Green Future

Imagine Green Future (IGF) Project Glossary

2011-01-26T07:53:00.000-08:00

"We are connected inexorably to one another. We are all part of an interconnected whole, and any energy we spend putting up walls is swimming upstream against nature, and is going to cost us in stress, pain and the quality of our lives. It is non-judgmental respect or "unconditional love" for all employees that allows organizations to make major strides in fulfilling their vision. For those who insist on clinging to traditional ways of looking at the world, change will continue to come so fast and in such unexpected forms that the future will no longer be a desirable place. But for those who are willing to move ahead with conscious awareness of the natural laws of change, the future offers unparalleled opportunity to reshape our lives, our organizations, and our world, into what we want."
~George Land, Breakpoint & Beyond - Mastering the Future Today
http://www.speaking.com/articles_html/GeorgeLand_526.php

A Glossary to assist your understanding of IGF as a comprehensive vehicle for social and economic transformation.
http://tinyurl.com/46679lr

B-Corporations

Certified B Corporations are a new type of corporation which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. B Corps are unlike traditional businesses because they:
Meet comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards;
Meet higher legal accountability standards;
Build business constituency for good business
http://www.bcorporation.net/

Breakpoint & Beyond - Mastering the Future Today
by George Land

The survival and success of a business depends on its ability to adapt to its changing environment. How can we equip ourselves and our organizations to deal with the world that is transforming right before our very eyes? The key is to understand the NEW rules of change. Today`s change is not just more rapid, more complex, more turbulent, and more unpredictable. Today`s change is unlike any encountered before. The surprising fact is that change itself has changed! By looking to our greatest teacher, Mother Nature, we can understand the natural change process. The ceaseless process of change takes on unique characteristics at different points in time. The rules governing change shift dramatically and almost without notice. These "Breakpoint" shifts follow the same master pattern whether they occur within a single atom, one`s personal life, or an entire organization.
http://www.speaking.com/articles_html/GeorgeLand_526.php

Bridge People
Daniel Jacob

My Dear Friends:

Now. Now is the timing. We have said it before, and we are saying it once again. And now your expanding consciousness is also beginning to speak these words--like a mantra, over and over, so that the rest of your slumbering planet will have their message amplified. It is all here, it is all now, and it is all YOU.

Your own human vehicle at this time is your way of enjoying this wonderful transition from being something to being everything. And the only change needed is in your perception. It's all around you. It always was. We have shown this, in our transmission entitled "Levels of Self." Surrounding your First Person symbol of physical being, there are fragments of yourself playing out, in detail, very important components of your inner world. This enables you to see them clearly, and understand yourself more completely. All you need are the eyes to notice it.

You are forming an Astral Bridge between the you that exists here, and your manifold alternative "selves" that exist in countless other dimensions and contexts of reality. The way you live your life, which often runs so counter to the way you are told to live it, is your own means of building this portal--your own way of actually BEING this portal. The guilt and shame that sometimes visits you, because you do not "measure up" or "conform" to the ways of this world, is simply grist for the mill of your own inner process of fermentation and alchemical change. The more you push yourself, the more the "other side" of your transforming being will dig in. When one "side" of you finally lets go, they all do.
http://www.reconnections.net/bridge_people.htm

Cause marketing From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cause marketing or cause-related marketing refers to a type of marketing involving the cooperative efforts of a "for profit" business and a non-profit organization for mutual benefit. The term is sometimes used more broadly and generally to refer to any type of marketing effort for social and other charitable causes, including in-house marketing efforts by non-profit organizations. Cause marketing differs from corporate giving (philanthropy) as the latter generally involves a specific donation that is tax deductible, while cause marketing is a marketing relationship generally not based on a donation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_marketing

Counter-Economics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Counter-economics is a term originally used by Samuel Edward Konkin III and J. Neil Schulman, radical libertarian activists and theorists. Konkin defined it as "the study and/or practice of all peaceful human action which is forbidden by the State." The term is short for "counter-establishment economics". Counter-economics was integrated by Schulman into Konkin's doctrine of agorism, to form what they call a revolutionary variant of market anarchism.

The term counter-economics is also used in a separate but arguably compatible sense to refer to addressing social justice and sustainability concerns in a market context, although one more generally counter-establishment rather than explicitly illegal. In both senses, it can include non-monetary forms of exchange, such as a barter economy or a gift economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics

Distributed generation
Distributed generation, also called on-site generation, dispersed generation, embedded generation, decentralized generation, decentralized energy or distributed energy, generates electricity from many small energy sources. Currently, industrial countries generate most of their electricity in large centralized facilities, such as fossil fuel (coal, gas powered) nuclear or hydropower plants. These plants have excellent economies of scale, but usually transmit electricity long distances and negatively affect the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

Economic Democracy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests an expansion of decision-making power from a small minority of corporate shareholders to a larger majority of public stakeholders. While there is no single definition or approach, all theories and real-world examples of economic democracy are based on a core set of fundamental assumptions.

Proponents generally agree that modern economic conditions tend to hinder or prevent society from earning enough income to purchase its output production. Centralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.

As either a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies or as a stand-alone theory, economic democracy promotes universal access to common resources that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism or centralized by state socialism. Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights, economic democracy suggests alternative models and reform agendas for solving problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples include democratic cooperatives, fair trade, social credit, and the regionalization of food production and currency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

Economic Secession From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wendell Berry described “economic secession” in his 1991 essay Conservation and Local Economy:

"If we are serious about reducing government and the burdens of government, then we need to do so by returning economic self-determination to the people… we must do it by fostering economic democracy. For example, as much as possible of the food that is consumed locally ought to be locally produced on small farms, and then processed in small, non-polluting plants that are locally owned. We must do everything possible to provide to ordinary citizens the opportunity to own a small, usable share of the country. …I acknowledge that to advocate such reforms is to advocate a kind of secession - not a secession of armed violence but a quiet secession by which people find the practical means and the strength of spirit to remove themselves from an economy that is exploiting them and destroying their homeland". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_secession

Emergence From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Green chemistry From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Green chemistry, also called sustainable chemistry, is a philosophy of chemical research and engineering that encourages the design of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances.[1] Whereas environmental chemistry is the chemistry of the natural environment, and of pollutant chemicals in nature, green chemistry seeks to reduce and prevent pollutionat its source. In 1990 the Pollution Prevention Act was passed in the United States. This act helped create a modus operandi for dealing with pollution in an original and innovative way. It aims to avoid problems before they happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_chemistry

Humanistic Economics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanistic economics is a school of economic theory identified with E. F. Schumacher. Proponents argue for "humanity-first" economic theories as opposed to the ideas in mainstream economic theory which they see as putting financial gain before people.

"Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be uneconomic you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper."
~E. F. Schumacher

Humanistic economics has been defined as "a perspective that leans heavily on humanistic psychology, moral philosophy, humanistic sociology, and last but not least, on common sense. In more formal terms, contemporary humanistic economics seeks to both describe, analyze and critically assess prevailing socio-economic institutions and policies, and provide normative (value) guidelines on how to improve them in terms of human (not merely "economic") welfare. Basic human needs, human rights, human dignity, human equality, freedom, economic democracy and economic sustainability provide the framework".

Humanistic economics focuses on human economic activity as being social and altruistically constructed, not just individualistically and selfishly derived. The importance of the ethical individual living within a vibrant local community, not merely as a lone wolf nor as a consumer of mass culture and production on a global scale, is often stressed. The importance of accounting for externalities (items not always put on the economic balance sheet like pollution or loss of biodiversity) are other key concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_economics

Inclusive Democracy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fotopoulos describes inclusive democracy as “a new conception of democracy, which, using as a starting point the classical definition of it, expresses democracy in terms of direct political democracy, economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market economy and state planning), as well as democracy in the social realm and ecological democracy. In short, inclusive democracy is a form of social organisation which re-integrates society with economy, polity and nature. The concept of inclusive democracy is derived from a synthesis of two major historical traditions, the classical democratic and the socialist, although it also encompasses radical green, feminist, and liberation movements in the South”.

Starting point of the ID project is that the world, at the beginning of the new millennium, faces a multi-dimensional crisis (economic, ecological, social, cultural and political), which is shown to be caused by the concentration of power in the hands of various elites. This is interpreted to be the outcome of the establishment, in the last few centuries, of the system of market economy (in the Polanyian sense), Representative democracy, and the related forms of hierarchical structure. Therefore, an inclusive democracy is seen not simply as a utopia, but perhaps as the only way out of the crisis, based on the equal distribution of power at all levels.

In this conception of democracy, the public realm includes not just the political realm, as is usual in the republican or democratic project (Hannah Arendt, Cornelius Castoriadis, Murray Bookchin et al.), but also the economic, ‘social’ and ecological realms. The political realm is the sphere of political decision-making, the area in which political power is exercised. The economic realm is the sphere of economic decision-making, the area in which economic power is exercised with respect to the broad economic choices that any scarcity society has to make. The social realm is the sphere of decision-making in the workplace, the education place and any other economic or cultural institution which is a constituent element of a democratic society. The public realm could be extended to include the "ecological realm", which may be defined as the sphere of the relations between society and nature. Therefore, the public realm, in contrast to the private realm, includes any area of human activity in which decisions can be made collectively and democratically.

According to these four realms, we may distinguish between four main constituent elements of an inclusive democracy: the political, the economic, 'democracy in the social realm' and the ecological. The first three elements form the institutional framework, which aims at the equal distribution of political, economic and social power respectively. In this sense, these elements define a system, which aims at the effective elimination of the domination of human being over human being. Similarly, ecological democracy is defined as the institutional framework, which aims to eliminate any human attempt to dominate the natural world, in other words, the system, which aims to reintegrate humans and nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_Democracy

Industrial and Organizational Psychology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (also known as industrial-organizational psychology, I-O psychology, work psychology, organizational psychology, work and organizational psychology, occupational psychology, personnel psychology or talent assessment) applies psychology to organizations and the workplace. (In December 2009, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology plans a vote to either retain its name or to change it to the Society for Organizational Psychology (TSOP) to eliminate the word "Industrial". Any such change might cause many American researchers, practitioners and educational programs in I-O psychology to change over to the new name to describe their field.) "Industrial-organizational psychologists contribute to an organization's success by improving the performance and well-being of its people. An I-O psychologist researches and identifies how behaviors and attitudes can be improved through hiring practices, training programs, and feedback systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_psychology

L3C: A More Creative Capitalism By Jim Witkin | January 15th, 2009
During his 2007 Harvard commencement address, Bill Gates, now the world’s best funded philanthropist, called on the graduates to invent “a more creative capitalism” where “we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities.”

It doesn’t take a Harvard grad (or Harvard dropout like Gates) to understand that traditional market forces mostly work against the notion of a socially beneficial enterprise (one that seeks social returns first and financial second). Existing for-profit corporate structures demand a higher financial return than a social enterprise can usually deliver; while non-profit organizations have limited access to capital and a tax-exempt format that limits a strong profit orientation. If the social enterprise field is to evolve and grow, what’s needed is a hybrid of the two forms, a structure that supports a “low profit corporation.”

Enter the L3C (low-profit, limited liability company), a new corporate structure designed to attract a wide range of investment sources thereby improving the viability of social ventures. In April 2008, Vermont became the first state to recognize the L3C as a legal corporate structure. Similar legislation is pending in Georgia, Michigan, Montana and North Carolina. But if the L3C seems like the right choice for your social enterprise, you don’t have to wait! L3Cs formed in Vermont can be used in any state.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/the-l3c-a-more-creative-capitalism/

Libertarianism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across a political spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), from minarchist to openly anarchist.

All schools of libertarianism declare a strong advocacy for the rights to life and liberty, though there is disagreement on the subject of private property. Some sources indicate that the term "libertarian" outside of the US, generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies. However, some American and English sources claim that the most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism which in contrast to libertarian socialism does not limit property to active personal use; advocating instead for private ownership of the means of production. Other features of right-libertarianism include minimal government regulation of that property, minimal taxation, and rejection of the welfare state, all within the context of the rule of law.

Some call the pro-property view propertarian, and some pro-property libertarians believe a "propertarian philosophy" is a weak basis for libertarian morality. A number of countries have libertarian parties which run candidates for political office. Anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque, main author of the first libertarian journal Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York, which ran between 1858 and 1861, was also the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.

Libertarian socialists, unlike right-wing libertarians, oppose structures of authority and hierarchy in personal relations and the larger social order. This extends beyond the state, to authoritarian gender relations and the social relation they call "wage slavery". These libertarians believe in the abolition of property not intended for active personal use and may be called non-propertarian or anti-propertarian. Anti-authoritarianism, in their view, entails a society where worker self-management is easy to pursue as a choice. This requires dismantling the boss-authority concomitant with private ownership of workplaces, in favor of participatory worker and community controlled associations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Liberty From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will. The conception of liberty is influenced by ideals concerning the social contract as well as arguments that are concerned with the state of nature.

Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion and this is defined as negative liberty.Social liberal conceptions of liberty relate freedom to social structure and agency and this is defined as positive liberty. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial land in which regalian rights had been waived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

The Philosophy of Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Maslow's hierarchy of needs From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation.[2] Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity. His theories parallel many other theories of human developmental psychology, all of which focus on describing the stages of growth in humans. Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."[3] Maslow studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.[4] Maslow's theory was fully expressed in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Moral Development and Moral Education: An Overview
Moral education is becoming an increasingly popular topic in the fields of psychology and education. Media reports of increased violent juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, and suicide have caused many to declare a moral crisis in our nation. While not all of these social concerns are moral in nature, and most have complex origins, there is a growing trend towards linking the solutions to these and related social problems to the teaching of moral and social values in our public schools.

However, considerations of the role schools can and should play in the moral development of youth are themselves the subject of controversy. All too often debate on this topic is reduced to posturing reflecting personal views rather than informed opinion. Fortunately, systematic research and scholarship on moral development has been going on for most of this century, and educators wishing to attend to issues of moral development and education may make use of what has been learned through that work.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html

Network Effect From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics and business, a network effect (also called network externality or demand-side economies of scale) is the effect that one user of a good orservice has on the value of that product to other people. When network effect is present, the value of a product or service increases as more people use it. The classic example is the telephone. The more people own telephones, the more valuable the telephone is to each owner. This creates a positive externalitybecause a user may purchase their phone without intending to create value for other users, but does so in any case. Online social networks work in the same way, with sites like Twitter and Facebook being more useful the more users join.

