February 21, 2010

A Cashless Society is Right Around the Corner; the Endgame is the Microchip Implant

At First Data, we’re working hard to help make Near-Field Communications (NFC)-enabled mobile commerce a reality. Many companies across the payments industry share the vision of an NFC future for commerce, and activity in this space seems to be accelerating. Why are we so excited about NFC? Because an NFC platform on a mobile handset opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Combining the power of the mobile network and the mobile handset with the ability to exchange information at short range in the physical world creates endless possibilities. What could you do with your mobile phone? Think about touching your phone to a point-of-sale terminal to buy a cup of coffee with your debit card. Touch your mobile phone to your babysitter’s mobile phone to pay her, instead of fumbling for cash. You could use your mobile phone at the front desk of a hotel at check-in to download your room key and then touch your phone to the hotel room door to unlock it. Or imagine touching your mobile phone to a reader at your doctor’s office to have the information from your latest visit downloaded to the medical file on your phone. - Perspective: Accelerating Mobile Commerce with Trusted Service Management, First Data, October 13, 2009



Now Make Payments Via Mobile Phones

By ANI
January 3, 2010

Oxford University researchers have developed a new technology that enables safe payments to be made through mobile phones.

The technology, designed by professor Bill Roscoe of the Computing Laboratory and colleagues, will now be launched into the market by Isis Innovation, the university's technology transfer company. Roscoe said:
"A key requirement of new payment systems will be the ability to make payments from person to person, such as paying a builder or a friend."

"What we have is technology which enables anyone to easily create a secure connection between two devices: it can work via Bluetooth, WiFi, the internet or across ordinary telephone or SMS connections.

"The core of our technology is a new security protocol that enables strong cryptographic keys to be created with the least possible work. The key to the protocol is that it prevents anyone from doing any searching to break into the transaction."
A user of the technology checks if a 4-8 digit numeric code generated within their own phone matches with the one generated by the payee. This number is random and there is no need to maintain secrecy.

This guarantees that the customer's mobile is connected to the correct store, or to the cell phone of the person they have to pay. Thereafter, the payment takes place without exchanging sensitive details like credit card numbers or PIN.

No hardware is expected to be needed for the use of the technology. The Oxford team says the payment can be made in numerous ways—by using electronic cash or credit stored on a mobile phone, via authorisation of a credit card payment, or by asking a bank to pay a person a specified sum of money. Roscoe said:
"The technology is designed to put the payer in charge of the connection and let him or her have direct control over how much is paid and to whom—very much like a cheque.

"It is clear that banks will be looking for innovative solutions to avoid the limitations of current technology and that the ability to pay using mobile phones in the same way that you do now using a cheque will need to be phased in over the next eight years. The beauty of this system is that it can be used for many different methods of payment."

Mobile Payment: The Linchpin of the Mobile Commerce Economy

First Data provides insight into Mobile Payment being the payment option of the future.

By Barry McCarthy, First Data
October 8, 2008

Mobile payments will likely emerge as the way to pay, ultimately eliminating your dependence on credit and debit cards, check—and even cash.

Mobile devices are on the forefront of revolutionizing how consumers monitor finances, make purchasing decisions and pay for transactions. Planning for this change will help position all of us for success in mobile commerce.

Commerce is making payment and receiving payment. If there is no payment, there is no commerce.

This statement is every bit as true for mobile commerce as it is for traditional commercial activity. But how does payment actually work in a mobile commerce economy?

Let’s take a look, and pretend you are a commuter taking the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to work everyday.

On a typical day you race out of the house and head to your transit station, wave your phone at the turnstile’s electronic reader, dash down to the platform and just make your train. Perhaps you read the morning paper as you pass under San Francisco Bay.

The train pulls into your stop, and as you step off, you notice a panel advertisement for a Jack-in-the-Box® mango smoothie. The ad has a logo signifying it’s a smart ad—an advertisement that transfers information to your phone when you tap it on the logo.

You tap the smart ad and your phone displays the nearest Jack-in-the-Box location: there’s one on San Francisco’s Mission Street, right by your station. You leave the station, step around the corner and order that smoothie. You pay for it by tapping your phone at the checkout stand. You remember that, because of your enrollment in a loyalty program, you also downloaded a 10 percent discount coupon when you tapped the smart ad. That amount was automatically deducted from the price of the smoothie.

What does this simple transaction mean to you as a merchant or financial entity? What will it cost you? How does it affect the shopping experience and your ability to build customer relationships? And what does it mean to traditional credit and debit card payments?

To answer these questions and understand how central mobile payment is to the entire mobile commerce ecosystem, let’s take a closer look at what’s behind a simple mobile purchase. Later in this paper, I’ll talk more about the technology that made this transaction happen, but for now, take a look at the transaction itself, because this is at the heart of commerce—exchanging value for value and receiving payment from the customer.

In this case, the merchant produces the mango smoothie, and you enter a code into your phone, wave the phone near a reader, receive a 10 percent discount, see a display of the transaction details and then are on your way.

What was special about this transaction?

First, it was fast. The merchant did not need to ask if you had a coupon or a discount card or some other customer-loyalty incentive. Nor did you need to dig around for a coupon or punch card. If you had signed up for these incentives, they would already be in the mobile device and automatically calculated during the transaction.

Also, the merchant did not need to receive cash or make change, nor did the merchant need to handle a debit or credit card. Just as significantly, you as the customer did not have to deal with cash or cards. It was a faster and simpler transaction for both the merchant and you.

Pilot programs in Europe have shown that mobile purchases cut the average transaction time in half. A study recently conducted by First Data demonstrates this as well. The study, carried out in several corporate cafeterias around the country, measured factors related to the use of prepaid contactless stickers. A contactless sticker is like a miniature adhesive gift card with a Near Field Communication (NFC) chip inside. The study showed that contactless payments are typically two to three times faster than cash or no-signature card payments and about five times faster than card payments requiring a signature.

The second big difference between this mobile transaction and a more traditional payment is that there was no leather wallet full of cash and credit cards involved. You left your traditional wallet at home.

Third, just before swiping your phone near the reader, you entered a short personal security code that enabled the transaction. The phone’s purchasing capability automatically locked as soon as the transaction was complete. This means that if you lost your phone, nobody would be able to use that mobile device to make unauthorized purchases. This provides a higher level of security compared to credit cards or other payment methods that typically reside in the leather wallet.

On the merchant side of the transaction, the point of sale is equipped with an NFC chip reader. As I will explain later, your phone is equipped with an NFC chip. When the phone passes close to the reader, the reader is able to pull essential personal identification and account information from the phone, similar to the data contained on the magnetic strip of a credit or debit card. The NFC terminal reads this information in much the same way a credit card swipe is read (although no physical contact is needed to read the NFC chip) and the account information is transmitted to the transaction processing entity (First Data, for instance). The payment transaction is then processed in the conventional way.

One other critical action took place during this transaction. Before you passed your phone over the reader, you made an important choice. Because mobile devices will be provisioned with several payment accounts, you can choose which account to debit the cost of the smoothie against. You may select a credit or debit card account, or (and this is of great significance to the merchant) a merchant-specific prepaid stored value account—something like a refillable gift card. Commerce-enabled mobile devices today can manage multiple accounts.

This capability puts merchant-sponsored prepayment incentive programs on exactly the same footing as major credit and debit cards—or cash—from the customer’s usability perspective. And that opens a whole new world of opportunity for merchants to build customer loyalty and possibly even lower their transaction costs.

