posted by
Brian Huseman on January 29, 2010
On January 28, Intel celebrated Data Privacy Day, a day in which events are held around the world to recognize the importance of protecting the privacy and security of personal information. Intel privacy professionals participated in a number of Data Privacy Day activities.
I attended an event yesterday in Washington, DC at The Newseum sponsored by The Future of Privacy Forum, which featured a panel discussion on privacy issues involved in social networking. Make sure to check out a new FTC consumer education publication discussed at the event called Net Cetera, which discusses how parents can talk with their kids about being online.
Also, David Hoffman, Intel's Global Privacy Officer, participated in the second of the FTC's roundtables exploring privacy, at a conference held in Berkeley, California. And Audrey Plonk, a security policy specialist, is speaking at a California Law Review-sponsored event at Berkeley Law, the Prosser Privacy Symposium.
Intel believes that protecting consumers' privacy and security is of the upmost importance and is pleased to have been a sponsor of the 2010 Data Privacy Day.
posted by
Eric Dishman on January 26, 2010
In a blog entry months ago, I wrote about how Baby Boomer women—and creating a new “careforce”—are critical for healthcare reform to succeed. And I promised back then to put out some ideas the following week for creative ways to grow that innovative workforce. Okay, I got sidetracked on other topics and missed my own deadline. But as the President must surely be rehearsing his State of the Union address for tomorrow—that will probably include lots of talk about “jobs creation”—I think it’s high time to revisit those questions and ideas. Many opponents of healthcare reform keep telling the President to drop his “healthcare agenda” in favor of a “jobs agenda,” but to me, those two agendas are deeply intertwined.
So here are the questions I posed some time ago. What are we doing in healthcare reform to support, sustain, and enhance the abilities of the often invisible, informal careforce—especially women, who as wives, daughters, daughters-in-law, friends, and neighbors, serve on the front lines of care—to deliver better quality care at reduced financial and emotional costs? How can we further offload the expensive, institutional care settings and professionals by training and skill-shifting to families, friends, and patients themselves who have to become trusted partners on care coordination teams? How are we retraining medical professionals to use new technologies and to build new relationships with this informal careforce to achieve better outcomes for more patients? Who will make up the careforce of the 21st century that anticipates the age wave and caregiving crisis we face?
Here are five ideas that begin to address these big questions:
1) Proactive Patients: We as patients have to become more knowledgeable, responsible, empowered, and proactive about our own healthcare. We cannot sustain our current passive, entitled patient paradigm—what I think of as the Humpty Dumpty syndrome—where we wait until we’re sick or injured and then run to the clinic or hospital to be put back together again by the experts with the expectation of “any means necessary” and “every test available” and “any cost required” to make us better again. We need to catalyze an industry of self-care technologies and services that put some of the onus of health back on patients, to grow the use of Personal Health Records (PHRs) and wellness applications that help people achieve their goals, and to push for cost transparency of tests and procedures so that we as consumers can know the ROI and outcomes of what we’re putting our bodies (and health plans) through. We need to majorly rethink and revamp those dreaded junior high school health classes to make them useful in instilling a foundation of good habits for healthy living while we are young. Health literacy, like all languages, is probably best learned at a young age…so let’s figure out the curriculum to mint hundreds of thousands proactive patients who become an important, unpaid part of the careforce of the future.
2) More Nurses and Doctors: Frankly, we need more physicians and nurses to meet the needs of the age wave, especially those trained in geriatric medicine and primary care. There have been numerous Congressional hearings on this topic, and the problem is well understood, but the solutions have not been forthcoming. First, we need to strive to retain the people who are already working in the healthcare industry. We are burning out our workforce of clinicians with bureaucracy and paperwork and somehow have to get trained medical professionals focused on bedside care and patient needs again. Healthcare reform needs to drive Care Flexibility, where we diversify the locations and models of care to allow physicians and nurses the flexibility to engage with patients in the clinic, in the home, and virtually via electronic means, depending on the need and their best professional judgment. Second, we need to accelerate new students going into healthcare fields. If healthcare reform is able to achieve a “quality over quantity” payment paradigm, this will help pull more folks back into healthcare fields, who have been reluctant to join—or have left—because of today’s “factory line” care paradigm that leaves no one—neither patients nor clinicians—satisfied. Congress needs to implement many of the student loan and debt relief programs for medical and nursing school programs they have reviewed over the years. Perhaps it is time to create “AmeriCorps for Care” or the “Care Corps” for incentivizing new students to go into these fields with service to their country in “trouble spots” or “gap areas” of healthcare to pay back their medical school debts.