The expression "network effect" is applied most commonly to positive network externalities as in the case of the telephone. Negative network externalities can also occur, where more users make a product less valuable, but are more commonly referred to as "congestion" (as in traffic congestion or network congestion). Over time, positive network effects can create a bandwagon effect as the network becomes more valuable and more people join, in a positive feedback loop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effects

Public Sphere From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The public sphere is an area in social life where people can get together and freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. It is "a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment."[1] The public sphere can be seen as "a theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk"[2] and "a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed".[3]

The public sphere mediates between the "private sphere" and the "Sphere of Public Authority",[4] "The private sphere comprised civil society in the narrower sense, that is to say, the realm of commodity exchange and of social labor."[5] Whereas the "Sphere of Public Authority" dealt with the State, or realm of the police, and the ruling class,[5] the public sphere crossed over both these realms and "Through the vehicle of public opinion it put the state in touch with the needs of society."[6] "This area is conceptually distinct from the state: it [is] a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state."[7] The public sphere 'is also distinct from the official economy; it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling."[7] These distinctions between "state apparatuses, economic markets, and democratic associations...are essential to democratic theory."[8] The people themselves came to see the public sphere as a regulatory institution against the authority of the state.[9] The study of the public sphere centers on the idea of participatory democracy, and how public opinion becomes political action.

The basic belief in public sphere theory is that political action is steered by the public sphere, and that the only legitimate governments are those that listen to the public sphere.[10] "Democratic governance rests on the capacity of and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate".[11] Much of the debate over the public sphere involves what is the basic theoretical structure of the public sphere, how information is deliberated in the public sphere, and what influence the public sphere has over society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere

Self-Actualization
Maslow loosely defined self-actualization as "the full use and exploitation of talents, capacities, potentialities, etc. " (Motivation and Personality, p. 150). Self-actualization is not a static state. It is an ongoing process in which one's capacities are fully, creatively, and joyfully utilized. "I think of the self-actualizing man not as an ordinary man with something added, but rather as the ordinary man with nothing taken away. The average man is a full human being with dampened and inhibited powers and capacities" (Dominance, self-esteem, self-actualization, p. 91).

Most commonly, self-actualizing people see life clearly. They are less emotional and more objective, less likely to allow hopes, fears, or ego defenses to distort their observations. Maslow found that all self-actualizing people are dedicated to a vocation or a cause. Two requirements for growth are commitment to something greater than oneself and success at one's chosen tasks. Major characteristics of self-actualizing people include creativity, spontaneity, courage, and hard work.
http://www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Self-Actualization.asp

Social Ecology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The philosophy's "social" component comes from its position that nearly all of the world's ecological problems arise from deep-seated social problems. Conversely, social ecologists maintain, present ecological problems cannot be clearly understood, much less resolved, without resolutely dealing with problems within society. They argue that apart from those produced by natural catastrophes, the most serious ecological dislocations of the 20th and 21st centuries have as their cause economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts, among many others.

Social ecology is associated with the ideas and works of Murray Bookchin, who had written on such matters from the 1950s until his death, and, from the 1960s, had combined these issues with revolutionary social anarchism. His works include Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Toward an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom, and a host of others.

Social ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is seen as a product of domination within society, but this domination only reaches crisis proportions under capitalism.

In the words of Bookchin:
The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the domination of man by man… But it was not until organic community relation … dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the natural world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured and merchandised wantonly. … The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital
—Bookchin, Murray, Post Scarcity Anarchism, p.24–25

Beginning in 1995, Bookchin became increasingly critical of anarchism, and in 1999 took a decisive stand against anarchist ideology. He had come to recognize social ecology as a genuinely new form oflibertarian socialism, and positioned its politics firmly in the framework of communalism. Since the founding of Social Ecology, its evolution has been considerable. Now it is involved in research and instruction and “Is informed by and contributes to knowledge in the social, behavioral, legal, environmental, and health sciences. Social Ecology faculty apply scientific methods to the study of a wide array of recurring social, behavioral, and environmental problems. Among issues of long-standing interest in the School are crime and justice in society, social influences on human development over the life cycle, and the effects of the physical environment on health and human behavior. While the field of ecology focuses on the relationships between organisms and their environments, social ecology is concerned with the relationships between human populations and their environments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology

Social Enterprise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A social enterprise is an organization that applies capitalistic strategies to achieving philanthropic goals. Social enterprises can be structured as a for-profit or non-profit.

Many commercial enterprises would consider themselves to have social objectives, but commitment to these objectives is fundamentally motivated by the perception that such commitment will ultimately make the enterprise more financially valuable. Social enterprises differ in that, inversely, they do not aim to offer any benefit to their investors, except where they believe that doing so will ultimately further their capacity to realise their philanthropic goals.

Many entrepreneurs, whilst running a profit focussed enterprise that they own, will make charitable gestures through the enterprise, expecting to make a loss in the process. However unless the social aim is the primary purpose of the company this is not considered to be social enterprise. The term is more specific, meaning 'doing charity by doing trade', rather than 'doing charity while doing trade'. Another example is an uncorporation, which may pursue social responsibility goals that conflict with traditional corporate shareholder primacy, or may donate most of its profits to charity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise

Social Entrepreneurship From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social entrepreneurship is the work of social entrepreneurs. A social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture to achieve social change (a social venture). Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social capital. Thus, the main aim of social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals. However, whilst social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors [1], this need not necessarily be incompatible with making a profit. Social entrepreneurship practiced with a world view or international context is called international social entrepreneurship.[2] See also Corporate Social Entrepreneurship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship

Take-Back Programs
Take-back programs give manufacturers the physical responsibility for products and/or packaging at the end of their useful lives. By accepting used products, manufacturers can acquire low-cost feedstock for new manufacture or remanufacture, and offer a value-added service to the buyer.

Most take-back programs in the U.S. are voluntary, while legislation in many European countries require manufacturers take responsibility for waste costs incurred by products and packaging.
http://www.pprc.org/pubs/epr/takeback.cfm

Transformation Theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transformation theory, first explained by Dr. George Land [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (also George Ainsworth Land and George T. Lock Land) (1927-) is a description of the structure of change in natural systems. Land's research, detailed in his seminal book Grow or Die [6] ), illustrates change as a series of interlocking S-curves, each interspersed with two breakpoints. Breakpoints are the moments in time when the rules of survival change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_theory

Transition Towns From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transition Towns (also known as Transition network or Transition Movement) is a brand for environmental and social movements “founded (in part) upon the principles of permaculture” [1], based originally on Bill Mollison’s seminal Permaculture, a Designers Manual published in 1988. The Transition Towns brand of permaculture uses David Holmgren’s 2003 book, Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability. [2] These techniques were included in a student project overseen by permaculture teacher Rob Hopkins at the Kinsale Further Education College in Ireland. The term transition town was coined by Louise Rooney[3] and Catherine Dunne. Following its start in Kinsale, Ireland it then spread to Totnes, England where Rob Hopkins and Naresh Giangrande developed the concept during 2005 and 2006.[4] The aim of this community project is to equip communities for the dual challenges of climate change and peak oil. The Transition Towns movement is an example of socioeconomic localisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns

The Adventures of Unemployed Man: Preview

2010-12-20T10:50:00.000-08:00

Nina Simone Feeling Good

2010-12-11T06:42:00.000-08:00

Cause Consumer Behavior

2010-11-13T18:45:00.000-08:00

2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study
EVEN AS CAUSE MARKETING GROWS, 83 PERCENT OF CONSUMERS STILL WANT TO SEE MORE
More than 9-in-10 moms want the opportunity to buy a product benefiting a cause

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STUDY CONFIRMS CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING CAN EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE SALES

BOSTON (September 15, 2010) – Forty-one percent of Americans say they have purchased a product in the past year because it was associated with a social or environmental cause (41%), a two-fold increase since Cone first began measuring in 1993 (20%). But even as their purchasing power grows, consumer appetite for socially conscious shopping has yet to be satiated. A full 83 percent of consumers want more of the products, services and retailers they use to benefit causes, according to the new 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study, the nation’s only 17-year benchmark of cause marketing attitudes and behaviors.

Recession Didn’t Alter Expectations

The nation’s ongoing economic woes have not deterred Americans’ social sentiment, nor their expectations that companies will benefit society. Eighty-one percent said companies should financially support causes at the same level or higher during an economic downturn. It appears business rose to this challenge – nearly two-thirds (64%) of consumers believe companies responded well to social and environmental issues during the recession.

Americans’ enthusiasm for cause marketing also emerged from the turmoil fully intact and continues to strongly influence their purchase decisions:
88% say it is acceptable for companies to involve a cause or issue in their marketing;
85% have a more positive image of a product or company when it supports a cause they care about; and,
80% are likely to switch brands, similar in price and quality, to one that supports a cause.
Not only are consumers willing to switch among similar brands, they are also willing to step outside their comfort zones. When it supports a cause:
61% of Americans say they would be willing to try a new brand or one unfamiliar to them;
46% would try a generic or private-label brand; and,
Nearly one-in-five consumers (19%) would be willing to purchase a more expensive brand.

“When price and quality are equal, we know most consumers will choose the product benefiting the cause,” explains Alison DaSilva, executive vice president at Cone. “But cause alignment can have an even bigger influence on consumer choice, pushing them to experiment with something different and unfamiliar. Cause branding is a prime opportunity for companies to extend beyond their traditional market and increase exposure to potential new consumers.”

Moms and Millennials: Most Cause-Conscious Consumers
By all measures, moms lead the way as the demographic most amenable to cause marketing. In fact, moms virtually demand the opportunity to shop with a cause in mind. A staggering 95 percent find cause marketing acceptable (vs. 88% average), and 92 percent want to buy a product supporting a cause (vs. 81% average). They are also more likely to switch brands (93% vs. 80% average), so it is hardly surprising that moms purchased more cause-related products in the past year than any other demographic (61% vs. 41% average).

Millennials (18-24 years old) are close on moms’ heels as they also shop with an eye toward the greater good. Ninety-four percent find cause marketing acceptable (vs. 88% average) and more than half (53%) have bought a product benefiting a cause this year (vs. 41% average).

A company’s support of social or environmental issues is also likely to influence this group’s decisions outside the store, including where to work (87% vs. 69% average) and where to invest (79% vs. 59% average).

Engage Consumers Beyond the Vote
At a time when consumer voting campaigns have emerged as the cause marketing tactic du jour, a majority (61%) of consumers say they would prefer to see a company make a long-term commitment to a focused issue rather than determining themselves which issue the company supports in the short-term. This does not suggest they do not want to be engaged, however. Buying a cause-related product (81%) continues to be the leading way consumers want to support a company’s efforts, but they also seek other higher-touch opportunities, such as lending their voices through ideas or feedback (75%) and volunteerism (72%).

“Putting the charitable dollars in the hands of consumers has, no doubt, been the standout cause strategy of the last two years. But although these campaigns are notable, they are not building long-lasting brand equity,” explains DaSilva. “They are big and bold today, but in one year, or five or 10, they won’t have clearly defined what the company stands for, and it may be hard to gauge social impact. This will require greater focus and more meaningful consumer engagement beyond the click of a button.”

Dual-Role of Employees
Consumers are the primary audience for most companies’ cause branding programs, but businesses should be wary of overlooking employees as a key participant in their efforts. Sixty-nine percent of Americans consider a company’s social and environmental commitments when deciding where to work. The correlation does not end once they are employed. Employees who are involved in their company’s cause efforts are much more likely to feel a sense of pride and loyalty toward their employer:
93% say they are proud of their company’s values (vs. 68% for those who are not involved); and,
92% say they feel a strong sense of loyalty to their company (vs. 61% for those who are not involved).

Employees may translate their experiences and knowledge as participants to their role as front-line ambassadors for a company’s cause efforts. Seventy percent of consumers say a knowledgeable employee may drive their purchases or donations. And when consumers do not receive the details they need to make an informed cause-related purchase, whether through employees, on-pack messaging or other channels, 34 percent will either choose another brand or walk away.

Issues Stand Test of Time
Even as businesses face a set of complex new issues, consumers remain steadfast in their expectations of what companies should address. They continue to want companies to prioritize support of issues close to home, in local communities (46%) and in the U.S. (37%), but they are gradually recognizing the need for companies to address issues globally, as well (17%).

The leading causes consumers want companies to support include:

Economic development – 77%
Health and disease – 77%
Hunger – 76%
Education – 75%
Access to clean water – 74%
Disaster relief – 73%
Environment – 73%

Americans may feel some of these issues personally, but they also recognize the impact a company can have when it supports a business-aligned issue. They are equally likely to say that a company should consider supporting an issue that is important in the communities where it does business (91%), as well as one that is aligned with its business practices (91%).

“Cause branding is standing the test of time, but leadership companies must continue to innovate to ensure their programs offer an original consumer experience, tackle tough emerging issues and make bold new commitments,” says DaSilva. “Those that are most successful and meeting the competing needs of many stakeholders are aligning issues with the business for mutual benefit and integrating these efforts into a larger corporate responsibility strategy for maximum impact.”
http://www.coneinc.com/files/2010-Cone-Cause-Evolution-Study.pdf

Power and Love by Adam Kahane | Berrett-Koehler Publishers

2010-11-04T07:44:00.000-07:00

Power and Love by Adam Kahane | Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Industrial Evolution

2010-10-17T19:01:00.000-07:00

Bill McDonough has the wild idea he can eliminate waste. Surprise! Business is listening
Bloomberg Businessweek, APRIL 8, 2002
Michelle Conlin and Paul Raeburn

Fabric You Can Eat

Steelcase subsidiary Designtex wanted to make an ecologically safe fabric and hired environmental designers McDonough and Braungart to tackle the effort. Highlights of the project:

-- 60 chemical companies were invited to join the project. All declined except for one, Ciba-Geigy.

-- Ciba-Geigy's 4,500 dye formulas were evaluated for heavy metals, toxins, and carcinogens.

-- 16 passed the test--enough to make the fabric.

-- Under the new manufacturing process, which turns the textile mill into a water filter, the effluent is safe enough to drink.