This transaction has implications for the entire mobile commerce value chain, which includes merchants, point-of-sale equipment manufacturers, financial entities and transaction processors, mobile phone manufacturers and mobile carriers who provide the network.

Many people do not realize that most of the infrastructure needed to support this mango smoothie transaction is in place today—all around the world. In fact, the mobile payment scenario discussed above actually took place in San Francisco in early 2008 as part of a First Data pilot program.

Mobile Payment White Paper: Download PDF – 810 KB

Wallet of the Future? Your Mobile Phone

By John D. Sutter, CNN
August 17, 2009

These days, it seems that most Americans carry three things in their pockets or purses at all times: keys, a wallet and a phone.

But, in the not-too-distant future, you may be able to leave the wallet and the keys behind.

The mobile phone is staging a coup.

Some analysts say that within five years, mobile phones in the United States will be able to make electronic payments, open doors, access subways, clip coupons and possibly act as another form of identification.

These futuristic uses for phones are becoming reality in countries like South Korea and Japan, which typically are ahead of the United States when it comes to mobile technology.

A 963-person survey by Forrester Research, for instance, found that 15 percent of Japanese mobile phone users make payments and purchase products in stores with their phones.

The ideas have been tried in the United States too, but with less success.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, banks and cell phone makers started conducting trials with U.S. customers. Limited groups of people were given the ability to scan their phones to make payments, enter stadiums and access public transit.

Those phone-forward guinea pigs didn’t like the new functionalities as well as expected, and the ideas never took off on a commercial scale, said Ed Kountz, a senior analyst at Forrester.

But Kountz said there’s now resurgent interest in merging phones with wallets and keys. In 2009, people are more dependent on their phones than they used to be.
“I think it is different this time around,” said Kountz, who believes that phones in the United States will be used to make mobile payments within five years.

“The overall utility of cell phones has expanded, and more consumers are using the data aspects of cell phones,” he said.
Phones everywhere

At the end of 2008, there were an estimated 4 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide, according to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency. That’s about two cell phone subscriptions for every three people.

The fact that phones are everywhere and are commonly used to access the Internet and compute means they’re well poised to overtake wallets, said Justin Denison, vice president of strategy for Samsung Telecommunications in the United States.

Gartner Inc., a technology research company, issued a report in May saying mobile payments will increase 70 percent in 2009, to 73 million people worldwide.

By 2012, the company says, 190 million people will make mobile payments.

Still, that adoption rate is relatively low. Only 3 percent of people in North America are expected to conduct mobile payments in 2012, Gartner says.

Potential problems

There are no guarantees that the technology will catch on in the United States as it has in Asia, Denison said.
“We can make investments. We can test things. But it’s not always the case that [new technologies] get adopted here,” he said.
And technology that turns phones into credit cards and IDs poses several potential problems.

If phones replace wallets, would-be thieves will see every person walking down the street talking on his or her phone as a target for robbery, said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
“It would be the ultimate form of identify theft, that’s for sure,” she said.
Banks and mobile phone makers say the technology is safe. But it’s not clear whether consumers will demand the change.

There’s also no firm plan about who would pay for the technology to be added to phones and put into stores, said Simon Pugh, vice chairman of the NFC Forum, which supports the technology, and head of mobile payments at MasterCard.
“With any new technology, there’s an ecosystem that needs to develop to make it viable,” he said. “One of the key things that’s needed is new hardware. You need a special chip in the phone, and you need another radio frequency antenna to communicate … and that costs money.”
Swipe a phone

Squeezing the contents of a person’s purse into a phone relies mostly on a technology called near-field communication, which allows any enabled device to communicate with a cash register or subway turnstile through a secure radio frequency.

The technology is similar to the scanners and passes that allow commuters to pay for drives on a turnpike without stopping at a toll booth.

When a phone is enabled with near-field communication technology, shoppers can load bank and credit card information onto their phones and then scan them to buy goods at the grocery store, gas station, subway or any other place set up to read the device.

Doug Brown, head of mobile product development at Bank of America, said the idea is popular with consumers because it simplifies their lives.
You don’t need cash anymore. You don’t need your wallet. That’s really the endgame here, is that we can replace the physical wallet and all of the cash needs and the plastic that you’re using today,” he said.
Similarly, phones could include scannable identification information.

Eye scans and fingerprints would make phone IDs and payments more secure, Brown said. The ID technology might work like a corporate security badge, which pulls up personal information when scanned.

Some hotels have played with the idea of using near-field communication technology to enable a guest’s phone to act as a room key. According to the NFC Forum, a New Zealand hotel last month installed locks that are opened with mobile phones.

Texting and barcodes

People can make transactions with their phones through lower-tech means, too.

Mobile banking apps use the Internet to allow people to transfer money and purchase goods online. And in some parts of the world, text messages sent by mobile phone are used as a form of currency.

In Kenya, for example, more than 6 million people are registered with M-Pesa, a service that lets people send text messages to make payments and transfer money from phone to phone.

Some of those users have access to banking for the first time because of their phones, said Susan Teltscher, head of market information and statistics at the International Telecommunication Union.

iPhone users in the U.S. and elsewhere already can upload plane tickets onto their phones and then scan a digital version of the ticket’s barcode instead of presenting paper tickets.

There’s hope that, eventually, bank customers here may have individual barcodes they can use to purchase goods in stores.

Kountz, the analyst at Forrester, said the economic recession may hold many of these ideas back. And consumer interest in mobile payments remains low: less than 10 percent, he said.

Still, many companies and consumers want to ditch plastic cards, unwieldy cash and hefty wallets.

To them, it’s just a matter of how and when — and who will pay.

What's the Future for Your Mobile Phone?

From Google to Microsoft and Sony Ericsson to Apple, new devices, products and services unveiled at Mobile World Congress this week hint at the sort of handsets we'll be using in the months to come.

By Claudine Beaumont, Telegraph
February 18, 2010

The message from this week's telecoms show could not have been clearer: mobile is the future. As established players, such as Samsung and Nokia, rushed to play catch up with the likes of Apple, technology companies, including Google and Microsoft, laid down clear markers to their rivals.

Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman and chief executive, used his keynote address at Mobile World Congress to underline his company's commitment to mobile in all its forms. Google was, he said, now a "mobile first" business, with programmers and developers building mobile versions of applications and software before they built the desktop versions.

He said that more than 60,000 devices running Google's Android mobile operating system were being shipped every day, and that smartphone sales would overtake PC sales in the the next few years.

Indeed the phone, said Schmidt, is no longer just a device:
"It's your alter ego — it's fundamental to everything you do."
That was a view echoed across the show floor in Barcelona, where phone makers unveiled their latest handsets designed to "inspire" and "delight" users, and become the anchor point for their work and social lives. Developers showed off their latest software and apps, designed to simplify communication and make the mobile phone the ultimate do-anything gadget ...

Want to Launch Mobile Payments? Buy a Bank

By Steven Carlson, CITT Project
December 19, 2008

Several years ago, a former business partner and I were speculating about how the mobile operator industry would evolve. The mobile phone business was booming, but it was already clear that growth had limits. What to do once every citizen had a handset?

The solution seemed obvious even then. As mobile services evolved, the phone would eventually be used as a payment mechanism. By controlling the payment interface, operators stood to make a fortune from transaction fees. Could mobile operators eventual evolve into financial institutions or even banks?