3) Empowered Informal Caregivers: Informal caregivers—the family and friends who do the lion’s share of care in America—are key to developing a sustainable, quality healthcare system for all. No matter how proactive we make patients themselves, no matter how much preventive care we do, no matter how many new doctors and nurses we train, it is not likely we can “catch up” with the age wave. We have to train, sustain, and reward informal caregivers to be fundamental participants on Care Coordination teams going forward. Too often today, the medical mainframe treats the family and friends as a “nuisance” who have to be “dealt with” instead of a “resource” who should be “empowered” to offload the formal healthcare system. We need to explore tax credits or other kinds of financial assistance for people who are delivering significant informal care today. We need to explore special mechanisms whereby family caregivers can maintain affordable health insurance for themselves, if they are focused to go part-time or quit their job to care for a loved one. We must develop community health and other kinds of education programs for informal caregivers that explicitly skill-shift some of the chronic care duties that nurses do to these friends and family members who will be on the front lines of care—at the bedside at home—more than anyone else.
4) Retirees and Volunteers: We have an enormous opportunity to build new volunteer programs that help trained volunteers deliver care support for complete strangers who live in their neighborhoods—or even thousands of miles away via telehealth technologies. Imagine tapping into the national pool of retirees who are already trained in healthcare, either as retired doctors or nurses, who are a largely untapped resource in America. Many of these professionals would like to go back to work part-time, especially if they could work out of their homes and/or have flexible hours. We have the technological capability to put many of those retirees back to work, either as volunteers or part-time employees, to meet care needs in the community. And we need new ideas and programs that instruct and empower retirees who have no formal medical training to learn enough of chronic care management to help frail seniors and other co-morbid patients to thrive in their own homes. Again, I like the idea of a “Care Corps” to help train these volunteers to provide in-home and virtual care for others. Think of this as “Neighborhood Watch” with some telehealth technologies combined with Facebook and Google Maps where you can volunteer—and get a tax deduction for your time—to use a PHR dashboard to help care remotely for 10 seniors who live in your neighborhood. Or I am reminded of the great exploratory program that Dr. Arthur Garson, Provost of the University of Virginia, is doing to train “grandparent” age citizens to do basic chronic care management for other seniors in their community. My point is that there are probably millions of retiring Baby Boomers who are ready to “give back” in whatever ways they can; we need to tap into this disruptive demography with disruptive technologies that provide them innovative ways to do that kind of volunteer work.
5) New Kinds of Virtual Care Providers: We cannot achieve universal coverage and quality care for all Americans if we continue to make an in-clinic or in-hospital visit the default care location for every kind of health encounter. There are enormous opportunities to use telehealth technologies to shift the locus of care—perhaps even as much as 50% of the care that is done in institutions today—to the home and community. But to achieve such an audacious goal, we have to invent some entirely new categories of healthcare workers that we may not have even conceptualized yet. We need new curriculums, new credentialing mechanisms, and new national licensure rules to formally train a workforce of telehealth nurses and telehealth physicians who know how to deliver great quality virtual care for a wide range of care needs. But we also need to invent some entirely new kinds of non-clinical jobs, think of these as “Care Coaches,” who are trained in a mix of social work, clinical informatics, IT (information technologies), and nursing skills to offload clinical staff with the many quality-of-life and non-urgent needs and services that seniors and other chronic patients have on a daily basis. Today we’re stuck in a “clinical mentality” that tries to preserve power and authority in highly trained (and sometimes but not always highly paid) professionals; we need to open up our thinking about the new care models that are occur in the home and community and then figure out what staffing paradigms and training can deliver upon those models.
It’s unclear to me whether or not the federal government can even generate new jobs quickly without just hiring more people to work in government (see Time’s article that makes this point quite well). I suspect government’s role in job creation is in longer term stimulation—in creating the conditions in which new innovations and industries in the private sector can thrive. But it is clear to me that the President and Congress need to tackle Global Aging—our other inconvenient truth—and “careforce creation” initiatives with the same focus and intensity that they have brought to Global Warming and “green jobs” initiatives. If done right, healthcare reform ought to generate new industries and jobs, especially when we add millions of formerly uninsured people to the system.