-- Fabric trimmings, which before were labeled hazardous waste, are now used as mulch.

-- McDonough and Braungart are opening the new manufacturing secrets to any company that wants them.

Data: Susan Lyons, William McDonough & Partners, and Michael Braungart

Fabrics you can eat. Buildings that generate more energy than they consume. Factory with wastewater clean enough to drink. Even toxic-free products that, instead of ending up as poison in a landfill, decompose as nutrients into the soil. No more waste. No more recycling. And no more regulation.

Such a world is the vision of environmental designer William McDonough. You might think he's half a bubble off level--until you realize that he's working with powerhouses like Ford (F ), BP (BP ), DuPont (DD ), Steelcase (SCS ), Nike (NKE ), and BASF (BF ), the world's largest producer of chemicals, to make it happen. And in the process, he's actually helping them produce substantial savings. "This is not environmental philanthropy," Ford Motor Co. CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said in 1999 when he hired McDonough to lead the $2 billion renovation of the Ford Rouge plant outside Detroit. "It's sound business."

Over the past 15 years, McDonough, former dean at the University of Virginia's architecture school, and his business partner Michael Braungart, a top European chemist and a founder of Germany's Green Party, have been busy launching what they call a new industrial revolution. The problem that has long obsessed them: How do you manufacture products safely that are of comparable quality as the original stuff without stifling productivity or cutting profits? Their solutions--which have already had some remarkable success--are fast turning front man McDonough, 51, into one of Corporate America's leading gurus of green growth. His and Braungart's ideas are sure to spark even more debate with the publication this month of their new book, Cradle to Cradle.

Indeed, there's a growing awareness among CEOs of the unsustainability of manufacturing as it's done today, using so many potentially dangerous chemicals and producing so much toxic waste. Nearly every item you use--from the car you drive to the computer you surf with to the CD player you use at the gym--contains chemicals that often haven't been tested for human safety. When these substances first hit the manufacturing plant, they are labeled as hazardous. But once they turn into consumer products, the warnings disappear. The average mass-produced water bottle or polyester shirt, for example, contains small amounts of antimony--a toxic heavy metal known to cause cancer. A pair of shoes has rubber soles that are loaded with lead. You can throw the shoes away. But their environmental footprints can last decades.

Sure, no one has been killed by a sneaker. But McDonough and Braungart have been devising manufacturing processes in which factories don't contribute to greenhouse gases and consumer products don't emit carcinogenic compounds. Says Peter J. Pestillo, chairman of auto-parts maker Visteon Corp. (VC ): "Bill is getting us to believe that if we start early enough, we can avoid environmental problems altogether rather than correcting them little by little."

What's more, Cradle to Cradle, the duo's manifesto on their eco-effective strategies, will hit the stores just as momentum grows behind critical new regulation in Europe. Two years ago, the European Union passed "end-of-life" legislation, which requires auto makers to recycle or reuse at least 80% of their old cars by 2006. But end-of-life rules won't stop with autos and are already aimed at computers and electrical gear. "Any idea which takes hold in Europe is less than a generation away from taking hold here," says Pestillo, who is working with McDonough on a toxin-free car interior.

Pressure, too, is growing on executives to find alternatives to the standard industry practice of pumping toxic waste into the air, junking valuable materials in landfills, and complying with thousands of complex regulations. McDonough believes companies can innovate their way out of regulation. He has been so persuasive that Ford, who is trying to remake the auto company his great-grandfather founded into a model of sustainable business, has put him in charge of transforming the carmaker's hulking Rouge plant. McDonough is attempting to turn this icon of dirty manufacturing into a showcase clean factory, flooded with natural light, topped with a grass roof, and surrounded by reconstructed wetlands that keep storm water from going into the public system. These wetlands alone will save the company up to $35 million. "It's not about doing things that don't make economic sense," says Timothy O'Brien, Ford's vice-president for real estate. "These things are saving us money. We're already at work on establishing Bill's guidelines in the rest of our real estate portfolio."

McDonough and Braungart have also helped develop a material for Nike sneakers whose soles safely biodegrade into soil. Already on the market are Nikes that are virtually free of PVC and volatile organic chemicals. The pair have also helped BASF devise the concept for a new nylon that's infinitely recyclable. And for Steelcase Inc., they have created a fabric with the company's Designtex Inc. subsidiary that is so free of toxins that you can eat it (table). Lufthansa is now putting the fabric on the seats of its planes.

One of McDonough's first achievements was in Zeeland, Mich., where he built a nearly transparent factory for Herman Miller Inc. that is bathed in sunlight and whose solar heating-and-cooling system helps cut energy costs by 30%. McDonough says productivity at the factory is up 24%, enabling the company to increase annual sales by $60 million a year with the same number of employees. And the factory only cost $15 million to build. Herman Miller is taking McDonough's ideas one step further this year by implementing a protocol whereby its engineers will be required to use materials in new furniture that have either very low or zero toxicity.

Certainly, the movement toward sustainable business practices is just beginning. And there are plenty of companies that genuinely work at changing but merely wind up replacing one harmful practice with another. The obstacles to moving toward McDonough's methods are monumental. Experts note it's often difficult to determine up front the business case for doing such things. Often, it requires companies to make a leap of faith that changing will not only be good for the environment but actually save them money. And of course, many attempts can and do fail. "It's absolutely legitimate skepticism," says Sloan School of Management professor Peter Senge. Still, given the world's depleting resources and the specter of regulation, Senge believes it's not a matter of if companies will turn more in this direction, but when. "There's a growing awareness that we are on a path that can't continue. Do we really think a billion and a half Chinese are going to generate a ton of waste every two weeks like Americans do? It will never happen. There's no place to put it."

McDonough's system tackles these problems by creating two manufacturing loops. In the first, carcinogens are designed out of the process in favor of safe ingredients that can become biological nutrients. The second loop allows the use of potentially harmful substances--what McDonough calls "technical nutrients." But in contrast with current practices, McDonough designs systems that allow these technical nutrients to be disassembled or reused indefinitely--so they never enter the ecosystem. Taking nature as the inspiration for his operating system, waste becomes food--either literally for the soil in the first loop, or figuratively for new products in the second.

As it functions today, says McDonough, industry is based on a linear, cradle-to-grave model that creates unnecessary waste. In fact, 90% of materials extracted for durable goods become garbage almost immediately. By completely remaking the industrial process--from the way factories are built to the choice of materials--McDonough is showing companies how to reinvent production from "cradle to cradle." By following nature's laws, growth can be good, McDonough believes. A system centered on depletion and pollution can be transformed into one based on regeneration and nutrition. "I don't care if you drive around in a car visible from the moon," says McDonough. "If it's all made of reusable materials and tires that become safe food for worms, and it is powered by solar energy--then hey, no problem."

Until recently, the reigning solution to environmental ills has been recycling, but McDonough believes doing less of a bad thing doesn't make it good. Recycled products are still full of toxic chemicals. "We feel good when we recycle plastic bottles containing heavy metals and carcinogens into clothes," says McDonough. "But guess what--you're still wearing cancer."

That's not to mention another downside: Recycling still creates waste. McDonough calls it "downcycling"--that is, turning waste into a different product of lower quality. But that product, too, eventually winds up in a landfill. It all adds up to a costly way of doing business. Complying with federal environmental regulations alone eats up an estimated 2.6% of gross domestic product, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

A few companies are already escaping some regulation by using McDonough's loop. BASF, for example, has designed a carpet called Savant that the company will take back and make into new carpet when you're done with it---with a guarantee that it won't be tossed into a landfill. (Note: Here in America, Ray Anderson's Interface carpet company uses the same business model) In McDonough parlance, the carpet is a "product of service." Explains Ian Wolstenholme, BASF's sales and marketing manager for carpets: "It's like an ice cube. We can freeze and unfreeze it as many times as we like." And the carpet has the added advantage of giving BASF a potentially lifelong link to customers.

Perhaps part of McDonough's success with CEOs is that he doesn't bash them. He has the more charitable view that most executives, like technophobes at the birth of the Internet, suffer from environmental illiteracy. Patagonia Inc. Chairman Yvon Chouinard recalls that he didn't know that the polyester the outdoor outfitter used in its clothing contained antimony until McDonough told him so in their first meeting three years ago. Chouinard thought he had been doing the noble thing by avoiding cotton, which is full of pesticides. "Society is going along sort of ignorant of the damage we're doing, so it takes somebody like McDonough, who is asking the questions and seeking the answers, to offer people the choice," Chouinard says. Patagonia is now developing clothing with a new, antimony-free polyester.

Chouinard and others credit McDonough with fusing two seemingly opposing world views--environmentalism and capitalism. As a person, he's also a seeming contradiction--preppy and crunchy at the same time. At a recent opening of a documentary about his and Braungart's work, The Next Industrial Revolution, McDonough ascended the stage at New York's Guggenheim Museum like a Zen master in a bow tie, staring in silence at the crowd for several minutes before speaking. When he does speak, his sentences often sound like haikus. "What do you want to grow?" asks McDonough. "Health or sickness? Stupidity or intelligence? Do you want to love children for all time or destroy them?"

For years, many environmentalists thought the answer to that question was to restrain growth by scolding people about their wasteful ways. But even as they did so, it seemed as if SUVs and subdivisions just kept proliferating. If McDonough is right, conspicuous consumption may even one day turn out to be politically correct.

By Michelle Conlin and Paul Raeburn in New York
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_14/b3777086.htm

Humanitarian Design

2010-09-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

Humanitarian Design or Neocolonialism?
BY: FAST COMPANY STAFF, October 1, 2010

"Fast Company's Bruce Nussbaum raised some controversial questions in a trio of posts -- and readers had a lot to say. We sample the debate.

A few months ago, I went to hear a talk by Idiom Design, one of India's top design consultancies. At the end of a great presentation, a twentysomething woman from the Acumen Fund rushed to the front and said in the proudest, most optimistic, breathless way that Acumen was teaming up with Ideo and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to design better ways of delivering safe drinking water to Indian villagers. To my surprise -- and hers -- Indian businessman Kishore Biyani, the key investor in Idiom, complained that there was a better, Indian way of solving the problem.

So what's going on? Is the new humanitarian design coming out of the U.S. and Europe perceived as colonialism? Are American and European designers presuming too much in their attempts to do good?

I remember the contretemps over One Laptop Per Child, an incredibly ambitious project sponsored by good guys -- the MIT Media Lab, Pentagram, Continuum, and Fuseproject. Yet OLPC failed in its initial plan to drop millions of inexpensive computers into villages, hook kids directly to the Web, and, in effect, get them to educate themselves. The Indian establishment locked out OLPC precisely because it perceived the effort as inappropriate technological colonialism that cut out those responsible for education in the country: policymakers, teachers, curriculum builders, parents.

Young designers want to do humanitarian design globally. But now that the movement is gathering speed, we should take a moment to ask whether American and European designers are collaborating with the right partners, learning from the best local people, and being as sensitive as they might to the colonial legacies of these countries. Might Indian, Brazilian, and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers?

And finally, why are we doing humanitarian design only in Asia and Africa and not on Native American reservations or in rural areas of the U.S., where standards of education, water, and health match the very worst overseas?

People are doing humanitarian design on Native American reservations in the United States. Heather Fleming and Tyler Valiquette of Catapult Design, for example, are doing phenomenal work with the Navajo Nation.

Sarah Rich | Board Member | Project H

As a Pakistani (currently residing in Canada), I can tell you that the efforts of gen-Y American and European do-gooders are overshadowed by actions of corporations, the military, and politicians of the same nations. To most Asians and Africans, it seems like the Westerners cause destruction at the same time some of them come bearing gifts.

Abdullah Ahmed | Co-owner | Steam Walker

I'm a Brazilian designer working in Europe for a North American design consultancy. If I was going to be really sensitive about this, I'd say any discussion that puts together Indian, Brazilian, and African designers is infused by imperialistic language. India is a country with more than 20 different languages; Brazil is a Western country colonized by European nations with African and Middle Eastern immigrants; and Africa has so many unique problems that it is almost impossible to compare it with anything else.

Fabricio Dore | Designer | Ideo

Post Two

My questions about sensitivity to culture and local elites are based on having seen Asian designers, businesspeople, and officials reacting negatively at conferences to what they perceived as Western intrusion. The question for a Western designer is how to react.

I first learned about the unintended consequences of good intentions as a reading tutor for a Head Start program when I was in high school in the '60s. My supervisor said that some parents and community groups opposed Head Start because it undermined "black English," and, in effect, African-American culture. Later, I heard that some Hispanic community groups on the West Coast felt the same way. In recent years, I have heard that some Native American organizations opposed Head Start too. Do I think we should have ended Head Start? Not at all. But acknowledging and engaging the historic legacy might have improved the programs and helped more kids.

I was surprised again when I taught third-grade science to kids in the Philippines as a Peace Corps volunteer. Indirectly, I heard that some teachers were angry with me. Why was a 20-year-old American with a couple of months' training teaching Filipino children when there were more experienced Filipino teachers available? The real problem was not bad teachers, but politics. You needed good political connections to move ahead, and many young teachers didn't have them. I began using my power as the "outside American" to help advance good Filipino science teachers.

I discovered yet another example of unintended consequences three years ago, at a design conference in India where I got an earful on how anti-Indian One Laptop Per Child was. The intellectuals, designers, businesspeople, and government officials at that meeting didn't think [MIT Media Lab cofounder] Seymour Papert's work applied to India's rural-village culture. As a consequence, few OLPC screens can be found in India (or China) today. Is that a tragedy? Perhaps.

I don't know how to scale the significance of such negative reactions to humanitarian design. I do know that as a journalist, educator, and fellow-traveling humanitarian designer, I am sensitive to what happens on the periphery. It may be that we should ignore those voices of protest -- after all, what are they doing for the poor in their own countries? But we should be aware that they are saying something that should influence our work.

Bruce Nussbaum's overgeneralization of the recent revival of the humanitarian-design movement floats somewhere between misguided and ridiculous. Picking just four recent projects we've been working on, the folks involved in the building process are from South Africa, Romania, Germany, Brazil, Colombia, the Navajo community, Kenya, Uganda, and the U.S. Let's not fall into the trap of who's best and who's not when we have BP filling our oceans with oil, large hidden corporations taking major reconstruction contracts, and poor government policy forcing inadequate housing to remain the status quo. If you want to take on an imperialist empire, you're going to have to shoot a little higher than pro bono designers. Admiral Ackbar, it's a trap!