Something like this has happened in Austria, as I learned at a recent conference, IIR’s Mobile and NSF Payment Strategies, held here in Budapest.

It’s easy to imagine a world where your mobile handset works just like a virtual wallet. The trouble is getting others to play along. Launching a mobile payment scheme means navigating the competing interests of mobile operators, financial institutions and merchants. It also means building a critical mass of services and customers.

Three years ago I posted to nowEurope about SEMOPS, an FP6 funded project that brought together a consortium of (mostly) Hungarian banks, technology providers and mobile operators. SEMOPS developed a mobile payment technology and conducted tests with a major local book retailer.

Unfortunately, the SEMOPS scheme never took off. None of the consortium members stepped up to champion the project and drive it toward commercial success. Quite possibly this is because none of the members could claim solitary ownership of the project, as the technology was jointly owned by the consortium.

In Austria, exactly the opposite thing happened. The country’s largest mobile operator committed to building its mobile payment structure, first by purchasing a technology provider (Paybox, 2001) and then by founding a fully owned bank (A1 Bank, 2002).

At the Mobile and NSF Payment conference, A1 Bank COO Thomas Capka described how Mobilkom and A1 had progressively rolled out new tiers of service, including mobile parking payments, municipal transport tickets, Internet payments and vending machines.

Capka related that in Austria cigarettes can only be purchased from vending machines using A1’s mobile payment scheme, which simultaneously verifies that the purchaser is 18 years of age or older.

As Mobilkom and A1 developed critical mass around their mobile payments technology they were then able to negotiate interoperability agreements with competing mobile operators. At the time of this writing, all major Austrian operators are onboard, with the solitary exception of Hutchison.

In all, four million Austrian consumers are now equipped to use the mobile payments scheme. By comparison, just 2m Austrians have credit cards.

Capka stated that his company hopes to develop a national standard that can then be applied to international payments. It will be interesting to see how this develops. Mobilkom has subsidiary companies in several Central European markets, where they might decide to roll out their payment technology.

A further issue is how to integrate bank cards into the payment model. At present, a customer’s mobile phone payments appear on the same statement as his phone charges. In future, A1 and Mobilkom’s payment scheme may evolve into a service bundled with a bank card. Already the distinction between mobile operator and financial institution is becoming blurry.

Paper, Plastic ... or Phone?

Terri Bradford, Payments System Research Specialist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, has written a briefing paper titled "Paper, Plastic......or Phone?" that examines mobile-phone payment and banking alternatives in the United States. The paper explores prospects for growth, available technologies, and the outlook for one or more technologies coming to dominate the market.

By Terri Bradford, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Originally Published on December 2006

In the December 2005 issue of the Briefing, it was noted that contactless technology could reside in several devices, including traditional payment cards, key fobs, watches, and even mobile phones. One year later, discussion in the United States about the use of mobile phones as a payment device and as a means to facilitate online banking has intensified. Such mobile functionality already has been adopted in other parts of the world, and adoption in the United States may not be far off. Soon, instead of choosing between paper and plastic when making a payment, the phone may be an option as well.

Prospects for growth

A number of forces are at work suggesting that mobile-phone payments may be poised for growth. The growing number of mobile devices, increased consumer willingness to adopt new payment methods, the surge in the use of payment cards, and a wide-ranging choice of service providers all point to mobile phone payments becoming a reality in the not-too-distant future.

According to a June 2006 survey conducted by CTIA, The Wireless Association, there are more than 219 million wireless subscribers in the United States. That means that more than 72 percent of the total U.S. population owns some type of wireless device, including mobile phones, Blackberries, and PDAs. And, when it comes to mobile phones, for many users—because of the variety of features and functionalities—phones today are being used for much more than simply making and receiving calls. They have become full-service electronic devices providing access to the Internet, music, videos, games, text messaging, graphics, and more. So, it is entirely conceivable that consumers may be ready to adopt mobile phones as a means to access payment and financial information as well.

Mobile technology can be thought of as the latest offering in a line of emerging payments. Though it has taken some time, consumers have become more familiar and comfortable with making payments in new ways. A December 2005 poll taken by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, for example, found that 43 percent of U.S. Internet users, or about 63 million American adults, bank online. PayPal reports that it now has over 100 million accounts, which consumers use to make person-to-person (P2P) payments online as well as for other transactions.

And, contactless payments also are on the rise. Where consumers have been exposed to contactless payment methods, such as Speedpass at Exxon-Mobil gas stations and PayPass and blink at CVS pharmacies, they reportedly have liked them and would use them more often if they were more widely available. Mobile phone technologies provide another platform to enable all of these types of activities.

Consumers also are increasingly using credit, and especially debit, cards for low-dollar transactions, which may further encourage mobile phone payments. Networks are offering differential pricing and creating new merchant class categories to encourage low-dollar merchants to accept cards. In turn, consumers are increasingly using plastic to make payments everywhere from the grocery store to the convenience store to the fast-food drive-thru. Speed and convenience are important in such transactions for both merchants and consumers. Mobile payment technology could make such transactions even quicker.

Finally, a host of service providers have taken initial steps into the mobile-phone payment industry, suggesting a level of interest and ensuing competition that could help spur activity in this market. A number of banks, nonbank payments providers, and telecommunications companies are offering, piloting, or seriously discussing mobile payment and banking services.

Available technologies

Several technologies are available for mobile-phone payment and banking. These include near field communication (NFC), short message service (SMS), and wireless application protocol (WAP) technologies. In addition, payments-related applications can be downloaded to reside directly on the mobile device.

NFC is a short-range wireless connectivity technology that evolved from a combination of existing contactless identification and interconnection technologies. SMS technology, which exists on most of the mobile phones available on the market today, allows users to receive and send short text messages (from 150 to 160 characters) to other mobile phones. WAP technology is an open, international standard for applications that use wireless communication and is primarily used to enable Web access from mobile devices. And, application downloads use a mobile device’s WAP capabilities to allow the user to type the Web address of the site from which they want to obtain an application, download the application, and essentially “register” their device for use by entering the phone number and creating a PIN.

JPMorgan Chase, the deployer of the blink contactless card, launched a mobile payments trial in December 2005 using NFC technology. In that trial, a small number of Atlanta Thrashers and Hawks season ticket holders, who also had Chase-issued Visa credit card accounts and Cingular wireless accounts, were provided the ability to make mobile payments at special contactless readers installed at concession stands throughout the arena. Results were evaluated and focus groups were conducted after the trial. Speedier transaction times and greater convenience were among the observations made by trial participants. In addition, participants indicated that they would like to use their mobile devices for payment at other merchant locations, for all purchase sizes, in the future.

Earlier this year, PayPal, the online P2P payment service owned by eBay, began offering an SMS-enabled payment product called PayPal Mobile. PayPal Mobile allows users to make payments or send money from their PayPal account by registering their phone at the PayPal Web site and creating a mobile PIN. Once done, users either can text message the payment information directly to the recipient or call a PayPal automated system. PayPal then notifies the recipient of the payment and tells them how it can be claimed. In addition, PayPal Mobile offers a “text to buy” feature: anytime a PayPal mobile user sees the PayPal “text to buy” icon on a poster, online, in a magazine, or at an event, they can text the item code to the number shown. PayPal then calls the user back and requests a PIN to confirm the order. Once done, the item is shipped to the consumer.