I well realize that change can be frightening, that skill-shifting aspects of care from physicians to nurses to family members can be threatening to many people. Yes, we’ve seen many battles over the years between doctors and nurses on who gets to prescribe medications…or conflicts between nurses and CNAs about who can provide which level of patient care in which care setting. Yes, there are risks anytime we change best practices, retrain staff, or bring novices onto the care coordination team. Yes, there is some danger that we will create rare cases of fraud and abuse as we shift care to the home and community. But the bigger threats are that we fail to prepare a careforce to meet the needs of 21st century healthcare…and that we miss the opportunity to grow new jobs and industries that put America at the forefront of a new healthcare paradigm needed not just here at home but across the world.
Comments are welcome. please post to: http://blogs.intel.com/healthcare/
NOTE: ERIC DISHMAN'S 'HOME BLOG' PAGE HAS MOVED TO: blogs.intel.com/healthcare.
posted by
Eric Dishman on January 21, 2010
Rumors of the demise of healthcare reform have been greatly exaggerated. After Scott Brown’s upset victory for the Massachusetts Senate seat, the news media and blogosphere are abuzz. Ah, folks, we have ourselves an official media frenzy! Let the hyperbole begin: “The world has changed,” “Everything is different now,” “It’s the end of the Democrats,” “Obama’s agenda is over,” and most concerning to me, “Healthcare reform is dead.”
The notion that “healthcare reform is dead” is wishful thinking by some who believe that repeating the phrase often enough will make it so. (And perhaps it will…the echo chamber has worked before to defeat both logic and truth!) And the notion begins to feel almost inevitable thanks to the ever-escalating rhetoric from pundits who need to generate a provocative headline or sound-byte to be heard above the noise of their peers, who are proclaiming the same doom-and-gloom scenarios over on the next news channel or blog site. In our modern, shock-and-awe world, the more provocative and extreme the claim, the better.
Yes, Brown’s victory should be a wakeup call for Democrats, the White House, and arguably all politicians about the frustration flashpoint that voters are reaching due to the recession, the fear we have of change—especially about something as personal as healthcare, and the continuum from distrust to disgust that the majority of Americans hold towards a highly polarized Congress. But we’re ready to scrap much-needed reform of the largest sector of our economy because of a “January surprise” in a special election for a single Senator? We’re once again prepared to have our healthcare held hostage by the whims of a single Senator or to avoid bringing bills forward out of fear of a filibuster?
This is nonsense. This is scary. This is wrong.
Healthcare reform is, in the vernacular of the day, too big—and too big of an issue—to fail. To allow politics-as-usual to derail and destroy healthcare reform as a national priority is as foolish as us walking away from the fight against terrorism. Congress and the White House both know full well that we can’t afford not to do healthcare reform—that it is a vital “national interest.” That Medicare insolvency is a real and increasingly imminent threat. That we’ve not designed a care delivery system to withstand the pressures of the age wave. That the cost of treating the uninsured in emergency rooms is unsustainable. That the rise of obesity and chronic disease is wiping out investment dollars that we could use for other parts of our economy. That Americans want, need, and expect to be covered by our insurance even when we have preexisting conditions. And that we can’t continue to be a globally competitive country without reforming healthcare.
I’ve spent the past year working specifically on these healthcare reform bills, as someone new to advocacy and naïve about “beltway behavior.” Other than a few, rare exceptions, I have to be honest that I have been discouraged by what I have witnessed.
Opponents, armed with the echo chamber of talk radio and blogs, have used despicable fear tactics to frighten Americans away from the facts in these bills. They have decided that making the President fail on healthcare reform is their best election 2010 strategy, even threatening and silencing members of their own party who actually wanted to negotiate and compromise on a real reform bill. They’ve waged a campaign of misinformation and emotional manipulation.
Proponents, armed with the hubris of leading both houses of Congress and the Presidency, have shut out real debate and stifled meaningful bipartisan negotiation with healthcare reform, thus setting the tone of hostility early on. They have decided that “healthcare reform at any cost” is their best strategy, and have deployed their own fear tactics that needlessly vilified insurance companies while silencing the more moderate parts of their own party. They have failed to explain to the American people the content and logic of their proposals and squandered away the public approval—that they had at the start of the process—for reforming healthcare.
The White House, meanwhile, has sat on the sidelines of the healthcare reform debate for far too long out of fear of repeating the perceived “interventionist” mistakes of President Clinton. President Obama needs to be the Communicator-In-Chief to explain to the American people why these reform measures are necessary and why they will work. He now can step in to drive—and insist upon—a truly bipartisan “campaign” for healthcare reform, instead of allowing the nation to obsess more about the political process for passing the bill than the main points that were in it. And he must make the moral and competitive case that healthcare reform is crucial for our stature and status as a global leader and standards bearer for Democracy.