Cameron Sinclair | Cofounder and Chief Eternal Optimist |Architecture for Humanity | cameronsinclair.com

I would not mind involvement of designers from anywhere so long as they come with an open mind, share their learning with/from grassroots learners, and give credit where it is due. The problem arises when some so-called do-gooders raise huge funds, pay fat salaries, and use the partnership with local communities to legitimize their greed.

Anil Gupta | Professor |Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

In the Peace Corps in Botswana, I learned how to carry water on my head and noticed how heavy the bucket was. I learned how to pound sorghum into flour and felt the ache in my back. As a designer, I came to understand the importance of technologies that can transport water or grind grain. A new generation of designers has learned that "parachuted" solutions don't work. Many of the best products out there are developed in close partnership with the communities that need them. Along the way, the capacity of these communities is built up, as merchants expand their stock, farmers are trained in maintenance and installation, and produce yields are increased.

Does do-gooder design amount to cultural colonialism? I believe the answer is yes and no. Yes, because if OLPC moves ahead after failing to properly research the needs of the market, one must question the motives behind those forces brought to bear upon this project. No, because we can't fault the young, naive, and plain ol' quixotic for going out there and trying to do good. But this does not mean that their motives are not rooted in a certain hubris.

T.J. Thomas | Principal | Studio Murmur

C.K. Prahalad [author of The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid] suggested that there was tremendous opportunity to develop products and services for the world's lowest income earners that would fulfill unmet needs. These consumers at the bottom of the pyramid are also producers, so some of the most beneficial humanitarian designs focus on improving customer productivity.

Lars Hasselblad Torres | Administrator | MIT IDEASGlobal Challenge | mitpsc.mit.edu/globalchallenge

Post Three

Should the Americans and Europeans who do humanitarian design care if they are perceived as neo-imperialists by the elites in whose countries they are working? This gets to the heart of a key issue for many designers who are trying to help the poor in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. When you're far from home, in other people's cultures, whom should you listen to? Whom should you respect, and when should you speak truth to power?

Let's take a clear example where the locals may be the bad guys. CNBC World ran a piece on the Acumen Fund's work helping small-scale merchants in Nairobi's Toi Market get financing. Acumen, working with local microfinance institution Jamii Bora, persuaded banks to come up with capital for these merchants. It was a big undertaking that helped many people raise their standards of living.

Then a contested presidential election led to ethnic rioting. The Toi Market was burned down by thugs of one ethnic group, who killed dozens of people. Acumen then had to decide whether to recapitalize the merchants. It did. Even more important, Jamii Bora integrated the thugs into the market community by financing their efforts to build houses and start businesses. Now the ethnic groups are working together to build a better future -- thanks to Acumen and Jamii Bora.

But what do you do when the locals are good guys who simply don't want you in their country for historic reasons? What do you do if they are highly educated, speak your language, go to the same conferences, belong to the same "global elite culture," and still don't want you proposing solutions to their country's problems -- just because? Do you ignore them, work around them, argue that your mission is of a higher order than nationalism? Do you ask what they are doing to help the poor in their country?

And finally, what do you do when those local elites who question your presence are design elites -- just like you?

If the local elites have issues with outsiders providing solutions to their impoverished, then let them create innovative designs that are cheaper and more efficient than the ones that the Westerners are coming up with. The end goal is to help, and if they think they can do it better, then let's see it.

Todd Warren Qualitative Intern | Mindwave Research

So is it imperialism? The answer is yes, whether we like it or not. It is imperialism because there is a not-so-subtle imposition of an ideological stance that "design can save the world," a claim that really isn't all that robust in the first place. If design really wants to change the world, then design must figure out how to give these people real political power. Until then, it's some very expensive Band-Aids. These are not hammer-and-nail problems. They are political-influence problems. Ignore these questions at your peril. They persist, whether your recycled-materials playground is a success or not.

Gong Szeto | Blogger |rhetoricandheretics.com

What do you do when the local elites don't want you proposing solutions to their country's problems? To me the answer is simple: Bypass the elite roadblock and go directly to the "consumers" who have the problem. Listen to their needs and design a low-cost solution. If the item designed is successful, the elites tend to jump on board. A beautiful example of this method would be the treadle pump, which is now used by millions of people in Asia.

Paul Ruben Polak | Founder | International Development Enterprises and D-Rev: Design for the Other 90%

Designers often think that since they are in a profession based on empathy, it comes automatically, and so they fail to spend time understanding the people and context they work in. This is not limited to an East-West, North-South debate. It happens all too often with us in the emerging markets as well, where our urban-educated lenses blind us to what happens on the ground.

Jacob Mathew Cofounder | Idiom Design and Consulting

Jacob Mathew hit the nail on the head when he exhorts designers not just to listen to the people they work with, but to live and collaborate with them. It's like an extreme form of team building: Learning to work with absolute strangers is effective only when you take the time to understand where they are coming from -- a LOT of time. If you really believe in your cause, then you must be able to discard your own preconceptions. These are both hard things to do as an outsider. They aren't easy to do for "local design elites" either. But people manage to do it, and shining examples of persevering designers are many in India.

Avinash Rajagopal | Blogger | littledesignbook.wordpress.com
http://bit.ly/cAd6hh

Resources

2010-09-28T13:52:00.000-07:00

Resources: The Revolution Begins
BY: CHIP GILLER AND DAVID ROBERTSMarch 1, 2006
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/103/essay-resources.html

Let's talk about your butt--specifically, what it's sitting on.

Chances are, your chair is an unholy medley of polyvinyl chloride and hazardous chemicals that drift into your lungs each time you shift your weight. It was likely produced in a fossil-fuel-swilling factory that in turn spews toxic pollution and effluents. And it's ultimately destined for a landfill or incinerator, where it will emit carcinogenic dioxins and endocrine-disrupting phthalates, the kind of hormone-mimicking nasties that give male fish female genitalia and small children cancer (or is it the other way around?). Now, envision what you might be sitting on in 2016. Actually, never mind: Office-furniture outfit Haworth already built it. It's called the Zody, and it's made without PVC, CFCs, chrome, or any other toxic fixin's. Ninety-eight percent of it can be recycled; some 50% of it already has been. The energy used in the manufacturing process is completely offset by wind-power credits, and when the chair is ready to retire, the company will take it off your hands and reuse its components.

Unsurprisingly, Haworth is motivated by more than woodsy altruism. "Haworth fundamentally believes that by being sustainable, you can be more profitable," says its president and CEO, Franco Bianchi. The lumbar-pampering chair isn't cheap to produce--nor, at $700 to $1,100 each, particularly cheap to buy--but the company believes there's money to be made at the sweet spot where quality meets environmental consciousness.

In isolation, the story of the Zody is a font of warm fuzzies. But if the world is to avoid ecological catastrophe over the coming decade (Sorry, did we say "ecological catastrophe"? We meant "multiple, overlapping, mutually reinforcing ecological catastrophes"), it's going to require more than benign furnishings. What we need is nothing less than another industrial revolution--a wholesale conversion of the familiar model of brute-force resource- and waste-intensive industry to a model that mimics nature in its fecundity, flexibility, and efficiency. And quickly, please.

That Sinking Feeling

Last year, more than 100 citizens of the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu permanently fled their seaside village because a succession of strong waves and storms threatened to swallow it up. These unlucky folks and their counterparts on other low-lying islands and buckling shorelines are involuntary trendsetters, the world's first climate-change refugees. And according to the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University, they may be joined by as many as 50 million other environmental refugees by 2010.

If you're under 40, experts say, you're likely to see the end of cheap crude oil in your lifetime.

The same fossil-fuel addiction that drives climate chaos also fouls the air and dangerously distorts foreign policy. And things are only going to get messier: Experts differ on exactly when we're going to run out of cheap crude, but the consensus is that if you're under 40 (and particulate pollution doesn't kill you early), you're likely to see it in your lifetime.

In the meantime, billions more people will be lining up for whatever's left. By 2050, the global population is expected to hit 9.2 billion, up from today's 6.5 billion. That means the world is adding a Dallas a week, and some of the fastest-growing spots on the planet--think China and India--are those most rapidly upping their per-capita demand for natural resources. We're razing rainforests, wiping out thousands of species, slurping up a dwindling supply of fresh water, and contaminating virtually every living creature with a witches' brew of more than 70,000 synthetic chemicals. In fact, because toxic chemicals tend to drift northward and accumulate in Arctic food chains, the breast milk of some mothers in Greenland now technically qualifies as hazardous waste.

Sound grim? Don't just sit there crying into your phthalates. There are options--choose one!

The first option is an old standby: doing nothing. Resource wars will break out, environmental refugees will swarm the globe, people--mostly poor people--will starve from drought and be wiped out by intense storms. The world's rich will survive and probably prosper (they tend to), but wealth disparities will skyrocket, presumably at a significant cost to global political stability.

A second option: Educate the world's population to the point of enlightenment so we all accept that we can live with much less, materially speaking. The rich get poor, the poor stay poor--voluntary simplicity, worldwide. Ahem.

Let's talk about the third option, then: the next industrial revolution.

Reuse, Recycle, Rejoice

For decades, environmentalists have scolded the world's industrialized societies, warning that they must grow less, consume less, slow down, sacrifice. Human nature being what it is, that message found a rather modest audience.

But a group of big thinkers has emerged in the past decade to put a new twist on the green dream--people like William McDonough, Michael Braungart, Amory Lovins, Janine Benyus, and Paul Hawken. Rather than taking ecological principles primarily as moral prohibitions, they suggest, why not see them as design challenges? Why not aim to build a democratic, market-based civilization of prosperity and plenty that puts humanity in a nurturing, rather than omnivorous, relationship with the ecosystems it inhabits? Far from utopian, they say, it's largely achievable in the next decade or so--and would ultimately cost far less than our present trajectory.

Architect McDonough and chemist Braungart, authors of the landmark book Cradle to Cradle, contend that every material used in the manufacturing process should ultimately either biodegrade harmlessly or be reusable with no loss of quality (unlike today's recycling, which is actually downcycling). This radical model entirely eliminates the concept of waste, including pollution; or, as they put it in their book: Waste equals food.

Lovins, a sustainable-energy expert and head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a green think tank and consulting firm, is similarly fixated on eliminating waste--especially wasted energy. He estimates that preventable energy loss costs the global economy more than $1 trillion a year and argues that efficiency is the most affordable energy source in the United States. In a 2004 book, Winning the Oil Endgame (partly funded by the Pentagon), Lovins and his RMI crew lay out a market-centric strategy for weaning the United States off oil over the next couple of decades through efficiency efforts and the strategic use of existing technology. Net savings to the U.S. economy: $70 billion a year by 2025.

Green Is Green

Lofty and appealing ideas, these, but what's actually happening on the ground?

To begin with perhaps the most ambitious example: As part of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development, McDonough's architectural firm is designing and overseeing construction of entire city districts in China. Some 400 million rural Chinese are expected to migrate to cities over the coming decade, and the government wants urban centers to absorb the influx with minimal ecological impact. The goal is to create dense urban areas that generate more power than they consume through smart building techniques and solar technology--a high-profile demonstration of cradle-to-cradle principles, if it actually happens.

To date, though, McDonough has made more concrete progress with corporate clients, including BASF, Nike, PepsiCo, and Ford Motor Co., which famously commissioned the architect to oversee a top-to-bottom overhaul of its historic River Rouge plant in Dearborn, Michigan.

The past few months have seen blue-chip companies tripping over themselves to go green.

In fact, the past few months have seen blue-chip companies tripping over themselves to go green. General Electric vowed to improve the energy efficiency of its operations by 4% a year and double its revenues from relatively clean products to $20 billion by 2010. Wal-Mart, which has contracted with Lovins and RMI for advice, has unveiled plans to double the fuel efficiency of its new trucks, cut greenhouse-gas emissions from existing stores by 20%, and develop a model green store. Energy giant BP just unveiled a new alternative-energy division, which it says could produce $6 billion in annual revenue by 2015.

Whole Foods announced in January that it would buy enough wind-power credits to offset energy use at all of its U.S. stores, and Starbucks, which said in 2005 that it would buy wind energy to meet 20% of electricity needs at its U.S. stores, is this year adding 10% postconsumer recycled content to its ubiquitous paper cups. That should cut the need for new tree fiber by more than 5 million pounds a year, the company says. Even McDonald's is shooting to get its first green-building certification for a restaurant in Savannah, Georgia.

These heavyweight corporations don't need a windmill to see which way the wind blows. And their sheer size means that even tentative, incremental efforts have the potential to move markets. But the most ambitious, inventive ideas are bubbling out of more agile, adaptable small and midsize companies.

Take outdoor-clothing maker Patagonia. Ten years ago, it led the pack in switching to 100% organic cotton; now it's asking folks to return their old Capilene underwear (yes, they'd like you to wash it) to be recycled into new garments.

In a similar vein, Hartmann & Forbes, which makes handwoven window coverings from sustainably grown grasses and bamboo, just launched a program to take them back at the end of their useful lives. Q Collection, an upscale furniture maker, outflanks competitors by eschewing formaldehyde, polyurethane, and flame retardants. GDiapers are made of reusable cloth with flushable, compostable inserts. IceStone is a glossy countertop material of recycled glass and concrete.

Perhaps no other area is seeing as great a flurry of development as clean energy. Solar cells are shrinking, wind turbines are getting more efficient, and hydrokinetic energy--from the natural movement of water--is being tapped as never before. Energy company Energetech, for example, is teaming up with desalination company H2AU to develop technology that harnesses wave power and uses it to make ocean water drinkable. A prototype in the waters off of Port Kembla, Australia, last year beat expectations; a full-scale version could power 1,400 homes a year, at a competitive cost, or produce 260 million gallons of potable water--with zero emissions.

There are thousands of others, small firms and startups creating nontoxic, modular, recyclable products; modeling more efficient production; reducing their pollution. As in any new wave of innovation, many--perhaps most--of these companies will fail, but each will add to the expanding store of practical wisdom.

Flushable diapers and fancy chairs notwithstanding, we will never recover the thousands of species lost, the old-growth forests and Appalachian mountaintops leveled, or the lives cut short by poisons and pollution. There is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to guarantee at least some climatic disruption.

