Follow this blog:
RSS

Houston’s choice

By | December 28, 2009, 7:22 AM PST

I have a special place in my heart for Houston, Texas.

I went to college there. I met my wife there. I got my first job there.

Houston is a great city and not at all stuck-up. It is getting a new mayor next month, and all the media wants to say about her is that she’s gay. (I wanted to talk about having gone to college with her, but no one cared.)

She comes to office at a key time. There are more important choices facing her than whether to play Melissa Etheridge or the Indigo Girls on the office iPod.

Unless Houston changes fundamentally over the next decade it is going to become Detroit.

Houston’s wealth is based entirely on hydrocarbons. Money comes from the ground. The petrochemical plants along the Houston Ship Channel are just like Detroit’s auto plants. Their pollution is the perfume of money being made.

Just like in Detroit, its economy is a dinosaur. It’s a zombie. It needs to eat brains.

Houston’s oil executives must become convinced to put at least as much capital to work in solar, wind, tidal, and hydrogen technologies as they do on oil and gas and coal, or Houston’s future as a city is dire.

All sorts of breakthroughs are being made in this area, just not in Houston. QuantumSphere, for instance, has discovered a way to store hydrogen reliably for use in portable power applications. The work was done in Tampa and in Alabama. It was not done in Houston.

Right now only one of the biggest wind turbine companies is American. Only one of the top 10 solar cell producers is American, and they are based in Phoenix. Brazil dominates in biofuels. Some 2.3 million people are now in some form of renewable energy, investment is nearing $80 billion per year, and Houston is nowhere.

This is just what Detroit did in response to the energy crisis. Nothing. GM, Ford and Chrysler made a few tweaks here and there, but on the whole they watched passively as their industry was taken over, and Detroit has suffered grievously from that.

The opportunity Houston’s business leaders have now to transform themselves and dominate these new industries won’t last long. For the next few years they will retain the capital necessary to buy out the market’s current leaders and bring those jobs to Houston.

But the window on that opportunity is closing fast. Houston’s choice is to grow into new markets or die. Right now solar energy is about as popular a topic at the Petroleum Club as a gay mayor. But both are realities that can no longer be denied.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Posted by carizmali
Updated - 29th Dec 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Houston's choice
Annise Parker was elected because she ran on a platform for efficent city government and to control city spending. Hopefully she can keep those promises.

It's impossible to disagree that a majority of the houston economy is oil based however it is nowhere near what it was in the 1980's.

Houston is friendly to business and not just the oil business. If and when alternative energy becomes viable (profitable) by the private sector then Houston may be an attractive place for those companies to locate. Why? Low cost of doing business. Low cost of living for employees enables lower salaries, low cost of land, less city/state regulations all make doing business more profitable.

Taxes are necessary evil for the economy because some government is needed. High taxes create a dead weight loss to the economy that outweighs the benefits provided by government.

Unlike Detroit, Houston is not burdened with punative progressive income taxes or union control of government leaders. Note that Detroit began its decline decades before the decline of the big 3 auto makers. Arugably Detriot killed the auto industry not the other way around.
Posted by gbryantiv
1st Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
gbryantiv
A few points.

1. Alternative energy is viable now. Right now. Waiting at this point is a sucker's game. It's just what Detroit did. The value of the assets necessary to compete in this new game are going up rapidly, far more rapidly than the capital base of the energy companies .The price is going up and will become prohibitive.

2. The idea that low taxes and treating people like dirt is the way to economic growth is limited. Costs are much lower in China, and will be no matter what you do with Houston tax or labor rates. I'm sure you might make the argument that unions are destroying Houston -- or you will if present trends continue -- but fact is that's not relevant.

The important question is one of investment priorities. So long as Houston energy companies fail to invest properly in alternative energy their opportunity costs go up. And those costs are rising very, very rapidly.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
1st Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Houston's choice
Dana,
1. I agree that big oil firms could possibly do this if they were so inclined. However they tend to look at things on a thirty year (or more) time frame and are very risk adverse. There is too much turbulence in high tech energy where Moore?s law keeps making your patents/products obsolete before you can make up your investment. Even on the political side there is the uncertainty on cap & trade. Less uncertainty will attract investment.

2. No I don't think taxes and unions are destroying Houston, but I think they contributed to fall of Detroit. Regardless of where a company does the R&D, Houston (or San Antonio/Dallas/Fort Worth) is an attractive place to manufacture/deploy because of costs lower than many other states. One of the arguments against oil is to get away from energy dependence on foreign countries. If you have to use China to produce alternative energy then it doesn't support that argument.

We still drive cars, just not many from Detroit. If we persecute the oil companies for what they do best then they will be replaced by foreign oil firms that we have no control over.
Posted by gbryantiv
6th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
What replaces Houston's energy firms
gbryantiv -- You ask a series of intriguing questions that will go
into a future blog post. Thanks.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
11th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Houston's choice
Thanks for sharing. i really appreciate it that you shared with us such a informative post..

Altin Fiyatlari
Muzik Dinle
Revizyon ile Organize Matbaacilik Brnckvvtmllttrhaberi
Revizyon ile Organize
Revizyon
Posted by WLive
9th Feb 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!