Google has a very nice Environmental Report. If you read it, you will like many things. They are using AI, solar and indeed technologies to reduce their carbon footprints. The search giant has signed agreements that total excess of 2.6 GW of renewable energy. That is impressive.

We tackle these projects because they reduce our company’s environmental impact, and also because they improve our bottom line. But mostly we do this stuff because it needs to be done and it’s the right thing to do. Google has been carbon neutral since 2007, and in 2017 we’ll reach 100% renewable energy for our operations, including our data centers and offices. But our ambitions don’t end at our own door. Climate change is real. We’re a global company, and our goal is to give everyone everywhere the tools and opportunities they need to play their own part in protecting the planet

But beyond all these exciting numbers, you will not see one indicator I really care about: how communities and jobs are performing owing to the disruption from Google. There is nothing wrong with disruption. That is part of commerce. My point is that we need to know besides the environmental sustainability, community sustainability. That one is from me. And there is nothing that says that I cannot bring that conscience in the technology nexus.

Amazon may have its own environmental report with all the usual efforts to reduce carbon footprints. But ask any Mayor in some American suburbs, they will explain how Amazon has ravaged their malls and shopping centers through the disruptive impacts of its ecommerce operations. How do you capture that impact? Possibly, when those malls fail, they are returned back to weeds and then they become environmentally sustaining! Of course, that is not the vision of Amazon. But it is something we need to care about in these reports. How are we fairing in this age of disruptive innovation? Can we capture them as they impact lives and communities in some of these reports? I know that we care about carbon footprints. I also think we need to see the positive and negative impacts on our communities documented.

It is time we examine how technology disruption affects jobs, and companies should be required to model those in their reports. That does not mean that the companies are going to be victimized, but it needs to be clear if there are efforts to manage such changes. As we welcome AI and blockchain, we can see massive dislocations in the labor force. If companies do not track such impacts, but rather focusing on mundane things like renewable energy installed capacity, and total gallons of water reused, we will not get the full picture. For example, the Google report should include besides designing efficient data centers, advancing renewable energy, creating sustainable workplaces, and empowering users with technology, the efforts to assist communities (and possibly people) which are being disrupted. In Amazon’s report, the community sustainability should be a requirement.

The following data summarize key highlights of our environmental initiatives discussed in our environmental report published in December 2016. They provide a snapshot of our performance and together demonstrate how we’re strengthening our business by reducing the environmental impact of our operations and working to empower people everywhere to live more sustainably.

In other words, I want these technology companies to report the impacts on the lives of people disrupted. If AI has caused the loss of 10% of jobs in an industry, you can take a percentage of your market share to explain if there are efforts you are making to provide opportunities to the equivalent number of people. While we like our trees and nature, humans are part of it. And if we continue to innovate, displacements will continue to happen.

This point may not be obvious. I will explain with employment in the Nigerian banking sector. The rate of customer growth is faster than the rate of staff growth. We have more than 70 million bank accounts today from 40 million above 6 years ago. Total staff strength stands at about 78,000 today. Simply, over six years, we have added more than 30 million bank accounts with only extra 18,000 staff. But note that between 2007 and 2010, the banking sector shrank. Technically, Nigeria has not returned employment to pre-great recession when we had excess of 80,000 staff. So, if you move the analysis few years before, you will note that we have added tens of millions of new accounts while shrinking the total manpower.

Nigeria’s 14 quoted banks with total staff strength of 59,807 incurred a wage bill of N265 billion in 2009. This is about N4 million per staff. This is based on an analysis of the staff cost disclosure by the 14 banks in their 2009 annual reports

Technology has brought productivity gains and banks do not need many staff. The same is happening in insurance, oil and gas and across the industrial sectors. Suddenly, we have many young people unemployed. A graduate that finished 30 years ago was sure of something. Today, a student entering a university today is not certain of job because the jobs opportunities are shrinking.

If you check all these elements well, technology is at the heart of it. And I do think there is a need to capture the impacts as they affect nature and most importantly how a company’s activities have affected jobs, communities and humans. I agree, when one industry loses jobs, opportunities emerge in other industries. Unfortunately, since banks stopped using big halls to hire as they did in the 2000s, and telcos have cut back, I am yet to see new industries that have taken over in the short term. That may come, of course, but at the moment, we have issues at hand.

Reporting how technologies affect labor, just as they affect our environments, makes sense in environmental reports. So, Google next time you publish your environmental report, I want to see community sustainability report inside it.

It is big news. Goldman Sachs is possibly joining the list of believers in the cryptocurrency called Bitcoin and others like it. This may be the moment the adherents of Bitcoin are waiting for. This also suggests that regulators may be reading the signs poorly.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is weighing a new trading operation dedicated to bitcoin and other digital currencies, the first blue-chip Wall Street firm preparing to deal directly in this burgeoning yet controversial market, according to people familiar with the matter.

Goldman’s effort is in its early stages and may not proceed, the people said. The firm’s interest, though, could boost bitcoin’s standing among investors and fuel the debate around digital currencies, which were initially viewed as havens for illicit activity…

The mere thought that the best of the breeds can have this type of conversations with its clients is an indication on the durability of cryptocurrency. I do believe that digital currency is here to stay. It will not disappear because there has never been a technology on earth which emerges, becomes a household name and then disappears without an impact. Sure, the impact could be bankruptcies and ravaging of lives, but I do not think so.