The real engine of environmental progress will turn out to be not government action but imagination and entrepreneurial spirit.

The European Union and U.S. states and cities are picking up some of the legislative and regulatory slack, but at the national level here, action to address these problems has been anemic at best and counterproductive at worst--a collective failure of will that could come back to haunt us. But if McDonough and company are right, the real engine of environmental progress will turn out to be not government action but the imagination and entrepreneurial spirit of thousands of market-savvy, environmentally minded innovators.

As GE CEO and newly minted eco-evangelist Jeffrey Immelt is fond of saying, "Green is green."

Chip Giller is founder and editor of Grist.org, an online environmental magazine. David Roberts is a Grist.org senior writer.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/103/essay-resources.html

Few. . . "are interested in designing at the nexus of racial tension, bureaucratic apathy, confused residents, limited funding, and shoddy infrastructure (yet). . . when you give people good things, good things will come."
~Walter Hood

This Land is Your Land
BY: DAN MACSAI
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/149/this-land-is-your-land.html

The daffodils sprouting from raised beds, the bikers speeding down smoothly paved pathways, the metal bollards lining the promenade along Oakland's shimmering Lake Merritt -- all of it just pisses Walter Hood off. "Everything seems like it's dropped out of nowhere," the landscape designer says, pointing out the offenses. The newly renovated lakefront looks pleasant, much in the way most American public spaces -- downtown plazas, suburban libraries, neighborhood playgrounds -- look pleasant. "It's like, okay, we'll put in the grasses and the rocks and let's do the stupid green roof over a garbage-compactor thing," he continues. "That's the playbook of landscape architecture. But this is the centerpiece of our community. It should add up and become something larger."

Hood, obviously, did not design the park around Lake Merritt. To see what "something larger" means to him, you have to go to Lafayette Square Park, about a mile away in a poorer, less verdant part of town, where local kids play catch on a grassy, artificial hill that Hood created to echo the domed observatory it displaced. Or to the towering De Young Museum, in San Francisco, where eucalyptus appear to blossom inside the building, thanks to a series of slits in the walls. ("It feels like we're outside," one visitor remarked while peering at the flora.) Or to any of the half-dozen cities across America -- including Pittsburgh; Buffalo; Jackson, Wyoming -- where Hood is now transforming street corners and highway underpasses into public spaces that are relevant, even meaningful, to the communities they serve: black and white and brown, rich and middle class and poor. "We invest very little in the public realm, and that's sad," he says. "Because when you give people good things, good things will come."

A designer who tackles the mundane things of this world may not seem revolutionary at a time when Michael Graves is making teapots for Target, but in landscape architecture, Hood is very much breaking new ground. For decades, modernists such as George Hargreaves, Michael Van Valkenburgh, and Peter Walker -- all white, all Harvard educated -- reigned over the profession with their clean-cut office parks and pristine college campuses, much in the vein of Lake Merritt. "Then Walter came of age, and nobody knew what to do with him," says Charles Waldheim, chair of Harvard's department of landscape architecture. "He was finding value and producing meaning in places that seemingly had none."

Before Hood started designing Splash Pad Park in 1999, for example, it was a deserted traffic island under Oakland's I-580 freeway. "Some people wanted it to be a dog park, others wanted an underground creek, and a few wanted something completely different," says longtime Oakland resident Ken Katz, 67. Today, it's all of the above -- and then some. Cement tiles blanket the apron in front of an amoeba-shaped fountain, engraved with the names of the donors who made the installation possible. Grassy knolls are dotted with palm trees from the original island, as well as newly planted dogwood, a water-hungry plant that thrives off the underlying swampland. "It's a hybrid space," Hood says. "Everyone can find a way in." And they do. Every Saturday, the park hosts a massively popular farmers' market and concert series.

This is public space as Hood believes it should be: multitasking, respectful of the land, rooted in -- and watered by -- the community. "Think about the history of civilization," Hood tells me, as if I'm one of his architecture students at UC Berkeley. "The agora, the piazza, the theater, the street, the Colosseum -- we define ourselves in the public realm. And in America, our public realm is sad. We have to be told how to act." He deepens his voice. "Sit here, look there, understand this, don't walk here, don't do that. It's crazy."

Take the Oakland Museum gardens, designed by Dan Kiley, which are similar to many parks in that the grassy areas are surrounded by railings or raised concrete edges. "You can never get in them. They're always at an edge," Hood says, criticizing a "functionless aesthetic" that is "just about moving people" past green spaces, not into them. "I can never be in the garden, only on the concrete," he says.

Contrast that with Lafayette Square Park, where a semicircular wedge slopes upward from the walkway, inviting patrons onto its grassy surface. And while Hood does use these kinds of formal elements to affect the human experience, he tries to leave the rest up to the public. "I would rather design for a place that gets worn and messy than try to keep something in a pristine state that doesn't seem lived in," Hood says. Outside the De Young, we notice a museum employee on his back, napping in the middle of a large grass triangle, without anyone (or anything) telling him to keep off. "What a great picture," Hood says, smiling as he snaps one with his iPhone.

It's the ultimate validation -- a use of the space that he always intended yet never planned.

"Being a person of color," Hood says, "people tend to look at what I do, because it's outside the norm, and make special allowances." His voice changes pitch as he mocks those who pigeonhole him: " 'Oh, that's just Walter. He does the art thing, he does the inner-city thing, he does the community thing.' "

The thing is, all of that is true. Hood, 52, grew up during desegregation in Charlotte, North Carolina, and has spent more than 20 years living and working in the heart of Oakland, so he does feel a strong connection to the black community. "You'd have to be pretty dense not to have that experience affect you," he says of his childhood. He has chosen to work almost exclusively in the public realm -- no expensive condo buildings, no corporate complexes. And he has focused his work almost entirely on urban environments.

This is by choice. Hood would love to create art for art's sake -- to, as he puts it, "live on a hill in Italy, with a beautiful cantina and a nice frickin' easel and paints, and just chill." And he's talented enough that he could cash in on corporate gigs and enjoy a cushier life: His long list of accolades includes a Rome Prize and a National Design Award. But he believes he can and should do more. Besides, few others are interested in designing at the nexus of racial tension, bureaucratic apathy, confused residents, limited funding, and shoddy infrastructure.

Hood's success has come largely because he has learned to be a community whisperer, creating spaces that have elements the residents want before they even know it. "Nine times out of 10, the thing they are asking for isn't really what they want," he says, "because they're basing everything on a very particular worldview. It's my job to elevate our conversation, knowing that they're thinking like this" -- he brings his hands together -- "and I'm thinking like this" -- he spreads them apart.

The night before our tour of the Bay Area, Hood was in L.A., meeting with residents of its mostly black, middle-class Crenshaw district about the forthcoming arrival of light rail in the area. He had planned to discuss how to make the various stations more historically significant. Instead, he found himself fielding angry questions about the installation itself, because the city-hired consultants hadn't bothered to explain exactly what light rail was and how it would be built. "These people thought it was going to be just as intrusive as the freeway, because that's all they knew," he tells me, shaking his head.

Had Hood been involved from the start, he would have bussed the Crenshaw residents to San Diego, so they could see an existing system firsthand. Educating the users of his spaces and developing a dialogue with them is part of his process. For instance, in 2006, he took a group from Coliseum Gardens in southern Oakland to two creek-front parks, one a woodsy space in Berkeley and the other a more urban setting in San Jose. He expected his focus group to prefer the Berkeley site, because it was lusher and more stereotypically parklike. But they liked the one that was harder, more developed, deeming the woods "scary," to use Hood's word. "I could do my own thing," he says, "but it wouldn't be as interesting as listening to the people."

Last year, Hood was commissioned to revitalize public spaces in Pittsburgh's historically black Hill District. As soon as he got the twin gigs -- the Garden Passage, a walkway with an art installation at the city's civic arena, and a neighborhood-wide plan called the Green Print -- he hosted a barbecue and did walking tours to get a sense of the community. There were issues aplenty: rising vacancy rates, diminishing foot traffic in stores, long-standing resentment of the new civic arena (its predecessor had displaced local housing in the late '50s), and apathy among residents that stemmed, Hood says, from the belief that they live in a "derelict" community. "Except they don't," he continues. "Ecologically, these communities are the same as the suburbs. They're just suffering from neglect."

With help from a local not-for-profit, Hood collected thousands of color photographs from Hill District residents. When construction begins on the $1.5 million Garden Passage next spring, those images will be embedded in giant glass "curtains" adorning the four terraces along the steps. Hood used a similar technique with historical photos at the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Memorial in San Francisco. "The idea," he says, "is that the community that once existed in this place is brought back through another set of layers, like a great performer taking a final bow." Hence the name of the Pittsburgh piece: Curtain Call.

Hood is putting a greater emphasis on green space, too. He affectionately and euphemistically calls the Hill District "a village in the woods," but he hopes to blur the line between the village part and the woods part with, among other things, a clever deployment of flora. He's also turning the streets and corners of several major avenues into vibrant destinations, instead of mere passageways, by adding more seating and lighting. "These corners and streets are vital gathering places," says resident Celita Hickman, 48. By letting people be where they already want to be and do what they already want to do, Hood hopes to reinvigorate the corridors -- and the businesses that line them.

That Hood has not only this vision but also a notion for how to bring it to life "impressed the stew out of me," Hickman says. "He didn't get quite a blank canvas, but he really did embellish. He's a master of that. Seeing things that we don't see. Bringing out something that's already existing and beautiful, and enhancing it."

Hood is more direct, and his explanation of what he is doing summarizes his life's work well. "People were asking me the other day, 'So when is the Green Print gonna start being implemented?' " he says, flashing a grin. "The beauty of this project is it's already there. We just have to dust off the bookshelf and put the stuff back."
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/149/this-land-is-your-land.html

Mary Parker Follett

2010-09-23T18:44:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts from and about an amazing woman, Mary Parker Follett (management consultant, social worker), whose work inspired Peter Drucker and serves as one of many beacons that guide us here at Green Future as we move forward with the IGF project.

Mary Parker Follett Quotes
By Jone Johnson Lewis, About.com Guide

"To free the energies of the human spirit is the high potentiality of all human association."
~Mary Parker Follett

"It seems to me that whereas power usually means power-over, the power of some person or group over some other person or group, it is possible to develop the conception of power-with, a jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power."
~Mary Parker Follett

Every difference that is swept up into a bigger conception feeds and enriches society; every difference which is ignored feeds on society and eventually corrupts it."
~Mary Parker Follett

"This is the problem in business administration: how can a business be so organized that workers, managers, owners feel a collective responsibility?"
~Mary Parker Follett

"We should never allow ourselves to be bullied by "either-or." There is often the possibility of something better than either of two given alternatives."
~Mary Parker Follett

We must remember that most people are not for or against anything; the first object of getting people together is to make them respond somehow, to overcome inertia.
~Mary Parker Follett

Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933)

Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) was a visionary and pioneering individual in the field of human relations, democratic organization, and management. Born in Massachusetts, in 1892 she entered what would become Radcliffe College, the women's branch of Harvard. She graduated from Radcliffe summa cum laude in 1898. Follett's intensive research into government while at Radcliffe was later published in her first book, The Speaker of the House of Representatives (1909), which was lauded (by, among others, Theodore Roosevelt) as the best study of this office of government ever done.

From 1900 to 1908, Follett devoted herself to social work in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston. In 1908 she became chairperson of the Women's Municipal League's Committee on Extended Use of School Buildings, and in 1911 she helped open the East Boston High School Social Center. She was instrumental in the formation of many other social centers throughout Boston. Her experience in this area helped to transform her view of democracy. Follett later served as a member of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Board, and in 1917 she became vice-president of the National Community Center Association. By this time, however, she had turned most of her attention to writing for a wider public regarding what the social centers had taught her about democracy. In 1918 she published her second book, The New State, which is concerned with the human nature of government, democracy, and the role of local community.

In 1924, Follett published her third book, Creative Experience. This work addresses more directly the creative interaction of people through an on-going process of circular response. From this point until her death in 1933, Follett found her most enthusiastic audience in the world of business. Admiration and respect for her work grew on both sides of the Atlantic, and she became a leading management consultant. (Peter Drucker, who discovered Follett's work in the 1950's, is said to have referred to Follett as his "guru.") Her various papers and speeches in this context were published in 1942 by Henry Metcalf and Lionel Urwick in a book called Dynamic Administration. Another celebration of her work in this context is Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management, which was edited by Pauline Graham and published in 1995. In 1998, The New State was re-issued by Penn State Press, with a preface by Benjamin Barber. A biography of Follett, written by Joan Tonn, a professor at the College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston, is expected to be published next year.

Follett is increasingly recognized today as the originator, at least in the 20th century, of ideas that are today commonly accepted as "cutting edge" in organizational theory and public administration. These include the idea of seeking "win-win" solutions, community-based solutions, strength in human diversity, situational leadership, and a focus on process. However, just as her ideas were advanced for her own time, and advanced when people wrote about them decades after her death, they remain too often unrealized. We recognize them as an inspirational and guiding ideal for us today, at the beginning of the 21st century. It is the intention and the design of the Foundation's programs to continue the effort to bridge ideal and practice in a continuous process that gives rise to true freedom.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/follett.htm

Solar for All?

2010-09-23T13:30:00.000-07:00

Poor Families Can Go Solar Too, In California At Least
by Zachary Shahan September 23, 2010
Clean Technica

"Sustainability" is often thought of as an environmental buzz word, but when you delve into actual sustainability theory, you quickly find the idea that it's really about a proper balance between environmental needs, economic needs, and social equity. A program in San Diego I just found out about looks like it nails this balance.

The program is called MASH, or Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing, and it is using $108 million—a small portion of the $3.2 billion California Solar Initiative—to help put solar panels on low-income homes.

The MASH program's first solar installation was recently completed on Hacienda Townhomes, an affordable downtown housing complex owned and managed by the San Diego Community Housing Corporation. Some residents living there earn only $27,500 a year for a family of four.

This one project's environmental and economic benefits are substantial. The Hacienda Townhomes installation of 96 photovoltaic panels will create 34,726 kilowatt-hours of energy, cut electricity bills and, over 25 years, reduce CO2 emissions by 595 tons, "the equivalent of planting 23,812 trees or driving a small car over 2 million miles." The project created 5 temporary jobs and "justified" 3 permanent jobs.

