JP,

First and foremost, our careers run in parallel. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your questions, and frankly, it’s refreshing to engage colleague to colleague where apples are apples. We’re clearly cut from the same mold, and I’ll be honest, I thought this idea was a little crazy too until I worked it all the way through.

Thank you for approaching this from an operator’s perspective rather than a systemic utopia. That’s exactly the kind of dialogue I was hoping for here.

Here’s how I think about it, practically.

This is not a single-vertical argument, and it doesn’t flip an economy overnight. Economies shift when upstream inputs change cost, risk, and financing, and that happens in lanes. Hemp and bamboo are my lanes, not the entire economy, but they sit upstream in enough places that the second- and third-order effects are real.

Direct substitution varies by category, but indirect impact is much broader than most people assume. Even sectors often treated as untouchable, like semiconductors, don’t exist in isolation. Chips sit inside systems that rely on graphites, carbons, silicates, resins, binders, housings, thermal interfaces, and packaging. Hemp and bamboo already show up in active development across bio-based graphites, conductive fillers, composites, and structural materials that support electronics, energy systems, and advanced manufacturing. The leverage isn’t pretending silicon fabs get replaced. The leverage is changing the material envelope around them, which still moves cost, risk, health exposure, and supply-chain resilience.

On sourcing and cost, global manufacturing still optimizes for landed cost, but the baseline itself has fundamentally reset. Transportation alone has structurally raised the floor. Door-to-door logistics, port congestion, insurance premiums, inventory dwell time, and working capital drag are all materially higher and have stayed there. At the same time, labor, energy, regulatory compliance, and financing costs inside China and Southeast Asia have risen significantly. This isn’t temporary volatility. It’s a new equilibrium.

The result is that the historic delta that justified long, opaque supply chains has narrowed dramatically. Once mass production is reached, domestic inputs are increasingly competitive dollar for dollar, even before factoring in risk. Procurement conversations have already shifted from “offshore is always cheaper” to “offshore is cheaper only if nothing goes wrong,” which is no longer a defensible assumption.

On offtake, this is less speculative than it sounds. There is growing demand from U.S. manufacturers who need domestic materials for compliance, resilience, and credit-risk reasons. Certificates of origin often begin at the smelter or equivalent upstream choke points, and that logic applies here. I’m not pretending this is chemically pure on day one. There will still be polymer binders in certain plastics and composites until origin compounds are fully worked through. That’s a known constraint, not a blind spot. Once feedstocks are domestic and traceable, the remaining chemistry becomes an engineering problem rather than a geopolitical or compliance one, and that is solvable.

A core piece of how this scales industrially is material standardization and grading. Through the American Fiber Group’s DBX framework, hemp and bamboo feedstocks are defined, graded, and traceable in ways that align with how purchasing, quality, and engineering teams already operate. Standards put numbers in columns. Once materials have repeatable specs and grades, they can be insured, underwritten, included in bills of materials, and contracted at scale. That’s the step that turns “alternative inputs” into industrial commodities.

CAPEX is the real gate, but it’s also frequently overstated. This isn’t a megafactory-or-bust model. Rural processing programs, modular facilities, shared infrastructure, and public-private partnerships materially reduce upfront CAPEX. Current IRA incentives and domestic manufacturing credits further de-risk early stages. You don’t need to rebuild everything at once. You need enough capacity to prove reliability, consistency, and bankability.

There’s also an operational effect that often gets missed. Lower-toxicity material systems materially reduce OSHA recordables, chemical exposure incidents, PPE burden, and regulatory friction. That translates directly into lower workers’ comp premiums, lower insurance costs, fewer lost-time incidents, and a more productive workforce. Fewer sick days, lower turnover, and easier hiring are not abstract benefits. They show up on plant P&Ls.

Build speed matters as well. This vertical accelerates by using AI to shorten R&D and process optimization while deliberately constraining early stages to domestically grown feedstocks, without cutting off imports prematurely. Imports continue in parallel while domestic systems mature. That sequencing lowers complexity, avoids geopolitical shock, and materially compresses learning curves.

Downrange, manufacturing topology begins to change. As standardized bio-based materials intersect with additive manufacturing, tooling costs collapse. Six-figure molds stop being the entry ticket. Production decentralizes. Supply chains shorten. Manufacturing moves closer to demand. This doesn’t eliminate centralized manufacturing, but it increases competition, resilience, and optionality in ways the current system lacks.

Capital follows that shift. Decentralized production keeps dollars local. Regional banks and credit unions engage as credit-risk profiles improve through traceability, lower liability exposure, and policy alignment. Municipalities regain leverage through workforce pipelines and zoning rather than chasing megaplants. Rural redevelopment becomes industrial strategy rather than subsidy.

Consumer demand is an accelerant, not the foundation. Cause-based shopping creates early, stabilizing demand signals that help de-risk offtake while manufacturing scales. People back this because it improves their lives economically through jobs and regional resilience, and physically through cleaner materials, soil, air, and water. That public backing matters because it sustains demand long enough for industry to finish solving the edge cases.

Then there are the balance-sheet effects most people don’t model. As viable alternatives exist, product liability and environmental insurance costs rise for legacy materials. Credit risk shifts for banks. Healthcare and disaster exposure math begins to change as material and land-use profiles improve. None of this is ideological. It’s accounting.

So the prize isn’t all manufacturing. The prize is influence over upstream inputs, production topology, workforce safety, risk, and capital allocation. That’s how economies actually bend.

If you want to challenge any one of these lanes, I’m happy to go deep on it.

sustainability

The Material Economics Doctrine

"We can build what we need

Collage Art + Creative Reuse in Windsor, NC

Want to join a co-living community?

Wholesomeness culture

What do you think are the biggest planetary potentials?