Even if Bitcoin should fail, it will lead to another flavor of digital currency. Before Facebook, we had MySpace. And before Apple, we had Nokia. So, evolving technologies do not necessarily disappear when they actually deliver value to some people in the society, at scale. All the competitors will joggle until we reach maturity phase. Then the utilities-like category kings will emerge. When that happens, the surviving one becomes part of the society. Facebook is now part of all aspects of our lives including the political spheres. There is no government that does not think of Facebook.

Oh yes, that transmutation and evolution before maturity is the risk on cryptocurrency: you do not know if it will be Bitcoin or one from Japan or China or Nigeria that will survive. That uncertainty is why this is severely risky. But when Goldman Sachs sees alpha, I know the world will follow. Just like that, they have beatified Bitcoin and its cousins in this Gregorian Year of 2017.

Coming Home – Nigeria

My position remains that we do not need Bitcoin but Nigeria needs a digital currency tied to the Naira that will enable the efficient functioning of the blockchain infrastructure which I expect to evolve in coming years in the nation. If the Central Bank blesses such a plan, we will experience a virtuoso innovation system in redesigning the architecture of some of our industrial sectors and make them more efficient even while being cost-efficient. As I noted in my entry on Blockchain Africa, blockchain has a promise for Africa. Nigeria just have to find a way to lead in that promise at least in West Africa where its impact is huge. As Goldman Sachs goes closer to Bitcoin and digital currency, we may be too slow that very soon, it becomes an entirely foreign imports to Nigeria.

A year ago, a Nigerian state government contacted my investment syndication business to help fund a water board in one of the south-south states. We received the document and prepared for our funding partners. The business thesis was good except one problem: the water tariff in the state. The last one was reviewed in 1987. We told the government to put a small legislation/regulation to change the water rate. Everyone was afraid of sponsoring the bill. No member of the state house of assembly agreed to put his or her name on it. And the government was afraid to be known as the government that was going to increase the water rate.

Simply, the investment collapsed. We told the government that investing in the deal was a waste of money because the water rate would not even cover 30% of the water cost. Largely, the state water board is subsidizing water to the rich citizens who get water from the water board. That is unfair to the citizens in the villages who do not get water from the water board. That deal reminds me of the electricity issue in Nigeria.

Nigeria is in a loop right now on electricity supply. You can call it a vicious circle. I do not see how we can come out of it until a leader takes a stand. I think President Buhari is the only one that can fix this problem. We have wasted time on the regulatory process. What we need now is someone that can get us out of the loop.

The Transmission Company of Nigeria Plc (TCN), has demanded for a review of the current electricity tariff, ostensibly cost reflective, which will entail more payment by the end users of power.TCN demand was contained in an application filed to the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), for an extraordinary tariff review, as a means of ensuring that generation companies (Gencos) are incentivised to provide sufficient spinning reserves and other ancillary services that are critical for managing the national grid.

[…]

The Transmission Company is the only unit of the 18 successor companies unbundled from the defunct Power Holding Company (PHCN) that was not privatised alongside others, but placed under management contract.

Hitherto, Distribution Companies (Discos) had been at the fore of agitations for electricity tariff review and increase, while consumers are opposed to it due to the prevailing power outages.

The issue is now precarious. The generation companies (gencos) do not see the pricing as optimal to waste their efforts generating power. The distribution companies (discos) do not even bother accepting all available electricity to sell to consumers. Discos think it makes no sense selling something at a loss. And the consumers do not want to see any increase because the past ones have not resulted to any improvement in power supply.

Technically, everyone is right. But I do think, focusing on that misses the point. In my office in Nigeria, the national grid is now the second backup. In short today, we are servicing our main generator. Team has suggested that we disconnect from the national grid to avoid any justification of sending bills which continue to happen despite no power supplied. I told them to hold on. The consumers are indeed frustrated. The process is a mess. You are asked to pay for services not delivered.

But ranting from that angle will not solve this paralysis. The only part of the old NEPA/PHCN that was not privatized, the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN), has spoken. TCN has joined gencos and discos asking for a reflective tariff. Government should listen. While I do not want to pay more as a user, the alternative of running two generators, spending more on fuel, oil and mechanics, is not a better option. I am open to pay more because I do think getting power from the national grid will be cheaper when compared to what I have now. Government should listen and take action.

Mr. President, if the court had struck the increased tariff, ask the Attorney General to support the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) which I understand is challenging the ruling in the court. Until we can fix this pricing issue, we will not make progress.

Nigerian government has to make good, and go back, and increase electricity tariff as agreed pre-privatization. The citizens do not have to pay this extra fee. Government can decide to write the discos cheques yearly. After all, it tricked the investors to invest based on the tariff. That the court struck and reversed the tariff is irrelevant. Investors did not sign any agreement with the court. That was the condition precedent and where it was voided, the discos have the rights not to deliver electricity. It makes no sense for them to be doing so losing money.

A reflective tariff is critical for us to get out of this vicious circle. Only Mr. President can lead now.