Launched in 2005, Obopay is another early-entrant mobile payment provider. Its mobile service utilizes a prepaid MasterCard account, an assigned PIN, and either SMS technology, WAP technology, or an application download to conduct mobile payments. Obopay users establish their account online. Those choosing the application download option must also identify their mobile telecommunications provider. Application download instructions specific to that provider then will be furnished. Using any of the three options Obopay customers can send money, request money, conduct balance inquiries, and review payment history from their mobile phones. Customers also can use the prepaid MasterCard card at ATMs and merchant checkouts.

A fourth mobile-phone payment example is Firethorn LLC. Firethorn provides services to banks that facilitate them in offering mobile-phone payment and banking services to customers. Taking the approach of establishing strategic alliances, last month, Firethorn announced two such relationships, one with CheckFree and the other with Cingular Wireless. These relationships tap into each provider’s strengths in their respective industries: CheckFree’s established relationship with banks in providing an electronic billing and payments infrastructure and Cingular’s position as one of the largest wireless providers in the United States. To date, two banks have signed on to offer Firethorn services: Bancorp South of Tupelo, Miss., has begun offering Firethorn-enabled services to its customers and it was announced that Synovus of Columbus, Ga., anticipates doing the same by the end of second quarter 2007.

Market dynamics

An interesting question to ask is the extent to which future deployment of mobile payment and banking products will mirror the deployment of online banking and P2P payment products. With online banking, the experience was that nonbanks were at first more prominent, but banks are now major providers of the service as well. In the case of P2P payments, however, banks have not fared as well. Nonbanks dominate that space.

Banks currently play a prominent role among participants providing NFC-enabled mobile payments. Moreover, the actual payment transaction is typically recognized as being handled by a bank. With the SMS- and WAP-enabled models and downloaded applications, on the other hand, nonbank providers appear to be at the fore. The strategic alliance model adopted by Firethorn appears to strike a balance between the two. Which approach will “take hold” in the marketplace could hinge on a number of considerations. Among them: which technologies and firms consumers feel most comfortable with; which options offer the most convenience; which option provides the best perceived security; and how widely accepted the payment methods become.

At present, consumers already are to some extent familiar with NFC-enabled, and SMS- and WAP- enabled, technologies. NFC payment via a tap or a wave of a card is becoming more familiar. And, for those already using that form of payment, a mobile phone as the payment device may not be much of a stretch. Likewise, SMS instant messaging and WAP-based Internet browsing are commonplace for some users of mobile devices, and the use of a PIN is a familiar process for many whether at the ATM or point of sale. So, mobile payment via SMS or WAP may not be much of a stretch either. Downloading applications to a phone, however, is a less familiar process.

Convenience considerations largely depend on the situation. If there were a need to make a payment in a physical environment, for example on the subway or at the point of sale, NFC likely would be the preferred method. If the need were to arise in a virtual environment or across distances, on the other hand, SMS, WAP, or an application-based payment would likely be preferred. However, if the desire were to obtain financial information or to conduct banking transactions, a downloaded application or WAP would be required.

Security considerations raise other issues. With mobile technology in general, it is known that some data, such as phone numbers and text messages, can be stored on the actual device even when the data have been deleted from the subscriber identity module (SIM) card within the device. Might this be an issue for payment and financial data as well?

A security consideration associated with NFC technology is whether the information being transmitted can be captured by something other than the intended contactless reader.
In addition, if a phone is lost or stolen, since there is no PIN required, there is the possibility that some unauthorized transactions could be made before the payment component could be deactivated. SMS technology employs the use of an assigned PIN and confirmations.

The use of a PIN, while not full proof, provides some protection against unauthorized use, and may therefore be more appealing to some users. The use of WAP has considerations, such as encryption of information and spoofing, similar to WiFi and Internet use in general. Ultimately, application download may offer the most protection. In addition to utilizing PIN protection, the information that resides on a phone is encrypted and is said to be comparable in amount to the information provided on an ATM receipt. Further, should the phone be lost or stolen, it could be remotely wiped clean of any financial information.

Finally, as it relates to payment acceptance, NFC-based mobile payments may experience growth related to payment terminals already deployed for use with contactless payment cards. However, it remains unclear how transactions beyond purchases might be facilitated with NFC. SMS-based mobile payments, in contrast, may require a kind of “viral” adoption to succeed, as sender and recipient devices will have to be able to “talk” to one another. WAP provides an additional screen from which to access the Web and there already is growing acceptance of transacting online. Application download will have to gain acceptance not only from consumers, but also telecommunication companies and banks.

Conclusion

Mobile payments may be positioned for a meaningful level of adoption in the United States. While there are yet challenges to overcome, a significant portion of the population owns a mobile device, acceptance of previous emerging payment methods continues to increase, and there are a number of interested parties and available technologies that address a variety of mobile payment needs. As with other emerging payment methods, it will be interesting to see how the mobile payment and banking market evolves.

FBI can use cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool even if the phone is turned off
The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
DOJ: Cell phones don't have privacy rights
Cell phones show human movement predictable 93% of the time
In Pictures: What Your Future Phone Will Do (6/20/2008)
Mobile Payments - Cellphone manufacturers like to say that your phone is the object aside from your wallet that you're least likely to leave home without. So why not combine the two? In fact, carriers Mobilkom in Austria and NTT Docomo in Japan already allow users to make small purchases by swiping their cellphone across a sensor. The technology has yet to catch on in the U.S., but credit card companies including Visa and MasterCard are experimenting with similar phone-based payment systems.
In Pictures: Coolest Future Phones (3/19/2008)
Cell Phones and a Cashless Society
PositiveID's Microchip Implant

February 18, 2010

Government-Funded Green Jobs Are All the Rage

Jessica Urtubia knows that when she graduates from Rutgers University in May, she'll likely be entering the worst job market of the 21st century. That's why she was among about 1,000 people who attended Federal Jobs Career Day yesterday at Rutgers. "I always thought the government was a good place to go, considering if you have a job there, you're probably pretty secure," said Urtubia, a business administration and criminal justice major. Representatives from 48 federal agencies gathered at the Rutgers Student Center yesterday to speak to college students and graduates from throughout the state about federal employment opportunities. It was the fifth of six federal government-sponsored career days this year and the first such event to ever be held in New Jersey. - Erica Harbatkin, Students Look to Federal Government for Stable Jobs, MyCentralJersey.com, November 8, 2008

Green Jobs

By John Stossel
September 10, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a great twofer pitch: "green jobs." It sounds like a winner. In one fell swoop he can promise to end unemployment and fix and save the planet from climate change.

Or so he says.
"I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced," he told the Democratic National Convention.
Wow. Five million new jobs. All that work building windmills and creating biofuels are the "green jobs" that will come into existence when wise government creates the industries that will produce the energy and vehicles that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

Politicians always promise that their programs will create jobs. It's used to justify building palatial sports stadiums for wealthy team owners. Alaska Rep. Don Young claimed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" would create jobs. The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects.

Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Overlooking this fact is known as the broken-window fallacy.
The French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn't have to replace the window.
Creating jobs is not difficult for government officials. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed.
It's like arguing the hurricanes create jobs. After all, the destruction is followed by rebuilding. But does anyone seriously believe that replacing destroyed buildings creates wealth?
Look at Obama's plan. His website says:
"Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world."
Note that word "strategically." It is there to suggest that Obama knows how best to "invest" the $150 billion. (Of course it is not his money, and he'll have none of his own at risk, so from his perspective, it won't really be investment.) But how does he know that the things he names ought to get the money? Will he give it to cronies of his campaign contributors? Will he appoint Al Gore to pick grant recipients? Lobbyists will make a fortune steering "green" inventors and promoters to the $150 billion.

Politicians have a lousy record trying to make "strategic investments." President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corporation cost taxpayers at least $19 billion but failed to give us alternative fuels. In the 1950s Japan's supposedly omniscient Ministry of International Trade and Investment rebuffed Sony and was sure the country should have just one car producer.

Neither Gore nor Obama can know how the money should best be invested. Investing is about predicting the future, and the future is always uncertain. We know from experience that people who have their own money at risk -- who face a profit-and-loss test and possible bankruptcy -- are much better predictors than people who play with other people's money. Just compare North and South Korea.

One reason decentralized markets are preferable to government central planning is that human beings are fallible. Mistakes are inevitable. Some investments will be errors. Mistakes in the market tend to be on a comparatively small scale. If one company invests in plug-in hybrids and it goes bust, only a relatively few people suffer. The assets of the bankrupt firm pass into more capable hands.

But decisions by government, especially the federal government, affect all of us. When government makes a mistake, the bureaucracy can't go bankrupt. Instead, it will use its failure to justify increased appropriations in the next budget.

If "green jobs" make so much sense, the market will create them. They will be created by private entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are eager to profit from winning investments. The best ideas will rise to the top, and green energy will gradually replace coal and oil.

If politicians were serious about creating jobs and cleaner technologies, they would step aside and let the free market go to work.

John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/. He is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.

Will 'Green Energy' Create Millions of Jobs in the U.S.?

President-elect Obama and his energy advisers have been making the case that a multibillion-dollar government investment in everything from wind turbines to a "smart" electrical grid is just what's needed to help revive the economy. The lure is millions of government-subsidized "green jobs" ... The green-jobs argument rests on the notion that big capital investments in new-energy technology today will be more than offset by savings in reduced fossil-fuel costs. Though oil prices have fallen, the International Energy Agency predicted Thursday that once the economy picks up again, they will resume climbing, potentially topping $200 a barrel by 2030. The IEA called the current energy system "patently unsustainable" and called for "radical action by governments." - Jeffrey Ball, Will Green Energy Add Five Million Jobs?, Tennessean, November 9, 2008

By Ben Lieberman, The Heritage Foundation
October 4, 2009

No. Green subsidies will create jobs by destroying others.

Don't let the hype about "green jobs" fool you. The global warming bill approved earlier this year by the House of Representatives would destroy far more jobs than it could ever create.

Proponents of the bill's effort to reduce carbon emissions by imposing an enormously expensive cap-and-trade system are finding it a tough sell. Americans simply aren't buying the idea that global warming justifies a blank-check response.

Reality is just not cooperating with doom-and-gloom global warming predictions. No warming has occurred for the last decade. And now the recession has heightened concerns about the economy and jobs.

As a result, proponents of the Waxman- Markey bill -- currently being debated in the Senate -- have changed their sales pitch. Rather than present this big energy tax as a costly but necessary step to save the planet, supporters now claim that it would be an economic boon, a green-job-generating machine.

"Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill," the president Obama said as the bill neared a House vote last June. "It will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs."
What kind of jobs is the president talking about? The Waxman-Markey bill drives up the cost of fossil fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- that proponents blame on global warming. As the feds ration these fuels and make them more expensive, they will be replaced by alternative energy sources like wind and solar. The jobs necessary to bring about this energy transformation are considered green jobs.

Sure, the president can visit wind turbine factories and boast about the few hundred green jobs at each. But the billions of dollars in government subsidies to the wind industry siphon resources and jobs away from other parts of the economy.

Worse, the higher cost of wind-generated electricity and other alternatives kills even more jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector that needs reasonably-priced energy to compete in the global marketplace.

A study by The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of 1,145,000 jobs from the bill. These are net losses, after any "new" green jobs are taken into account. Three analyses of the bill done by the federal government also predict net job losses.

Green job advocates once touted Spain's aggressive alternative energy policy as a model for America. But, today, unemployment there stands at 18 percent, nearly twice that of the United States. Gabriel Calzada, economics professor at Madrid's King Juan Carlos University, estimates that each green job Spain creates prevents 2.2 other jobs from being created.

The Danish think-tank CEPOS recently studied wind energy in Denmark. CEPOS found than each wind energy job there costs the government $90,000 to $140,000 annually -- much more than the jobs pay. Nor are these jobs sustainable. Once the government handouts end, so do the jobs.

The same lesson can be seen in the U.S. California has led in pursuing a green jobs agenda. Environmentalists often cite it as a national model. But California also stands out as having higher unemployment and energy costs and a weaker economy than nearly every other state.

China, India and other developing nations have wisely stated that they won't accept similar global warming restrictions on their own economies. They know full well that the policies giving rise to green jobs kill many more jobs in the process.

The Lies About Green Jobs

In the 1930s, federally funded workers built highways and painted murals on government buildings. This time, they're going to fix air leaks in low-income homes and seal up government agencies' heating registers. The stimulus bill as passed will put more than $20 billion into energy investments -- including for some newfangled things like "modernizing the electric grid." But nearly $10 billion is going to go to energy-retrofitting and weatherizing federal buildings, HUD-assisted housing projects, and other low- and modest-income homes. Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program gave about $225 million to local governments and nonprofits to help seal people's drafty windows and plug up insulation in their roofs and walls. The stimulus bill would increase that funding 20-fold. That means a huge crew of brand-new green workers, suddenly making a livelihood off saving fuel costs, energy consumption and the planet. Added to a couple of million existing green workers, that is a full-blown microtrend, and enough to turn upside down the cliché of the out-of-touch environmentalist -- the guy driving a $120,000 Lexus hybrid just for the cachet and added acceleration. Now environmentalists will be in the mainstream of America and at the forefront of the economic recovery. Joe the Insulator will be replacing Joe the Plumber. - Mark Penn, Green Workers, The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2009

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
January 10, 2010

“I was impressed as never before by the utter lack of logic of the man, the scantiness of his precise knowledge of things that he was talking about, by the gross inaccuracies in his statements, by the almost pathological lack of sequences in his discussion, by the complete rectitude that he felt as to his own conduct, by the immense and growing egotism that came from his office, by his willingness to continue the excoriation of the press and business in order to get votes for himself, by his indifference to what effect the long-continued pursuit of these ends would have upon the civilization in which he was playing a part.”
No, this was not a judgment of President Barack Obama, though the description eerily fits him. It was the view of Raymond Moley, a Columbia University professor and member of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust” who often wrote or helped write FDR’s major speeches. FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression for ten years.

Here are some facts worth considering every time Obama calls for an expansion or intercession of the federal government as an answer to the current financial crisis:
Social Security, a cornerstone of FDR’s administration, was established in 1935. After 74 years, it is on the brink of insolvency because Congress gave itself access to its funds.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 to facilitate home ownership. It has been around for 71 years. Congress has had to seize control of it and of Freddie Mac, established in 1970. Together, they presently own or guarantee about half of the United States’ $12 trillion mortgage market.