And finally, we as citizens have let ourselves be “entertained” by the political fray instead of being “informed” and “insistent” about healthcare reforms that the majority of us desperately need. We have somehow come to expect, even relish, the spectacle of the crazies—of every ideological stripe—taking center stage in our national debate that has become more like an ongoing “reality show” than an authentic attempt to derive real solutions for our country. We’ve tolerated, even rewarded, mediocrity from our national leaders. We’ve too easily believed the internet rumor, the talk radio commentator, or the water cooler conversation without doing our homework to really research and understand these complex healthcare issues. And we’ve failed to mobilize ourselves, the now-silent-again majority of Americans who chanted “yes we can” during the Presidential election but haven’t followed through on our commitments to real change.
I refuse to accept the view that “this is just the way it is” when it comes to Washington. That it’s just “human nature” or “politics as usual.” Those are just cynical cop-outs. We can all expect—and do—better.
Healthcare reform is too big to fail. We must demand that our government leaders actually lead and get real healthcare reform done this year. Let real debate occur. Stop living in fear of a filibuster—let it, and the consequences of wasting the public’s time and money with silly political games, occur under the glaring spotlight of the media and the blogosphere. If the current bill is politically impossible to achieve in its entirety, then let’s go with the “a la carte” approach instead of the smorgasbord. Let’s, for example, put forth the bill focused specifically on ending the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions. Or the bill that brings the uninsured into the fold of quality coverage. Then we’ll see just how many members of Congress decide to vote against these more popular reforms in an election year.
Or most radical of all: let’s have the President call together a mix of members (including the silenced moderates) from both parties to start again with real bipartisan negotiation and to put the country—not the November elections—first. Back in his speech to Congress in the fall, the President said that there is bipartisan agreement on a high percentage of the proposals. If this is true, focus on those as the foundation of healthcare reform that can pass this year. Save the disagreements and the controversies for later.
We have seen how successful bipartisan legislation can be at times of national crisis – terrorist attacks, natural disasters. Let’s ask Congress to take that same approach to the economic crisis we surely face as a country if the largest part of that economy—healthcare—is left with an unsustainable status quo and potential collapse. We already have the intelligence about when, where, and how this healthcare crisis will occur. We can still do something about it. Healthcare reform is too big, too important to fail…we must refuse to be too small, too self-important to let it succeed. For our own good.
Comments are welcome. please post to: http://blogs.intel.com/healthcare/
NOTE: ERIC DISHMAN'S 'HOME BLOG' PAGE HAS MOVED TO: blogs.intel.com/healthcare.
posted by
Eric Dishman on January 12, 2010
I’m not usually one for New Year’s resolutions. Either they are so small in scope so as not to rise to the level of “resolution” status or so big that they will take far more than one year to accomplish. And besides, I don’t like disappointing myself during the first week or two of January when I have already failed to eat less chocolate, use the treadmill every morning, or to “be nicer to everyone.” But maybe a new decade resolution makes more sense.
This time of year all the news shows have their “year in review” segments: a fast-edited cacophony of the year’s celebrity scandals, political headlines, media controversies, and, of course, a few new gadgets thrown in all to signify (in their opinion) what was important the prior year. And there is even more chatter when we turn the calendar page to a new decade. Far too many news cycles have already been spent on what to call the decade of 2000 to 2010, with many calling them the “aught” years, the “nameless decade,” or even the “lost decade”—the “naught” years—with the sense that the stock market crash, housing crash, and recession have left us with no gains over the past 10 years.
I don’t know what to call the last decade—and I think it’s ridiculous to think of that time as useless just because our financial wealth didn’t grow—but, regardless, it’s time to look forward. It’s time to move forward. My new decade’s resolution is to do everything in my power to make the next ten years be the decade of care innovation—in particular, to move care into the home and community. If healthcare reform is about anything other than insurance reform (please!), it has to be about care delivery reform. We have to transform how we conceive of care, whose responsibility it is, when we intervene, who is trained to deliver care, and where and how it is practiced. It’s not just a matter of writing a check differently for healthcare—it’s a matter of doing health differently with the money we’ve got.
