The policies of all powers are inherent in their geography.



The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) of the European Union (EU) refers. A tool to put a fair price on the carbon emitted on goods entering the EU. The EU would have us know.



Climate change is a&nbsp;globalproblem that needsglobal&nbsp;solutions.&nbsp;



Although caused by the indiscriminate few, it’s disproportionately affecting the innocent many.



‘Carbon leakage’ allegedly occurs when EU companies move carbon-intensive production to countries with less-stringent climate policies or when EU products get replaced by them.



So, African economies in dire need of rapid industrialization and accelerated energy access have to tread carefully lest they run foul of this policy.&nbsp;



There is an inherent risk of arbitrary application. As the policy is ‘to ensure the carbon price of imports is equivalent to the carbon price of domestic production’.



It bestows an ability to unilaterally decide the price to be paid for embedded carbon emissions and perhaps elegantly neutralize genuine competitive advantages.&nbsp;



Suave and smooth.



CBAM does not apply to electricity generated in the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of EU member states. Such electricity&nbsp;“is EU origin”and thus exempt regardless of source?



Fairly convenient. Read on…



Fifty percent of all Teslas produced today are made in China. As is more than 80% of all Apple products.



Because an ecosystem of precision engineering skills exists with scale synergies.



If the iPhones were produced in the United States (U.S.), the additional cost would be $65.



Yet the political rhetoric is fever-pitched to ban China’s ‘anti-competitive’ behavior.



The Biden administration proposes to cut subsidies for vehicles that contain Chinese-made components.



How? China is the world’s leader in EV battery production accounting for two-thirds of global production.



The U.S. accounts for just 10%.



China leads the processing of critical minerals for EV batteries.



Neither sleight nor the swish of a hand will cut it even though it may get you to an oval-shaped office.



Those regulations threaten current automakers’ supply chains.&nbsp;



Enter Elon Musk, as the advisor to the incoming U.S. administration.



What do you think will happen?



Elephants will fight but compromise while the grass will suffer.



Financing commitments from U.S./EU sources into Africa come with stern warnings on ‘no China content’ and ‘only for carbon-friendly projects’. To the point of being banned otherwise.



Yet the pendulum on these swing around to the convenience of the West.



Oil companies will drill more than 40 exploration wells off Norway this year, including eight in the Barents Sea.



Deep sea mining is acceptable, marine life be damned.&nbsp;



Consequentialism (i.e. the ends justify the means) thrives.



An amoral West preaching morality has been the bane for centuries. It has led to an unrestrained narrative that the best is from the West while the rest can wait.



Indulging in unbridled hedonism to ensure a selfish future must be therefore questioned.



Hence the stirrings from the South, now backed by real money and strong economies are considered threats to the ‘world order ‘.



An order created by the few at the cost of the many.



If might is right, it’s time that becomes a fair duel?



We are grappling with global problems that have no geographical borders.



Be it the swathes of humanity swarming in for a better future to other shores. Or be it the effusions of industrial countries engulfing one and all, slowly but surely.



Time to have an equanimous response to usher in equity.



Rather than knee-jerk policies to appease your voters.



Singularly lacking is brutal action to allocate capital and knowhow from the land of plenty to the land of the needy where the majority of the youth lives and dreams.



Thus, Africa has to make its own friends and negotiate for itself collectively in this fragmented world of shallow schisms.



The good news is that it has choices.



It must exercise them well.

A Pile Of Coal By Smokestacks

Expert-Speak: Time For An Equanimous Response To Usher In Equity

Entrepreneurship often carries an air of glamor and boundless opportunity. For me though, it was neither a choice nor a planned move; it was a necessity. In 2019, I found myself stepping out of a senior leadership role at a bank, leaving behind the comfort of a stable sal- ary and the relative predictability of corporate life. What lay ahead was a journey of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and ultimately transformation.



It was the retrenchments that forced my hand. I had to make a difficult decision. Do I stay and fight for a role with no guarantees or take a package and walk away? I chose to run, hopeful, perhaps naively, that I could establish a boutique consultancy focused on corporate innovation.



Amazingly, I landed my first client almost immediately, a stroke of luck that initially vali- dated my belief in the new path.



But all projects end. Nine months later, as my first assignment wrapped up, reality set in. I hadn’t nurtured my network or built a pipeline for future clients. I assumed that initial success would automat- ically translate into ongoing demand. It didn’t.



Approaching Christmas with no prospects, no income, and mounting anxiety, was my lowest point. The fear of failing my family weighed heavily, and I often found myself taking deep, deliberate breaths just to keep going.



Yet, it was during this period of uncertainty that I began to learn how to become an entrepreneur.



And the first lesson was to learn how to control my emotions, particularly those of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, what entrepreneurs call ‘FUD’, as they had become constant companions. It was only when I stopped trying to suppress them but rather em- braced them that I was truly able to make progress in my business.



I started making cold calls. I tried doing live interviews. I volunteered to write a column. I started lecturing. I started a podcast. I offered coaching to senior executives.



I felt like an imposter. I embarrassed myself. But I took these feelings of FUD as an indicator that I was trying new things.



And that was good because it meant I was growing.



I was building resilience.



And it helped me to stop thinking in terms of success or failure and instead had me thinking more about actions and reactions.