Up to this point, the California Solar Initiative (CSI) has been taken advantage of primarily by wealthy California residents and has been criticized by those concerned about social equity. In reference to Governor Schwarzenegger's goal of creating 1 million solar homes in California, Mindy Spatt of the Utility Reform Network, a California consumer groups, said that CSI is more like "1 million solar homes for millionaires." MASH helps to address that issue. (Though, it seems to me that the portion of that CSI pie going towards MASH should be a little larger. As it is now, subtracting Hacienda Townhomes' 52 low-income units, that's 999,948 homes for millionaires.)

While solar for the rich may be more viable, the financial savings of solar for the poor are far more meaningful.

Omega Hatch, 23, is one of the residents of Hacienda Townhomes that has benefited from the new solar panels—she saw her August electricity bill fall from an average of $90 to $56. And she is extremely grateful for that. "Thank God," she told Greenwire, "because I could use the money elsewhere. I have a 7-year-old, he's about to go back to school. Any penny helps me get what I need to do for him."

In addition to this being a great boon for the low-income families that live in Hacienda Townhomes, it also happened to be the 10,000th solar installation in the San Diego Gas & Electric service area. Go San Diego!

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks we should have more such programs helping those most in need cut their electricity bills, clean their environments, and protect the global climate (I hope not). If you think a program like MASH should be implemented nationwide, don't forget to let your representatives in government know by signing the petition on the Clean Technica website.

Let's Hear It for the Little Guys

2010-09-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

Do Something: Let's Hear It for the Little Guys
BY: NANCY LUBLIN
April 1, 2010
Fast Company Magazine

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/144/do-something-lets-hear-it-forthe-little-guys.html

We're obsessed with leadership. Bookstores have entire sections devoted to leadership. Corporations spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on leadership retreats. At some universities, you can even major in leadership. Venture-capital money flows like water into the hands of founders who are labeled "visionary" and "at the vanguard." And what's sexier these days than the words "I started my own blah blah blah"?

I think we've got it wrong. We've overdone this whole leadership/founder/entrepreneur thing. And we're not spending nearly enough time crediting the folks who turn all that visionary stuff into tangible reality: the chief operating officers, the midlevel managers, the staffers. If the word didn't have a pejorative tinge to it, I guess you'd call them followers.

We degrade the very idea of followers -- lemmings! -- yet the world needs people who can follow intelligently. I am not talking about mindless armies that march in formation and shoot if their leader points down a dark hallway. The key word is "intelligently." Good followers ask good questions. They probe their leaders. They crunch the numbers to ensure that their visionary boss's gorgeous plan actually works. "But I want to be Han Solo," you say. "Who wants to be a follower?!" Exactly! We don't even have a positive iconic image for someone who isn't a leader.

This isn't just semantics. Our leadership obsession has real, unfortunate effects. For instance, there's a totally unevenly sliced pie when it comes to rewards. In wonkier terms, you'd call that a resource-allocation problem: While CEOs represent the smallest part of our labor pyramid, a disproportionate amount of time and money is spent grooming them, charting who's about to join their ranks, and celebrating "their" achievements (hello, fat pay packages!). I'm not saying we should stop honoring people like Wendy Kopp, who founded Teach for America and has led it all these years. But what about Jerry Hauser? Wait, you've never heard of him? For six years, he was the chief operating officer of Teach for America, and he's the guy whom everyone, including Wendy, credits with bringing top-notch management systems to that organization.

We have too many wannabe leaders. This doesn't sound like a bad thing -- the next generation should have dreams and ambitions. But which ones? The drive to start, grow, be in charge of something -- anything! -- has spawned a generation of people hunched over laptops at Starbucks, yearning for that big idea that will make them the next Larry or Sergey. But not everyone can create the Google of the future, and many of those who don't will think they're failures. In fact, they're just chasing the wrong dream. I recently met someone who said, "I'm the guy who makes sure the bills are paid and the numbers make sense, and I like that. I've got no desire to be the CEO." The working world would be a happier place if more of us aspired to roles that were just right -- if we valued job fit and performance at every level and stopped overemphasizing the very top.

Fundamentally, though, mine is not a touchy-feely, "workers of the world unite" argument. The underappreciation of followers has a major bottom-line consequence: crazy redundancy. You can see it in the not-for-profit sector, which has a gazillion little organizations replicating one another. We all want to run our own thing, so not-for-profits never die. As a result, we have huge inefficiency and ridiculous amounts of overlap in the sector. This is wasteful, and this is fundamentally bad business.

Honoring good followers isn't just a nice thing -- it's necessary. It's the sanest, smartest way to run your company, for-profit or not. We have to recognize that your bright ideas -- and mine -- would go nowhere without the doers. Failing to do so will make us collectively poorer, not just in spirit but in money.

Nancy Lublin, the founder of Dress for Success and CEO of DoSomething, is grateful to her team for making her look so good.

Businessman's tour de force: total philanthropy

2010-09-12T14:58:00.000-07:00

"I try to make the poor into capitalists"
~Hal Taussig

Travel company operator gives away $6,000 salary, lives on Social Security

DEBORAH YAO
AP Business Writer

Travel company operator Hal Taussig of Media, Pa., donates all of his company's profits — and his $6,000-a-year salary — to a foundation that loans money to worthy causes.

MEDIA, Pa. — Travel company operator Hal Taussig buys his clothes from thrift shops, resoles his shoes and reads magazines for free at the public library. The 83-year-old founder of Untours also gives away all of his company's profits to help the poor — more than $5 million since 1999. He is content to live on Social Security.

Taussig takes a salary of $6,000 a year from his firm, but doesn't keep it. It goes to a foundation that channels his company's profits to worthy causes in the form of low-interest loans. (About seven years ago, the IRS forced him to take a paycheck, he said, because they thought he was trying to avoid paying taxes by working for free.)

If he has money left at the end of the month in his personal bank account, he donates it. At a time of the year when many people are asked to give to the poor, Taussig provides a model for year-round giving. "I could live a very rich life on very little money. My life is richer than most rich people's lives," said Taussig. "I can really do something for humanity."

A moment of clarity
His decision to give away his wealth stems from a moment of clarity and freedom he felt when he wrote a $20,000 check — all of his money back in the 1980s — to a former landlord to buy the house they were renting. It didn't work out, but the exhilaration of not being encumbered by money stuck with him. "It was kind of an epiphany," he said. "This is where my destiny is. This is what I was meant to be."

He and his wife, Norma, live simply, in a country house in suburban Philadelphia that's nearly a century old, with two bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths. It is neither luxurious nor sparse, but a comfortable home filled with photos and knickknacks with wraparound views of trees and clothes drying on a clothes line. To cut energy use and help the environment, they don't own a dryer.

Norma Taussig uses a wheelchair after suffering a stroke years ago. They have been married for 61 years and have three children, five grandkids and five great-grandchildren.

Taussig said his marriage improved when he and his wife decided in the 1970s to keep separate bank accounts. His wife lives on Social Security and savings from her job as a school district secretary and later as an employee of Untours travel. Her salary never went above $30,000 a year.

Taussig said the house — purchased for $41,000 in 1986 and owned by his wife — is paid for and so is her 12-year-old Toyota Corolla. Taussig has his bike for transportation, which he faithfully rides to and from work every day, three miles round trip.

Quality of life vs. standard of living
He calls consumerism a "social evil" and "corrupting to our humanity" because of what he said is the false notion that having more things leads to a richer life. "Quality of life is not the same as standard of living," he said. "I couldn't afford (to buy) a car but I learned it's more fun and better for your health to ride a bike. I felt I was raising my quality of life while lowering my standard of living."

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, met Taussig through a network of social-minded businesses and describes him as "a humble guy — not your typical CEO."

While big corporations give away more money than Taussig, Cohen said, the donation could be "one-half of 1 percent of profits while Hal gave away $5 million and that's 100 percent of his profits."

In 1999, Untours won the $250,000 Newman's Own/George Award for corporate philanthropy, given by actor Paul Newman and the late John F. Kennedy Jr., publisher of the now-defunct George magazine. The awards event was held in New York City but Taussig balked at paying the city's high hotel prices. He stayed at a youth hostel while he donated the quarter-million-dollar award to his foundation.

A hostel reaction
Kennedy's reaction to his hostel stay? "He stared at me blankly," Taussig said. The Untours Foundation loans money to groups or businesses at around the inflation rate. The current loan rate is 3.7 percent. The foundation's tax filing shows total assets of $1.8 million in 2005, the latest record available, of which $1.6 million went to 38 groups or firms. Hal Taussig is the president, and his wife is the vice president. They don't get salaries.

"I try to make the poor into capitalists," Taussig said. "They should be self-sustaining. You give them money and they run out and you have to give more. But if you give them a way to make a living, it's like teaching them how to fish rather than giving them fish."

Equal Exchange, a cooperative that buys mainly coffee, tea and cocoa from farmers around the world at "fair trade" prices and conditions, has received $70,000 from Untours. Untours bought preferred shares of the cooperative and gets paid a 5 percent annual dividend, which is put back into the foundation.

Equal Exchange buys crops of poor farmers, such as those growing coffee in the Piuran mountains of Peru, at prices above market rates, said Alistair Williamson, investment coordinator for Equal Exchange in West Bridgewater, Mass. The coffee is roasted and distributed by the co-op.

"Somewhere on the hillsides of Peru, families are inching their way out of desperate, desperate poverty," Williamson said. He said the for-profit co-op's message reflects that of social-minded businesses like Untours: "You can make a buck, and you can be decent."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21978819/

New Earth Pioneers

2010-08-25T06:31:00.000-07:00

New Earth Pioneers Global Eco Village Network
A focal point for those interested in eco villages, self sustainable communities, permaculture and green products

Eco Villages and Self Sustainable Communities

This project is for those who would like to get involved in or already live in self sufficient intentional communities or an eco village. We aim to provide a global network of intentional communities and eco villages who will send in videos, articles and photographs of what its like living and working on self sustainable communities. Even individual projects are welcome. We hope that the less experienced among us may learn from those in the know by sharing their communities with us in our virtual eco village. Communities can register for free and promote their own projects as they wish.

Risk

2010-08-23T16:07:00.000-07:00

"This nation was built by men who took risks - pioneers who were not afraid of the wilderness, business men who were not afraid of failure, scientists who were not afraid of the truth, thinkers who were not afraid of progress, dreamers who were not afraid of action."
~Brooks Atkinson

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult."
~Seneca

"Do not be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better. What if they are a little course, and you may get your coat soiled or torn? What if you do fail, and get fairly rolled in the dirt once or twice. Up again, you shall never be so afraid of a tumble."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must be first overcome."
~Samuel Johnson, Rasselas, 1759

Innovation's Accidental Enemies

2010-08-23T15:48:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg Businessweek
OUTSIDE SHOT January 14, 2010, 5:00PM EST

Leaders who demand proof that a new idea will work inadvertently stifle innovation. There's a better way to react to brainstorms
By Roger L. Martin and Jennifer Riel

Once upon a time there was a very big bank. Its CEO wanted to better serve its best customers and hired some consultants to tell him what to do.

At the time, the very big bank served its high-net-worth customers at stately private banking offices in downtown branches. The consultants discovered that many of these wealthy customers—lawyers, executives, and partners in big professional services firms—were unattractive customers. They chose plain-vanilla services and were both demanding and price-sensitive.

But the consultants found another high-net-worth segment that was underserved: entrepreneurs and partners from smaller firms. These folks had diverse needs, such as mortgages for their homes and investment properties, and investor agreements for multipartner ventures. But they didn't want to bounce from one banking specialist to another to get a deal done, or drive to a fancy branch filled with high-backed chairs and wood-paneled walls, paid for with their fees. Instead, they wanted integrated, personalized service in their neighborhoods, with no divide between their commercial and personal banking services.

At the final meeting, the consultants presented a strategy built around this new segment. As they wrapped up, the CEO asked: "Have any other big banks done this?" The lead consultant answered brightly, "No, you'd be the first," certain that this would seal the deal.

Not even close. The CEO killed the idea on the spot. And the very big bank's rivals lived happily ever after.

For many companies, innovation is the stuff of fairy tales: fanciful ideas and lurking dangers—all of it unconnected to reality. So it's no surprise that we find it such a struggle. Innovation is killed with the two deadliest words in business: Prove it.

When faced with a new idea, the boardroom impulse is to ask for proof in one of two flavors: deductive and inductive. With deduction, we apply a widely held rule. With induction, we develop a new rule from a wide range of data. In both cases, we use existing information to understand the issue in play. But for breakthroughs, there is no rule or pool of past data to provide certainty. So when a CEO, like our banker friend, demands evidence that an idea will succeed, he is driving innovation away.

Does that mean we are doomed to live in world devoid of proof—that innovation must be consigned to a realm of cross-our-fingers hopefulness? No, it's not so bleak. Instead, when facing an anomalous situation, we can turn to a third form of logic: abductive logic, the logic of what could be. To use abduction, we need to creatively assemble the disparate experiences and bits of data that seem relevant in order to make an inference—a logical leap—to the best possible conclusion.

At Research in Motion, makers of the ubiquitous BlackBerry, abductive logic is embedded in the culture. Mike Lazaridis, RIM's founder and co-CEO, encourages his people to explore big ideas and apparent paradoxes to push beyond what they can prove to be true in order to see what might be true.

In the mid-1990s, RIM was a modestly successful pager company. But Lazaridis saw potential in the idea of a portable e-mail device. He began to consider what it might look like, what it could do. He imagined something much smaller than a laptop but easier to type on than a phone. Laptops were already shrinking and bumping up against limitations on how small a QWERTY keyboard could reasonably get. Lazaridis stepped back to consider how a much tinier keyboard could be feasible—and he achieved a leap of logic: What if we typed using only our thumbs? He soon had a prototype and concrete feedback from it.

Asking what could be true—and jumping into the unknown—is critical to innovation. Nurturing the ideas that result, rather than killing them, can be the tricky part. But once a company clears this hurdle, it can leverage its efforts to produce the proof that leaders depend on to make commitments—and turn the future into fact.