The War on Poverty started in 1964. One trillion dollars has been transferred to “the poor” and it has not worked.

The Department of Energy was established in 1977 to lessen dependence on the import of foreign oil. With 16,000 employees and an annual budget of $24 billion, the United States has imported more oil with every passing year while denying U.S. companies access to vast national reserves in ANWR and off our continental shelf. It is an abysmal failure.
All of these programs were put forth by liberals, now calling themselves “progressives,” initiated by Democrat administrations to advance what they call “social justice.” The Obama administration is hell-bent on “health care reform” that will put one sixth of the U.S. economy under the control of the federal government whose interventions in the free market have been the cause of the previous recessions.

In 2010, the Obama administration says it intends to relieve the job shortage by creating “green jobs” in the sectors of wind and solar power and biofuels. It has announced a program that will cost $2.3 billion, costing approximately $135,000 per job.
Show me one other industry that requests and receives a nearly 30 percent taxpayer subsidy,” says Thomas J. Pyle, president of the market-based Institute for Energy Research. “If the President really wants to create an environment that will foster economic growth and job creation, he need not look any further than the domestic oil, gas and coal industries.”
In November 2009, a Washington Times editorial said:
“’Green energy’ is proving to be no miracle solution to the nation’s monumental unemployment problems, and it is doing little to help the economy emerge from its deepest recession in decades, economists say.”
A large part of the administration’s $786 billion dollar stimulus bill was devoted to green or renewable energy projects, but the rate of unemployment continues to rise, the cost of gasoline and heating oil continues to rise in the face of the coldest winter on record in decades, and real jobs in energy industries are thwarted by Obama administration restrictions on the exploration and development of our national energy reserves.

Similar green jobs programs in Spain, Germany, and other nations that signed onto the UN Kyoto Protocols limiting carbon dioxide emissions have demonstrated that such jobs cost too much to create and eliminate other jobs in the process.

Following recent Climategate revelations, it is abundantly clear that so-called greenhouse gas emissions do not cause a non-existent “global warming” which was and is a massive science-based fraud.

Despite this, a Cap-and-Trade bill awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate that would impose a huge tax on energy use. At the same time, the EPA is claiming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that must be regulated.

The lies simply do not stop.

So-called Green jobs depend on two of the most impractical and unreliable sources of electricity generation. Solar and wind farms require backup by coal-fired and nuclear power sources for the blatantly obvious reason that the sun does not shine full-time, nor do the winds blow full-time. These, plus biofuel producers, are parked on the doorstep of Congress to secure the subsidies they need just to be in business; subsidies that are derived from our taxes.

Biofuels divert valuable crops like corn to create ethanol, driving up the cost for a gasoline additive that incongruously produces less mileage and increases the cost of the many food products that utilize corn.

America, the home to centuries-worth of massive amounts of coal, has a President who has openly declared war on the coal industry that currently provides half of all the electricity used by Americans. By contrast, solar and wind provide just over one percent!

When the President talks of “green jobs” he is lying to Americans who need real jobs. The stimulus bill was nothing more than a political “pork” bill and is providing no real surge in job creation. Indeed, the administration has claimed to have “saved” or produced jobs in non-existent Congressional districts.

Meanwhile, the members of the U.S. House and Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 in new raises at the same time they have voted to deny a Social Security cost of living increase in 2010 and 2011.

The job of every voter in November 2010 is to remove from office every Senator and Representative that voted for and supported the Obama administration’s policies who will run for reelection.

Then, maybe, we can put America on an economic footing that will generate real jobs and put an end to the Green Lies about “green jobs,” environmentally inspired legislation, and the existing Green laws and regulations that are currently killing any hope of recovery.

Green Careers Are All the Rage But At What Price?

Unveiled in September, "Green Recovery: A Plan to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy" urges investment in retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency; expanding public transit and freight rail; building a cutting-edge electrical grid; and developing wind, solar and biofuel energy. It also notes: Public and private investment in energy efficiency reduces energy demand and lowers energy costs… Lowering energy costs for educational buildings eventually means more funds for teachers, books and scholarships. Retrofitting hospitals over time releases money for better patient care. - Christopher Weber, Green Jobs for Whom?, In These Times, February 9, 2009

By Jeepn Dave

Green jobs are all the rage now. How can I go about getting a green career is the big question for a lot of folks that are out of a job right now.

Thanks to the new initiative by the US government to push the job market to grow and grow green, the demand for green jobs and green careers will be on the rise for the next few years as the global economies make a conscience shift towards clean green technologies and business practices.

Quick question though: Do you believe that all this pushing towards a greener way of life and doing business is going to help us out of this recession?

I will not argue that there is a great deal of demand for green careers, and the future of industry may depend on it. Clearly there will be millions of new jobs, and markets for new jobs, that are going to be created in the the next few years.

But what about all the careers and industries that all this shifting to green technology is going to replace? What about all the jobs that are going to be loss in the next few years that are dependent on the use of fossil fuels -- power plants, coal mines and oil refineries, just to name a few.

Nobody really mentions all those people that work in those industries who are going to be phased out of a career thanks to the move to go green. There lies the real rub of all this talk about moving to a cleaner greener way of fueling our lives and the way we do business.

Making that shift to a new way of doing things is going to cost a lot of people jobs that they have spent a lifetime learning and doing. Years of education for an industry that is now being phased out, and now the prospect of reeducation just to keep up with the quickly evolving job market.

Never before has there been such a global shift -- driven by the public demand but more so by governments around the world -- a global shift in the way all companies do business, where everyone is consciously aware of need to do things the green, environmentally-friendly way.

I think it is pretty obvious to everyone by now that the change is coming and that the momentum is building quickly, but at what cost? Millions of careers are going to be created, but how many millions of jobs will be lost to the new green industry; and will the difference be great enough to get the economies out of the mess they are in right now?

Either way, the new path is clear, and the best thing to do if your future career path looks kind of hazy is to jump on green jobs band wagon. The sooner you jump in, the more secure your future and your career may be. We are on the ground floor of a job market that is positioned to really take off in the next few years.

Green jobs for new energy sources like solar, wind, batteries and bio fuels are just a sampling of careers as well as regulators, administrators and lawyers to drive it all forward.

Will Obama's Green Jobs Plan Work?

All together, stimulus jobs are expected to cost an estimated $92,000 per job, if everything goes as planned. Some critics say that the environmental segment will be the most expensive part of the stimulus and will actually reduce, rather than increase, economic activity and jobs. "Even worse than being a zero-sum game, government spending creates less economic activity than if the money had been left in the private sector," according to conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. Others also have warned that green jobs could cost more than anticipated. A study from a Madrid university estimates that the U.S. stimulus’ support for renewable energy could end two jobs for every one created. In Spain, the government ended up paying $774,000 for each renewable energy job that it had created since 2000, the study found. Spain isn’t alone, either. A renewable energy tax-credit program in Oregon cost 40 times more than expected, according to an investigation by The Oregonian. - Are Green Jobs Too Expensive?, Green Jobs Guide, Knight Center for Specialized Journalism

By Xinhua
January 18, 2010

Though the plan to create 17,000 jobs in the green energy sector alone is promising, the plausibility of such a plan is puzzling. At least to some.

At odds is whether Barack Obama's green jobs plan will work, if at all, against the backdrop of the country's worst recession since the 1930s.