Removing the fear of failure and replacing it with curiosity about the possibilities was, for me at least, an epiphany.



But much as I felt like these new experiences were putting me in the right places, I was still struggling to convert the experiences into business opportunities.



And that was because I was not actively looking for the signals within the noise.



Rather than getting out to potential clients and observing their actions, I had been asking my close friends and family for their feedback. And much as meant well, their well wishes were not reflective e marketplace. 



I had taken the easy route to find affirmation rather than the cold, clinical path an entrepreneur s to take to validate that there is demand for their product or service.



So, now, I watch for the signals. How many of my mailers were opened? How many pitches have converted? What was the body language like in the meeting? How many days did it take to get a response? Where are the referrals coming from?



Fast forward five years, and I’m still a micro-entre- preneur, facing FUD every day. But now, I see these challenges as part of the journey.



That innovation consultancy has now morphed into a PR and marketing agency that generates leads for others by hosting thought-leadership events.



And I still make cold calls, do live interviews, write a column, lecture, podcast, and provide coaching to senior executives.



And being totally honest, I still feel like a bit of an imposter.



But I have found my niche and have started to explore ways to scale. And I now enjoy what I do and have less worries about feeding my family.



So if you are thinking about, or have started on the journey of becoming a micro-entrepreneur, remember this. Your path will not be the same as mine. But if you embrace your fears, look for the signals in the noise, and experiment continually, you will increase your chances of building a sustainable and fulfilling business.



I wish you luck!

Female artist concentrating while doing craft at table in living room

Lessons From The Edge And Facing Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD): A Micro-Entrepreneur’s Journey

You’re working in a large corporation, and you’ve been given two choices.



Choice one guarantees a profit of $1 million in the next 12 months. It’s safe, predictable, and secure.



Choice two, however, gives you the opportunity to make $1 billion. But there’s a catch: your chance of success is only 1%.



Mathematically, the answer seems obvious. One percent of $1 billion is still $10 million; 10 times more than the first choice.



But what would you choose?



This question was posed to me and a bunch of successful entrepreneurs at an event in Los Angeles by Astro Teller, CEO of X, the radical innovation arm and moonshot factory of Alphabet.



They all voted for the second choice. Which, if you are a venture capitalist, I’d expect, as the evidence is clear; extreme bets pay off in the long run.



According to CB Insights, 67% of venture capital (VC)- backed startups fail, which means that great VCs rely on a small percentage of their investments making exponential returns. They quite literally rely on the one in 20 bet, bringing back a 100 or even 1,000-fold or more returns.



The mindset is home runs matter, strikeouts don’t.



Missing out on the next Google or Airbnb is the real failure, not losing on the ones that didn’t work out. For VCs to thrive, therefore, they have to take the 1% bet.



And thrive they do, because as at May 2024, there were over 1,200 unicorns — startups valued at over $1 billion; with a combined value of approximately $3.8 trillion.



This is of course all great if you work in venture capital. But what about, if you, like I used to, work in corporate?



For me, there was no way I would have ever chosen option two. And neither would my peers. It wasn’t because we didn’t understand the math; it was because we were afraid.



Because corporates are structured to focus on certainty.



I wasn’t paid to fail or take radical bets. I was paid to deliver consistent, predictable results.



So, I know from experience just how difficult it is to push for bold, unconventional ideas in large, legacy organizations. The resistance to change can be overwhelming. Those corporate antibodies make any wannabe intrapreneurs, like I once was, feel like outcasts.



Which is why 99% of corporate leaders choose the safe bets, over and over again. It’s about self-preservation and avoiding career-ending mistakes.



All well and good you might say, if it wasn’t for the fact that predictable companies are unlikely to survive the next decade.



If you think this sounds extreme, consider this. In 1974, the average lifespan of a Fortune 500 company was 75 years. Today, only 12% of those companies remain, and the average lifespan has plummeted to just 15.



What’s pushing them out of business? The answer is obviously venture capital.



An industry that has mastered the art of the 1% bet has learned to disrupt corporates that are too scared to take risks. VCs fund innovative startups that move fast, embrace uncertainty, scale quickly and push incumbents to the brink.



So, the reality for corporations today is therefore stark. Playing it safe is the riskiest choice of all. In an era of rapid disruption, certain bets will never create the breakthroughs needed to stay ahead.



Most corporate leaders I think know this, but are simply too afraid to take the 1% bets. It doesn’t matter how much data, research, or logic is applied. Fear of failure drives their decision-making.



But if the evidence is so clear, that corporates need to take more risks to remain relevant, what can be done to encourage their leadership teams to take risker decisions?



One answer is to change the incentives, to reward executives for driving innovation programs within their organizations, in a similar way to how Alphabet has with its X company.



But the paradox here is that this requires a change in mindset from the very people who created the problem in the first place.



The board.



And to get them to change their opinions about incentives and governance can only really happen if you can get them to believe that the company is facing an existential crisis.



Not easy. But boards that realize the adverse risks of being too prudent and therefore work with their executives, to encourage their intrapreneurs to take the 1% bets, are far more likely to survive than those that don’t

Tag: Thought Leadership

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Expert-Speak: Time For An Equanimous Response To Usher In Equity

Lessons From The Edge And Facing Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD): A Micro-Entrepreneur’s Journey

Expert-Speak: The 1% Bet, Are You Afraid To Take It?