Roger L. Martin is Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. Jennifer Riel is Associate Director of the Desautels Centre for Integrative Thinking at Rotman.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_04/b4164080555772.htm

First Green Bank

2010-08-20T12:30:00.000-07:00

The First GREEN Bank Story
First GREEN Bank, which opened in Februrary 2009, was organized by experienced banking executives and business leaders in Central Florida. Ken LaRoe is the founder and former CEO of Florida Choice Bank which was founded in 1999. In 2006 with more than $400 million in total assets, Florida Choice Bank was acquired by Alabama National BanCorporation. Ken is now focused on First GREEN Bank and wants to change why America does business.

By promoting green building and sustainability through our bank, we can help other businesses realize the value in doing the same, and we hope to motivate them to expand their focus to include environmentally responsible goals.

Our Approach
Our approach to the community and the Earth are what set us apart from other banks. While we are a traditional customer-driven community bank providing personalized service, localized decision-making and extended banking hours, First GREEN Bank is the first bank of its kind to promote positive environmental and social responsibility while providing for increased profits for investors and clients.

First GREEN Bank promotes environmental responsibility and green building by offering lower interest rates for commercial projects that meet green building certification defined by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Gold and platinum certified projects qualify for the lowest interest rates in order to motivate commercial developers to build green while at the same time making it possible to realize increased profits.

Lead by Example
First GREEN Bank leads by example, promoting environmentally responsible behavior through its own business and employees. Our loan officers are LEED Accredited Professionals in order to better assist clients and we cover the cost for and offer salary increases to all employees who attain LEED Professional Accreditation. FGB will provides zero interest loans to employees who buy automobiles that exceed 30 miles per gallon, and offers paid sabbaticals to employees who engage in environmentally responsible projects. FGB also provides green building expertise, networking, and product resources through its web site and staff so clients have all the necessary tools available to help ensure successful green building projects.

Clermont and Eustis First Locations
FGB opened with branches in Clermont and Eustis, Florida. The Eustis location opened in a temporary building while a new LEED certified sustainable building is constructed nearby. The new building will be built among old oak trees and will include a sustainable architectural design that includes; a green roof, low water consumption plumbing, solar power, water cisterns, Florida-friendly low-water use landscaping, recycled building materials, natural lighting and many other features that make up the gold or higher LEED certification. Future branch locations will be built to similar standards.

We believe that leading by example will help us achieve success by attracting like-minded investors, depositors, and clients.

We hope you will consider banking with First GREEN Bank.
http://www.firstgreenbank.com/aboutus/aboutus.html

Speaking of Faith; A Different Kind of Capitalism

2010-08-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

Jacqueline Novogratz, founder and CEO of the Acumen Fund, spoke with Krista Tippett, host of the Public Radio show, Speaking of Faith (SOF), about "A different kind of capitalism". The Acumen Fellows Reading List and more useful resources can be found on SOF's website.

A collection of readings Jacqueline Novogratz recommends to foster empathy, self-awareness and a business mindset in the Acumen Fellows, who come from around the world. It includes economists as well as novelists, activists and thinkers from an eclectic range of perspectives.

Code Green cartoon hits part of the mark

2010-08-17T17:23:00.000-07:00

By James Sorenson, Sun=Sentinel, August 17th, 2010, Code Green, Tuesday Forum, Opinion page,
August 17, 2010

I got a kick out of this Code Green cartoon, and can't say that I entirely disagree with the cartoonist's perspective. But she did miss something. What she failed to point out is that this is not a two-sided argument, but a three-sided one. While "evil capitalists" are certainly involved, since they are the only ones willing to take the risk of laying out their own money to manufacture and market products that they hope to sell, and while many who are "green" are so only for the "feel-good" value, it's the virulent "enviro-politicians" who also need to be considered.

Legislation forcing us to "be green," and the threat of things like carbon credits, which do nothing for the environment, has caused both an upsurge in the creativity needed to make "green" products and a drasticly disproportionate increase in the costs for such things. Usually it doesn't cost any more to make a "green" product than it does to make a regular version of whatever it is, but attaching the term "green" to the label means an automatic increase of at least 25 percent.

To that end, it's the "green" legislators who have essentially forced the "evil capitalists" to make the products that the "enviro-snobs" feel so good about.

If you re-draw it with the "green legislator" in the middle, with open palms and crossed arms reaching across, please also draw a bucket beneath him where the additional money extorted can fall. That'd be a third arm pocketing cash, but we are talking about government, aren't we?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-green-zone-forum-0817-20100817,0,1742950.story

10 Common Sense Principles for a New Economy

2010-08-14T17:48:00.000-07:00

10 Common Sense Principles for a New Economy
It’s time we the people declare our independence from the money-favoring Wall Street economy.
by David Korten
posted Aug 06, 2010
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/10-common-sense-principles-for-a-new-economy

I find hope in the fact that millions of people the world over are seeing through the moral and practical fallacies underlying the Wall Street economy and—by contributing to the creation of a New Economy—are taking charge of their economic lives.

Here are ten common sense principles to frame the New Economy that we the people must now bring forth:

The proper purpose of an economy is to secure just, sustainable, and joyful livelihoods for all. This may come as something of a shock to Wall Street financiers who profit from financial bubbles, securities fraud, low wages, unemployment, foreign sweatshops, tax evasion, public subsidies, and monopoly pricing.

GDP is a measure of the economic cost of producing a given level of human well-being and happiness. In the economy, as in any well-run business, the goal should be to minimize cost, not maximize it.

A rational reallocation of real resources can reduce the human burden on the Earth’s biosphere and simultaneously improve the health and happiness of all. The Wall Street economy wastes enormous resources on things that actually reduce the quality of our lives—war, automobile dependence, suburban sprawl, energy-inefficient buildings, financial speculation, advertising, incarceration for minor, victimless crimes. The most important step toward bringing ourselves into balance with the biosphere is to eliminate the things that are bad for our health and happiness.

Markets allocate efficiently only within a framework of appropriate rules to maintain competition, cost internalization, balanced trade, domestic investment, and equality. These are essential conditions for efficient market function. Without rules, a market economy quickly morphs into a system of corporate monopolies engaged in suppressing wages, exporting jobs, collecting public subsidies, poisoning air, land, and water, expropriating resources, corrupting democracy, and a host of other activities that represent an egregiously inefficient and unjust distribution of resources.

A proper money system roots the power to create and allocate money in people and communities in order to facilitate the creation of livelihoods and ecologically balanced community wealth. Money properly serves life, not the reverse. Wall Street uses money to consolidate its power to expropriate the real wealth of the rest of the society. Main Street uses money to connect underutilized resources with unmet needs. Public policy properly favors Main Street.

Money, which is easily created with a simple accounting entry, should never be the deciding constraint in making public resource allocation decisions. This is particularly obvious in the case of economic recessions or depressions, which occur when money fails to flow to where it is needed to put people to work producing essential goods and services. If money is the only lack, then make the accounting entry and get on with it.

Speculation, the inflation of financial bubbles, risk externalization, the extraction of usury, and the use of creative accounting to create money from nothing, unrelated to the creation of anything of real value, serve no valid social purpose. The Wall Street corporations that engage in these activities are not in the business of contributing to the creation of real community wealth. They are in the business of expropriating it, a polite term for theft. They should be regulated or taxed out of existence.

Greed is not a virtue; sharing is not a sin. If your primary business purpose is not to serve the community, you have no business being in business.

The only legitimate reason for government to issue a corporate charter extending special privileges favoring a particular enterprise is to serve a clearly defined public purpose. That purpose should be clearly stated in the corporate charter and be subject to periodic review.

Public policy properly favors local investors and businesses dedicated to creating community wealth over investors and businesses that come only to extract it. The former are most likely to be investors and businesses with strong roots in the communities in which they do business. We properly favor them.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/10-common-sense-principles-for-a-new-economy

David Korten is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, co-chair of the New Economy Working Group, president of the People-Centered Development Forum, and a founding board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE). His books include Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, and the international best seller When Corporations Rule the World.

Michael Porter on Inner City Business

2010-08-10T09:44:00.000-07:00

"Billions are wasted on ineffective philanthropy. Philanthropy is decades behind business in applying rigorous thinking to the use of money."
~Michael Porter, Professor at Harvard Business School.

Michael Porter on Inner City Business
Companies can benefit their communities simply by doing more business close to home
By Michael E. Porter

A decade ago, Archie Williams, the founder of a small printer-toner distribution company in the impoverished Boston neighborhood of Roxbury, happened to play a round of golf with Tom Stemberg, the founder and then-chief executive of office supply mega-retailer Staples (SPLS). Through 18 holes, the pair pitched, putted, and chatted—and became fast friends. Soon, Stemberg started buying printer cartridges from Williams' company, Roxbury Technology.

The deal turned out to be a win for both Staples and Roxbury—the company and the neighborhood. The office supply giant found a reliable supplier for an important product and Roxbury got a partner that could distribute its goods nationally. Stemberg soon became a mentor to Williams' company, helping with strategic planning, finance, and legal advice. Roxbury Technology is now a preferred supplier to Staples and has branched out into manufacturing. Last year it hit $16.7 million in revenue, up from $1.2 million in 2001. Even better for the community, almost all of Roxbury's 65 employees live in the neighborhood or nearby.

Staples is one of a handful of large organizations that have found a way to boost their competitiveness while also benefiting their local communities. Hospitals and universities, often located in city centers, do this. But all too often, large companies see corporate social responsibility as something entirely separate from their business goals. As high unemployment, rising poverty, and dismay over corporate greed breed contempt for the capitalist market system, companies would be wise to follow the lead of Staples. Serving the intersecting needs of business and the community is the only path to winning back respect for Corporate America.

Consider this: Nearly 20 percent of large and midcap companies in the Standard & Poor's 900 index are headquartered in disadvantaged urban areas. These companies are huge employers that purchase hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and services annually. But they ignore the impact they can have on the surrounding community and how their neighbors can affect their own productivity, hiring, customer base, and reputation. While almost all big companies have active charitable programs and give to social service organizations, they rarely grasp that helping revitalize their local communities can enhance their competitiveness.

Such strategies should be based on the concept of shared value, practices that increase productivity while benefiting the community. We are seeing many more ways to create shared value, ranging from reducing pollution to improving the productivity (and wages) of low-income workers. Such efforts must be tied closely to a company's core business operations, where it can bring its skills and resources to bear.

Nowhere are the opportunities for creating shared value more apparent than in impoverished urban areas. Economic inequality raises fundamental challenges to capitalism, and inequality will not be solved until we help residents of disadvantaged communities prosper in the market system. Inner-city residents need jobs near their homes that offer good pay and the prospect of long-term employment. These can be created only by business.

Corporations can, in turn, jump-start the real job generators in the inner city: small businesses. Enterprises with fewer than 100 employees create 60 percent of the jobs in the U.S., and the ratio is even higher in disadvantaged communities, according to data from the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. Small businesses create wealth for both employees and owners, and those in disadvantaged areas hire disproportionately from the local community; 40 percent of the employees of the companies on the 2010 Inner City 100 list reside in nearby neighborhoods. Entrepreneurship is thriving in America's inner cities, but we need many more such businesses to hire residents and revitalize their communities. Major corporations can play a huge role in this process by sourcing from these pioneers.

Businesses acting as businesses, not as charitable givers, are arguably the most powerful force for addressing the issues facing our society. Companies, if animated by the principle of shared value, can drive the next wave of innovation and productivity in the U.S. Such efforts will give purpose to capitalism and represent our best chance to legitimize business again.

Michael Porter, the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School, is a leading authority on competitive strategy and the competitiveness of nations and regions. Professor Porter's work is recognized in governments, corporations, nonprofits, and academic circles around the world.

Green Music Selection

2010-07-29T17:13:00.000-07:00

Imagine Green Future; Project Overview

2010-07-29T14:43:00.000-07:00

"To make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone."
~Buckminster Fuller, (His Vision)

Over time, this project will make purpose and profit become inextricably linked. This will have many positive outcomes given where we are currently. It will also generate new challenges that we must manage from a spiritually inclusive, creative and sustainable perspective.

Bill Milner,

Social Entrepreneur
Delray Beach, FL
imaginegreenfuture@yahoo.com

Green Future; A Synergistic Approach to the Triple Bottom Line (*TBL)
A project to build community and more participatory political and economic systems and a green consumer base using a synergy of people, commerce and social objectives by building a business with social justice and green metrics as bottom line.
http://imaginegreenfuture.blogspot.com/

The project that I propose has two components;

An unrivaled marketing opportunity that will allow interested parties to associate themselves with a broadly beneficial project that has the potential to increase civic participation, transform large swaths of our community, enrich and empower the lives of our most vulnerable citizens and create a consumer base thirsty for green technology and increased means to afford it. This opportunity is for businesses that care about more than just the bottom-line and see the financial health of their business as being inextricably tied to the quality of life of the entire community and particularly to that of our weakest citizens. Using the power of Network Effects to build Communities of Practice around an inclusive green effort, provides an elegant and innovative way to a brighter future.

A vehicle to raise capital, pay staff and build capacity driven by that marketing opportunity and managed as a joint venture by local officials, business and the community. The capital raised will fund a wide variety of critical community needs including endow a venture capital fund to spawn new start-ups. The infrastructure itself will be entirely run by citizens; citizens with business skills, citizens with genuine green cred, citizens with authentic influence in urban areas, citizens who may be political officials, but can see beyond the inertia of politics and government.

This will be a privately managed, citizen-led endeavor with a minimum of government involvement and as little political involvement as humanly possible. What I really want to do, is to create a infrastructure that will allow us to learn to work together beyond the boundaries and consequences of our history. Something that will allow all of us to wipe the slate clean, and move forward together, with minimum hassle and maximum fun.

The marketing opportunity arises out of the fact that we will be mounting a novel and innovative project utilizing a great deal of self-help from the local community, a project of community uplift, individual initiative and collective effort. This is a project that by its very nature will generate a plethora of news stories throughout the duration of the project. This endeavor will be self-funding. The revenue generated will fund an umbrella organization that will spawn support systems, auxiliary units and partnerships with the private and non-profit sector.