The good news is that there are many elements in these bills—that rarely make the headlines—that open the door to a decade of care innovation. Covering tens of millions more Americans who were previously un- or under-insured will in itself force innovation as the current system has to find creative ways to deliver more services to more people but without significant increases in money or staff. Very few health plans really know how to be an effective “accountable care organization,” but already a small few of the “old plans” are aggressively reinventing themselves to try be at the forefront of that change. “Care coordination” is going to be novel for many nurse and physician practices—they will have to innovate how they do care on a daily basis. Payment reform—through “bundled payments” and “preventive care incentives”—will create new market dynamics that reward and demand new ways of delivering care that few of us can see or understand at this point. And with care innovation programs and comparative effectiveness studies coming from almost every government agency—the CMS Innovation Center, the Office of the National Coordinator, the Department of Health & Human Services, the National Institutes of Health—it is clear that the next decade, if successful, will begin the transformation of a healthcare system that has changed very little over the past 150 years.
The bad news is that neither Congress nor the White House have managed to capture the public’s imagination about the upside of healthcare reform—about the promise of a decade of care innovation. I’ve said many times that government leaders have missed a real opportunity to excite and ignite the country about reinventing our healthcare system with new industries, jobs, technologies, and care models. (Perhaps we should call this reform debate the “lost debate” or the “naught debate.”) They’ve focused so much on headline-grabbing controversies (the public option, abortion, Cadillac plans), the sausage-making process of legislation (filibusters, late night Christmas eve votes, ping pong strategies, reconciliation) in a climate of hyper-partisan self-preservation that the majority of the public as a whole has soured on the idea of healthcare reform in the polls, even though almost every individual yearns for many of the major elements in the bills.
It’s not too late. Congress and the White House can still set out a bold, innovative vision for where healthcare reform will take us. In fact, they probably need to as they try to get this bill finished soon, possibly even before the State of the Union address by President Obama in the coming weeks. I’ll offer the same advice to the President that I tried—but utterly failed through every friend, colleague, and channel I could find in D.C.—to get to him back in September when he gave his healthcare speech to Congress.
The President should make a New Decade Resolution, declaring 2010 to 2020 the decade of care innovation. In fact, he should set out an audacious, going-to-the-moon goal of moving 50% of care that is done today in institutions such as hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes to the home and community by 2020. Instead of investing in more high-tech infrastructure to “fix” us in a medical institution once we’ve already become diseased or injured, we should be investing in infrastructure that helps us to prevent disease and injury, to be more proactive about our own health and wellness, to shift diagnostic capacities into the home and community, and to enlist family and friends in care coordination to offload those overburdened institutional systems and settings.
Having a bold 2020 vision that uses American innovation to shift care to the home and community—and responsibility for wellness to the patient and their care network—will go a long way towards getting the American public excited about the reforms we need to make. Imagine if 10 years from now, those news retrospectives could be looking back at this decade as the time in which we truly gave every American great healthcare, in which we allowed people to age gracefully in their own homes instead of institutions, in which we turned the tide on chronic disease by focusing on prevention and behavior change, in which we personalized medicine to individuals, and in which we invented entirely new kinds of care models, care workers, and locations of care to diversify services for the wide range of health and wellness needs that we, as humans, have always had.
And as with most resolutions, while we may not achieve every aspect of every commitment we make to ourselves, it is far better to have a positive vision and a discernible direction to go in…than to remain mired in the medical morass and the unsustainable status quo that we find ourselves in during this historical moment. And who knows, perhaps in a decade committed to real care innovation, we may surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations.
Comments are welcome. please post to: http://blogs.intel.com/healthcare/
NOTE: ERIC DISHMAN'S 'HOME BLOG' PAGE HAS MOVED TO: blogs.intel.com/healthcare.
posted by
Lisa Malloy on January 07, 2010
Written by Brian Huseman, Intel senior attorney and manager of Global Public Policy
I had the opportunity this week to attend the International Consumer Electronics Show. Although I've been to CES before, I am amazed each time at the tremendous amount of technological innovation and competitiveness that exists in the marketplace. Wandering the show floor, you constantly encounter products offering new features, better speeds and lower prices. I'm constantly getting lost trying to navigate between robotics, phone cases and 3-D gaming technology.
Working in Intel's Washington, DC office, I sometimes feel removed from the company's technology. At Intel's CES booth, I found myself learning about some of our company's innovative new products from some of my most forward thinking colleagues. For example, Intel's laptop anti-theft technology allows a business to remotely deactivate a laptop that has been reported stolen. The Intel Health Guide allows for in-home remote patient monitoring, which should allow for better health care and reduced medical costs. And the speed and processing power of Intel's chips keep on getting faster and faster (and cheaper and cheaper), allowing for all sorts of new products and features that can take advantage of that power.
