public policy orientation
Clevey has over 30 years of successful experience in fostering economic development through robust entrepreneurship. As the previous director of Michigan’s “SBIR Support Program,” Clevey won several national and state awards for excellence, innovation and entrepreneurship. Of particular note was the “Tibbetts Award” for hosting the first conference in the nation (“Winners Conference”) focused on economic development through the robust commercialization of federally funded research by small business entrepreneurs in collaboration with Michigan universities and colleges. Clevey has also served as an SBIR/STTR Phase II Commercialization Plan reviewer for the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy and a Business Plan Reviewer for the NIST Advanced Technology Program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)