Skeptics challenged that the Obama administration is investing in green technologies unlikely to be profitable and, therefore, the investment would amount to unsustainable taxpayer-funded jobs at most.

Obama late last week announced his plan to boost employment by providing 2.3 billion U.S. dollars in tax credits for the creation of green jobs. The president is also urging the Congress to approve investment of another 5 billion dollars in over 180 green energy projects.

The announcement caused a kerfuffle over figures, as arithmetic-minded critics divided the special fund into a 100,000-plus-dollar annual salary for each of these 17,000 would-be job holders, way above the median annual household income in the country.

Some conservatives went so far as to doom Obama's plan.
"The clean jobs approach is a dead end and even counter-productive," said Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst for energy and environment at the Heritage Foundation.
Nathan Hultman, professor of public policy at the University of Maryland and non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, echoed by saying that there is always a danger that the government could espouse technologies that later prove to be duds, wasting large sums of taxpayer money.
"The antidote to this concern of picking winners is not to pick nothing, but to provide incentives for a broad portfolio of technologies that will push the economy in the right direction," the professor added.
Quite some scholars joined Nathan Hultman's wagon and they contended that the government should choose goals and not the vehicles to reach goals.

Supporters of Obama's plan, however, argued that such green energy investment is crucial to maintaining long-term U.S. economic competitiveness as more countries move toward clean energy. If done right, clean energy initiatives can be self-sustaining, but require a great deal of government commitment, as well as public-private partnerships, Nathan Hultman pointed out.

Bracken Hendricks, fellow at the Center for American Progress, said that because prior administrations did not promote investment in green energy, there has been an under-investment in the low-carbon economy relative to other countries.

President Obama has repeatedly said the United States could fall behind other countries in producing a clean energy economy.

Indeed, Japan, China and European Union countries are investing heavily in clean energy, and the United States may find itself lagging if the government fails to take actions now, some experts warned.

Technological competitiveness aside, employment in the green energy sector is expected to generate more jobs than from fossil fuel energy sectors.
"You get more than three times amount of jobs as investing in oil and gas and four times more than in investing in coal," Hendricks said of low carbon jobs.
The scholar explained that many jobs encompassing a broad array of wage levels will come from Obama's overall green jobs strategy. That includes not only jobs in engineering, design and project management but also skilled blue-collar jobs such as in sheet metal fabrication, Bracken Hendricks added.

Still, critics maintain that Obama's efforts to promote a low carbon economy will do nothing to boost sustainable job growth and, in the worst-case scenario, could even harm the economy by spending government funds on unproven technologies.

Technologies should be allowed to compete in the open market, where they will live or die without government intervention, they argued.

Ben Lieberman even drew a correlation between struggling economies and investment in green energy.
Countries such as Spain, Denmark and Germany and such U.S. states as California are struggling with higher unemployment partly because of green job policies that were not grounded in the economic fundamentals, he said.
That, Ben Lieberman explained, is because many clean energy policies make energy more expensive, which kills jobs.
"It's putting environmental goals ahead of economic goals. It's an attempt to pretend there's a win-win situation but the administration is hurting the economy," he said.

In Lobbying Congress, Clean Energy Advocates Seize on Jobs

By David Ferris, The Ferris Files
February 1, 2010

In a last-ditch effort to save climate legislation this year, a consortium of clean-energy groups met today in Washington and kicked off a week of intense planning and lobbying.

The notion of Clean Energy Week was born only a few weeks ago, when several groups realized they had planned events in the capital at the same time. Hasty organization didn’t prevent speakers at an opening press conference today from hammering on a consistent message: that the United States might gain 1.9 million jobs in the next decade if some version of a cap-and-trade bill is passed this year.

One participating group is the Coalition for the Green Bank, whose co-founder, Reed Hundt, said:
“As the president made clear in his State of the Union address, a focus on green jobs is the immediate focus for the clean energy sector, and in fact by promoting the double whammy of clean energy generation and transmission along with energy efficiency, literally millions of fine new jobs can be created over the next several years.”
Organizers have high hopes for a “Business Fly-In” on Thursday, when 200 CEOs of clean-energy businesses arrive to meet with swing legislators and put a face on the possibility of jobs creation.

Other events include RETECH, a three-day conference between business, nonprofits and government on renewable energy.

Prospects for a climate bill retreated two weeks ago when the Democratic Party lost its filibuster-proof majority in the Senate with the special election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. However, President Obama’s repeated emphasis on clean energy and jobs in his State of the Union speech last week has invigorated advocates that an agreement might still be won.

Stimulus Jobs: Alison's Job Searching Blog
If you’re looking for job security, benefits, and a decent salary, consider working for the federal government. President Obama’s stimulus plan will create 200,000 new jobs over the next three years. Monster has a good overview of stimulus jobs, including who's hiring, where the jobs will be, and the types of jobs available.
Find green in the new green job market
Green Jobs Forum for Our Youth
In a JOBLESS Recovery Think 'Green Jobs'...to Get Back in the Black
The HOT title of today is "Sustainability." Companies have a Chief Sustainability Officer. Although, I prefer the title I created: Chief Green Officer (CGO), who is the executive who initiates corporations "green" efforts with its customers, vendors and the public... Even President Obama "had" a Green Jobs Czar--and he recently got the axe, in part because of Glenn Beck-- so there's one possible opening right there. Send your resume to the President! Green is here to stay. It's not like the "paperless" efforts we have been hearing about for years, but everyone I know is still drowning in paper! Companies, big and small... are busy formulating their plans to be sustainable or "green."
Federal Policy and the Stimulus Package: Green Jobs Guide
Mr. Prentice said the "dramatic change" in U.S. energy policy under the Obama administration will have major implications for Canada because the country's resources sector, a large emitter of carbon dioxide, will be forced to find cleaner ways of production to meet U. S. import standards. Canada is therefore keen to negotiate a North American cap-and-trade system and, even in this economic climate, adopt carbon-capture technologies.
The Green Wind of Destruction
What Will 'Green Jobs' Look Like?
Will Green Jobs Become the New Greenwash?
Does Green Energy Add 5 Million Jobs? Potent Pitch, but Numbers Are Squishy
Will green energy 'explosion' clear way for new jobs?
The Environment Report: Will Green Collar Jobs Pay Off?
The Green Jobs Report is funded by the Union Nations Environment Programme as part of its Green Jobs Initiative with the International Labour Organisation and the International Trade Union Confederation.
Green jobs, brown economy?
How much green will 'green' jobs cost?
'Green' jobs not worth their hefty price tags
First Annual Conference on "Good Jobs, Green Jobs"
Highlights from the Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference
Second Annual Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference
National Cap-and-Trade Program is Inevitable
Glenn Beck-Green-Collar Economy (Video)
Ontario’s Green Energy and Economy Act becomes law
Ontario's Green Energy Act Alliance: Will green energy 'explosion' clear way for new jobs?
UK: We will green up to 25 million homes
Australia: Green jobs subtract value
Uganda has adopted a blend of taxes meant to protect the environment
Will the Green Jobs Sector Cure the Ailing U.S. Economy?
Will green tech be the next investment bubble?
Will Green Government Suffocate Trucking?
European road toll rulemaking for trucks, called the 'Eurovignette' directive, is being updated to reflect impact on environmental damage and external costs. Problems including pollution, climate impact, noise, accidents, and congestion are all fair game for increased truck tolls on Euro roadways. Proponents claim that taxpayers unfairly pick up the tab for these issues and the industry should burden a higher direct share via a per-kilometer road use tax fee.
1,000 Word Summary & Summarized List of Sources for Green Job Development in the US
Will the Green Agenda Fade?
WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index (tracks stock prices of clean-tech companies)
Can Obama's Stimulus Plan Spur Green Jobs in the U.S.?
Obama plans to set ambitious targets for reducing emissions that cause global warming—and to invest $15 billion or more per year in energy efficiency, renewables like wind and solar, biofuels, nuclear power, and "clean" coal. Beyond the environmental benefits, says the President-elect, the investment "will also help us transform our industries and steer our economy out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."
Stimulus Creating Green Jobs Abroad, Does Nothing for Energy Independence
How the Stimulus Will Help Green Jobs and Green Businesses
GM Gets a Fresh Start — Will Green Innovation Rise From the Ashes?
Barton, Walden Ask Chu, Solis to Define, Estimate Number of New Green Jobs
What the "green collar" economy means for you
$100 billion investment in green programs would create about two million jobs over two years. About 750,000 green jobs already exist, according to a 2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors' report.
There are 350,000 green jobs in Pennsylvania
Illinois to Receive $6M for Green Jobs
Labor Raises Questions About Green Energy Jobs
Obama’s federal government can weatherize your home for only $57,362 each
Who could forget the $5 billion in Obama administration stimulus money that was going to rapidly create nearly 90,000 green jobs across the country in these tough economic times and make so many thousands of homes all snuggy and warm and energy-efficient these very snowy days?
Green Jobs Training Competitive Grants Provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