As someone working in public policy on the East Coast, there is no substitute for seeing the technology in person. I'm pleased that a number of congressional and federal agency staffers are able to do the same.
FCC Commissioner Clyburn visited Intel's booth to hear the latest in WiMax technology.
posted by
Lisa Malloy on January 07, 2010
Written by Shelly Esque, vice president in the Legal and Corporate Affairs group and president of the Intel Foundation
Yesterday I had the honor of representing Intel in a small meeting with President Obama, the Vice President and Dr. Biden (a professor of English) prior to the public announcement around the “Educate to Innovate” campaign. The President met with just three technology companies and two University representatives to thank us for our continued commitment to STEM education in the U.S. All of us in the room recognize the importance of public/private alignment and cooperation if we are truly going to turn the tide on science and math education in our country. U.S. 15 years olds rank 21st among nations in Science and 25th in Math achievement and we all recognize that our future - the future of U.S. competitiveness, our standard of living and the health of our companies depends on improvement. The President and Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan plans on continuing to shine a light on this issue and the administration is taking bold steps to turn the situation around. “…our future depends on reaffirming America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation.” This meeting was specifically about Teachers and their preparedness to spark young people to engage with science and math subjects and careers. Intel’s long standing commitment to teacher training and educational improvement is a perfect fit with the administration’s vision of increasing the quality and quantity of qualified Math and Science teachers and to making “rock stars” out of young people who demonstrate excellence in science and math.
We affirmed our commitment to teacher training, science competitions, and our other work to engage, inspire and recognize the next generation of innovators. I was proud to be part of the celebration and I’m proud to know the President recognizes our work and supports private sector collaborative efforts.
I think the biggest challenges remain around educating parents and young people about the importance of attaining science and math literacy at an early age and sticking with rigorous curriculum so that many doors will be open when they decide to choose a career. How can we get this topic to the forefront of the national dialogue? Where is the sense of urgency that is needed to take bold steps? I think that’s a challenge we all need to take responsibility for helping to solve. I would love to hear your ideas.
For more information please click on the following links:
posted by
Lisa Malloy on December 15, 2009
Stephen Harper, Intel's global director for Environment and Energy Policy blogs from Copenhagen for National Journal.
Riding around Copenhagen these last two weeks it has been hard to miss all the bloviating billboards proffering particular views of whether climate change is real and what, if anything, we should do about it. One very large banner pasted on the side of a building near the city’s famous Tivoli Gardens, is very hard to miss. It is from the Copenhagen Climate Consensus, a group formed by the famous/infamous (depending on your views) “Skeptical Environmentalist,” Bjorn Lomborg.
My point here is not resuscitate the old debates about his wide-ranging views on various environmental topics and/or the statistical validity of the content of his book. It is, rather, to point out what I think are two glaring problems with the logic of his current views on climate.
Read more
posted by
Lisa Malloy on December 15, 2009
Stephen Harper, Intel’s global director for Environment and Energy Policy:
“Information is power. In the case of energy efficiency, experience has shown that when consumers have visibility to how much they spend on energy, and can see how their daily activities (e.g., when they wash their dishes) affects their utility bill each month, they tend to change their behavior and reduce their consumption to save money. Intel today joined others in our industry, together with The Climate Group, to urge governments to act on this experience as they ramp up their efforts to address climate change.”
Read more from The Climate Group.
Katie Fehrenbacher provides additional commentary in her earth2tech blog post: A Rally for Home Energy Information from Copenhagen.
posted by
Lisa Malloy on December 14, 2009
Stephen Harper, Intel's global director for Environment and Energy Policy blogs from Copenhagen for National Journal.
The "COP 15" climate negotiations in Copenhagen is now half completed and the ultimate outcome still is far from clear. Many issues remain to be resolved, and many of those will not be resolved when the meeting draws to a close. The fact is that there still are a lot of really knotty issues and expecting 200-plus countries to reach consensus on all or even most of those issues quickly isn't realistic.
Read More
posted by
Lisa Malloy on December 09, 2009
We have captured for you the compelling discussions from a day and a half of speeches and panels all focused on innovation. View discussions on education, science, innovation and climate policy, U.S. competitiveness and the next big idea.
Also, after spending the day at the conference, Financial Times’ Clive Crook, makes a recommendation to check out the videos focused on education.
We’d like to hear what resonates most for you.
del.icio.us