February 15, 2010

The Origins of World War III

An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III (Excerpt from Part 1)

By Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research
October 16, 2009

Introduction

In the face of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a massive international war are increasing. Historically, periods of imperial decline and economic crisis are marked by increased international violence and war. The decline of the great European empires was marked by World War I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in the intermediary period.

Currently, the world is witnessing the decline of the American empire, itself a product born out of World War II. As the post-war imperial hegemon, America ran the international monetary system and reigned as champion and arbitrator of the global political economy.

To manage the global political economy, the US has created the single largest and most powerful military force in world history. Constant control over the global economy requires constant military presence and action.

Now that both the American empire and global political economy are in decline and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the American imperial age is drastically increasing ...

The War on Terror and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

When Bill Clinton became President, the neo-conservative hawks from the George H.W. Bush administration formed a think tank called the Project for the New American Century or PNAC. In 2000, they published a report called, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that:
“The United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” Further, there is “need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,” and that “the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.”
Interestingly, the document stated that:
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
However, in advocating for massive increases in defense spending and expanding the American empire across the globe, including the forceful destruction of multiple countries through major theatre wars, the report stated that:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
That event came one year later with the events of 9/11. Many of the authors of the report and members of the PNAC had become officials in the Bush administration, and were conveniently in place to enact their “Project” after they got their “new Pearl Harbor.”

The plans for war were “already under development by far right Think Tanks in the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from the inner circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches, and from weapons corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans for a new world order.” To do this, “the USA would need to use all means – diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression—to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the ability to keep any possible rival weak.”

Among the people involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, “Dick Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad,” who became Ambassador to both Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those countries.

Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”

Arch-hawk strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carter’s administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy think tank.

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a strategy for America in the world. He wrote:
“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power.” Further, “how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination.”
He continued in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating that:
It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”
He explained that “two basic steps are thus required:
  • First, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; [and]

  • Second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above.”
What this means is that is it of primary importance to first identify states that could potentially be a pivot upon which the balance of power in the region exits the US sphere of influence; and secondly, to “offset, co-opt, and/or control” such states and circumstances. An example of this would be Iran—being one of the world’s largest oil producers and in a strategically significant position in the axis of Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

Iran could hold the potential to alter the balance of power in Eurasia if it were to closely ally itself with Russia or China, or both—giving those nations a heavy supply of oil as well as a sphere of influence in the Gulf, thus challenging American hegemony in the region.

Brzezinski removed all subtlety from his imperial leanings, and wrote:

“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”
Brzezinski referred to the Central Asian republics as the “Eurasian Balkans,” writing that:
“Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.”

He further wrote that, “it follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”

This is a clear example of America’s role as an engine of empire; with foreign imperial policy designed to maintain US strategic positions, but primarily and “infinitely more important,” is to secure an “economic prize” for “the global community.” In other words, the United States is an imperial hegemon working for international financial interests.

Brzezinski also warned that:
“The United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power,” and he, “puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy.” Thus, “the most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.
The War on Terror and Surplus Imperialism

In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020, which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, “Full Spectrum Dominance,” as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the future.
“Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.” The report “addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief.” Further, “The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.”
As political economist, Ellen Wood, explained:
“Boundless domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose or time.”

Further, “Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of the new world order.”

Following 9/11, the “Bush doctrine” was put in place, which called for “a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, anytime, anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure that ‘[o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States’.”

NATO undertook its first ground invasion of any nation in its entire history, with the October 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The Afghan war was in fact, planned prior to the events of 9/11, with the breakdown of major pipeline deals between major western oil companies and the Taliban. The war itself was planned over the summer of 2001 with the operational plan to go to war by mid-October.

Afghanistan is extremely significant in geopolitical terms as:
  • “Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent.
  • Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate.

  • Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive.

  • But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of ‘diversifying energy supply’ and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets.”
As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following the 9/11 attacks:
“Beyond American determination to hit back against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, beyond the likelihood of longer, drawn-out battles producing more civilian casualties in the months and years ahead, the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil.”

Explaining further, “The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world's principal energy sources in the 21st century. The defense of these energy resources—rather than a simple confrontation between Islam and the West—will be the primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come.”

Among the many notable states where there is a crossover between terrorism and oil and gas reserves of vital importance to the United States and the West, are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain, the Gulf Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Georgia and eastern Turkey.
Importantly, “this region accounts for more than 65 percent of the world's oil and natural gas production.” Further, “It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America's Chevron, ExxonMobil and Arco; France's TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region.”
It’s no secret that the Iraq war had much to do with oil. In the summer of 2001, Dick Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, which was a highly secret set of meetings in which energy policy was determined for the United States. In the meetings and in various other means of communication, Cheney and his aides met with top officials and executives of Shell Oil, British Petroleum (BP), Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and Chevron.

At the meeting, which took place before 9/11 and before there was any mention of a war on Iraq, documents of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals were presented and discussed, and “Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals.” Both Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum have since received major oil contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields.

The war on Iraq, as well as the war on Afghanistan, also largely serves specifically American (and, more broadly, Western imperial-strategic interests) in the region. In particular, the wars were strategically designed to eliminate, threaten or contain regional powers, as well as to directly install several dozen military bases in the region, firmly establishing an imperial presence. The purpose of this is largely aimed at other major regional players and, specifically, encircling Russia and China and threatening their access to the regions oil and gas reserves. Iran is now surrounded, with Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other.

Concluding Remarks

Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order.

The next part to this essay examines the “colour revolutions” throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, continuing the US and NATO policy of containing Russia and China; while controlling access to major natural gas reserves and transportation routes. The “colour revolutions” have been a pivotal force in geopolitical imperial strategy, and analyzing them is key to understanding the New World Order.

Colour-Coded Revolutions: The Origins of World War III (Part 2)
A New World War for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III (Part 3)

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page