An unrivaled opportunity for increased business in an era of declining revenue. The revenue will be drawn from a Social Venture Capital Fund (SVCF) funded by the collective efforts of the participants in our project. In the case of redeveloping one of the properties in our target area, all interested parties; contractors, building supply companies, landscapers, etc. would collaborate with us by enrolling their company and/or their employees in our core commercial service. The team members that serviced that account, would bring back to HQ the applications, their portion, $300 or less depending upon circumstances. The remainder is put into the SVCF. As the property is developed, all the collaborator’s are allowed to bid upon the various stages of the work and are paid from the SVCF. All work is evaluated for quality and other green metrics as we develop them. We can, of course, leverage these funds with foundation and government funds as well, given the social nature of our work.

The potential home-owner's story will be on a website along with a thermometer, and people beyond the area will be able to purchase the service and support the project as well as they track our fundraising and home-raising progress. If they want to support our green project but do not desire to use the service, they can offer to give the plan to one of the families in our target area. It includes a service called Legal Shield that will give piece of mind to parents and families in the community.

In the case of a school, one of our school specialists marketing teams will meet with school staff (including auxiliary and substitutes), parents, and interested community members from the neighborhood surrounding the school. The team will explain the value of the service, how proceeds from the service will be used to generate income for the participants and capital for a SVCF and devise a marketing plan to target parents of students with an interest in supporting the school. One of our teams will run the appointment, a stay-at-home parent or idle sub if during daytime, a teacher, secretary, or asst. principal, if after schools hours. As in the case above, the team members that serviced that account, would bring back to HQ the applications, their portion, $300 or less, depending upon circumstances. The remainder is put into the SVCF.

The SVCF will be divided up as follows; 1/4 to the classroom of the contributor’s child; 1/4 to other areas of the school; 1/4 to the surrounding neighborhood and 1/8 beyond the boundaries of the school to an even less well off neighborhood’s SVCF, and 1/8 beyond the shores of America. This type of overarching network of funding will insure inclusiveness and accountability and will encourage a more vibrant and stable local economy by providing liquidity in areas of need using green metrics and rigorous standards and high expectations for participants. As we increase consumer confidence and aggregate demand in the local economy, the general business climate will improve and bottom lines and balance sheets will begin to firm up again.

Our individual risk? $26 month ($10, onetime application fee). No government regulation, no taxes, no bureaucracy, no politics, no cries of heartless, green-washing businesses.

7 Reasons Why Greening Up is Hard to Do

2010-07-28T21:22:00.000-07:00

7 Reasons Why Greening Up is Hard to Do
By Anna Clark
Published April 08, 2010

Read more: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/04/08/seven-reasons-why-greening-hard-do?page=full#ixzz0v2fVHzJm

Green business owners beware: don't buy into your own press. Although we are wont to focus on the oft-cited LOHAS stat "1 in 4 adult Americans cares about health and sustainability," the real ratio is less favorable, especially in cases where the green label costs more. And that still leaves an uninterested majority. How much more progress could we make if we learned to engage the other 75 percent in the green conversation?

I've been trying to uncover the reasons why the majority doesn't value sustainability since 2005, and through my search I've made some surprising discoveries about the obstacles that we're facing.

The systemic barriers to positive change are entrenched and insidious, stretching far beyond the usual culprits of big industry and hyper-consumerism. Although my study was more anecdotal than quantitative, it reflects an investigation of those attitudes that don't appear in surveys.

Among the cumulative challenges these obstacles pose is the ability to easily, frustratingly, reduce sophisticated CSR programs to lip service. And many of the genuine issues preventing sustainability from taking root are exacerbated by the proliferation of green marketing strategies -- a sad irony. It calls to mind Einstein's warning, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Despite the discouraging nature of these findings, they do present opportunities for savvy entrepreneurs and conscious companies who can help consumers translate environmental awareness into action. Here are some observations that represent the most inconvenient -- and still largely unspoken -- truths standing in the way of a sustainable America.

Read more: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/04/08/seven-reasons-why-greening-hard-do?page=full#ixzz0v2fPReLy

1. The socio-economic rise of women speeds consumption. Over the next five years, the global incomes of women are estimated to grow from $13 trillion to $18 trillion. That incremental $5 trillion is nearly twice the growth in GDP expected from China and India combined, making women the biggest emerging market ever seen. This means a huge opportunity for consumer products companies.

As one marketing strategist points out, "We are continuously doing research on 'why she buys' to give us insight into the impact that female consumers have on the marketplace." He goes on to suggest that delayed marriage, lower birthrates, divorce and higher incomes make women prime targets for goods in the convenience, luxury and technology categories. This spells serious un-sustainability.

2. Conservation is antithetical to a consumer-based economy. When almost 70 percent of the economy is based on consumer spending, how can we expect people to understand conservation? Until we are no longer affected by the 3,000 advertising messages we inhale each day, we will continue to buy. When the economy is bad our consumption may decline, but this also makes people less willing to spend more for green.

3. The environment remains stuck in the political divide. There remains a gaping chasm between the real and the pragmatic -- what should be done for the environment vs. what actually happens. But there is also the liberal vs. conservative divide. Many conservatives liken "enviro-preaching" to political correctness. Consequently, they react against things that are good, such as organic food and recycling.

As long as people equate "green" with "left," we'll continue to see stymied sustainability strategies and ineffective environmental policies.

4. Narrow-mindedness goes both ways. If in reading you are thinking how much you dislike conservatives, you are also part of the problem. Though I cannot relate to Fox News junkies as a group, on a personal level some of them aren't bad. My husband even watches it from time to time. While some of the headlines that come out of ultra-conservative news outlets are cringe-worthy, it's worth remembering that sometimes they are just filling a void in the mainstream media.

When Climategate hit, the mainstream media did a less-than-effective job of reporting the story, leaving people to wonder, "If there was nothing to hide, why the silence?" This debacle only magnifies the research from groups such as the Pew Center, which find that belief in man-made climate change among Americans is sharply declining.

5. Habits are hard to break. When I started my journey into sustainability, it was following the sickening revelation that, were my habits to be the norm, we'd be consuming five planets worth of resources.

Since that time, I've launched a sustainability consultancy, moved to a platinum-level LEED certified home, planted a garden, and adjusted my consumer habits considerably. I recently recalculated our ecological footprint to gauge how well I'm doing. Now we're down to three planets.

My point? Natural living doesn't come naturally for most Americans, no matter how hard we may try. It requires change, which statistically only 2 percent of us will embrace. I happen to be one of the few that thrives on change, but consistently living green still challenges me. No matter how much we talk up benefits and allude to the triple bottom line, conscious behaviors for a healthier planet on the part of humans are far from habitual.

6. Individuals are catalysts for change; institutions are not. Apathetic voters and zombie consumers are in effect leaving the future of the environmental up to institutions that are inherently anti-social. Where individuals have a conscience, large organizations must balance competing interests; frequently, money prevails over the interests of the public.

From corporate America to Congress, people of power and influence easily fall prey to the belief that the rules don't apply to them, a phenomenon that author Terry Price describes as "exception making" in his book Understanding Ethical Failures in Leadership. No amount of green window dressing can overcome an unethical foundation in an organization (case in point, before Enron collapsed, it had a stellar sustainability program).

As bad as gross negligence is, it has often been the catalyst to motivate companies to turn themselves around. However, many others continue to fly under the radar, undermining their sustainability departments with business-as-usual tactics from execs in pursuit of self-interest. No amount of good deeds on the part of large institutions can absolve individuals from personal responsibility. So far, mainstream consumers have yet to accept this.

7. Climate change creates inertia. With so many benefits we can promote on behalf of sustainability, why continue to harp on this hot-button issue? I speak as someone who entered this realm specifically for the purpose of stopping the Arctic from melting.

I'm stubborn, but I finally realized that other issues are equally, if not even more, pressing: world hunger, habitat loss, and toxins in our air, food and water, for example. By talking up these other points and offering concrete, doable solutions that can be scaled up, we can push people towards positive action regardless of their political affiliation or financial situation.

What might environmental advocates gain when we extend a thoughtful and flexible approach towards those who are different, dare I say conservative? By waiting for them to get it, we sacrifice the opportunity to expand our market.

Many other issues -- such as cheap energy, a car-based culture, and even our democratic system of government -- hamper sustainable development. Ignorance and good old-fashioned greed are also to blame. But condemnation is unproductive in a world so desperate for solutions.

Three Steps to Move Forward

Fortunately, the steps to a sustainable America are simpler than we think, and the positive ripples have the potential to put profits into our businesses, bolster our economy, increase national security, and improve our environment.

These common-sense solutions cost companies little while fostering a sustainable future and restoring us to a position of leadership for the long haul:

1. Become energy efficient. Companies that reduce their energy consumption by 30 percent can add 5 percent in operating capital to their budgets. According to a McKinsey report, the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste – well beyond the $520 billion upfront investment that would be required. The reduction in energy use would result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually -- the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.

2. Practice conscious capitalism. The land of opportunity can be a profound lever of social change when we apply American ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to solving the world's most pressing problems. Businesses like TOMS, which purchase a pair of shoes for impoverished villagers for every pair it sells, prove that having a mission can drive success, not hinder it.

Helping busy consumers make a difference through their purchases equals profit and positive change. Women, for example, make over 80 percent of the buying decisions in their households. Marketing good green ideas and healthy sustainable products to them helps channel their formidable spending power into a more sustainable society.

3. Don't divide, multiply! Don't get stuck in your silo marketing to a narrow group. Use your company's platform to build virtual communities among employees, colleagues, industry leaders and other stakeholders. Large companies such as Seventh Generation are creating interactive, virtual communities that are inclusive, educational and fun. Small companies can now do this online with a Facebook page and Twitter.

Don't forget about your community, too. Many a local school or non-profit would be grateful for your company to support their green efforts. I recently spoke at a symposium hosted by Lakehill Preparatory School sponsored by Professional Bank, a local Dallas business. Not only did the event raise environmental awareness, it raised visibility for the school, dozens of vendors, and the bank itself.

Of all the solutions I found in the various sectors I have explored, it is the personal and community levels -- where motivated individuals make simple changes in themselves and within their circles of influence -- where have I seen the greatest potential for genuine change.

This experience has renewed my faith in the power of individuals to make a profound difference. My new book Green, American Style, is a testament to the many -- from CEOs to soccer moms -- whose contributions as leaders and consumers are creating the potential to move markets and transform our culture.

Making informed decisions and incremental changes while reaching out to new people can improve matters considerably. The competitive advantages inherent in common-sense sustainability more than compensate for the cost in addressing the problems. Not everyone will follow through, but those who do are poised to profit.

Anna Clark is president of EarthPeople, LLC and the author of Green, American Style. She contributes the Eco-Leadership blog on Greenbiz.com. Visit www.annamclark.com for more on all things green.

Read more: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/04/08/seven-reasons-why-greening-hard-do?page=full#ixzz0v2f6HvBu

Alabama-Pass It On Down

2010-06-03T11:38:00.000-07:00

More dispatches from the Renewable Energy front

2010-05-27T10:57:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg/BusinessWeek
Numbers
By Tara Kalwarski

Americans are using less renewable energy as a share of their total energy consumption than they did in the early 1980s. And the oldest forms of renewable energy, water and wood, are in decline. Since 2000, alternative-energy companies’ shares have risen far less than those of traditional energy companies.
http://www.businessweek.com/images/ss/09/10/1001_numbers/1.htm

Managing Forward; The Reset Economy
Rewiring the Utility Business

Peter A. Darbee used to dock his three children 50¢ when they left a room without turning out the lights. Now, as CEO of PG&E (PCG), the former investment banker and high school wrestling champion is trying to save energy on a grander scale. Paradoxically, he is helping his customers buy less of his product. “When I tell big customers we would be happy if we sold them less electricity, they look at me like I’ve burned out a few brain cells,” says Darbee. But the logic is inescapable. “You are not making a lot of money anymore building large power plants,” says Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “You have to figure out what business you are in, big time.”

How can utilities make more by selling less? Instead of spending $2 billion on a new 1,000-megawatt power plant, it can use the money to insulate homes, pay customers to install more efficient equipment, and make the grid smarter. Those steps would slash power consumption, eliminating the need for the power plant. The CEO would then ask the state public utility commission to raise electricity rates enough to pay for the $2 billion investment—plus a negotiated profit—just as he would for a new power plant. If the commission agrees, the utility gets revenue from its investment.

Continue article here
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/management_innovation/blog/archives/2009/10/utilities.html

Bottom of the pyramid

2010-05-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

The phrase “bottom of the pyramid” was used by U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt in his April 7, 1932 radio address, The Forgotten Man, in which he said “These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power...that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.”

Green Future; A Synergistic Approach to the Triple Bottom Line (*TBL)
A project to build community and more participatory political and economic systems and a green consumer base using a synergy of people, commerce and social objectives by building a business with social justice and green metrics as bottom line.

Social Entrepreneurship; The Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Model

2010-05-12T10:11:00.000-07:00

Social Entrepreneurship; The Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Model

Revisiting the "Bottom of the Pyramid"

A few years back, CK Prahalad’s conceptualisation of “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” woke up a large number of corporates and entrepreneurs to the huge business potential that lay dormant in the lower strata of the masses. CKP’s thesis was that 4bn people on earth subsist on less than $2/day, and therefore, collectively and globally constitute a $13 trillion market!

With all noble intentions, CKP argued that this masses at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) should be viewed not as victims or a burden, but as value-driven consumers. If large corporations design and customise their offerings for this huge segment of consumers, it can change their life-style, and enhance the quality of day-to-day living for them.

CKP’s proposal, however, suffers from three underlying biases that permeate much of the contemporary management literature. The purpose of this note is not to diminish the value of the concept of BOP, but to surface these biases and reinterpret the concept, so that real the “fortune” that is embedded in the BOP can be leveraged:

Bias 1: Masses are primarily consumers, and not producers. And therefore, their life becomes “better”, if they get to consume more, and not if they produce more. This assumption, while partially correct, misses out on the entrepreneurial potential that lies in BOP. For instance, it neglects facts such as the exports from Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum in Mumbai, exceeded the total international earnings of a company like Ranbaxy in 2004.

This is allthemore more relevant in context of India where the “unorganised sector” accounts for 93% of the country’s economically active workforce. More than just being consumers, this workforce (consisting of hawkers, construction workers, domestic helps, road-side mechanics, scrap workers, etc.) account for 60% of net domestic product, 68% of national income, 31% of agricultural exports, and 41% of manfactuing exports.

The real “fortune” of BOP lies not merely in serving these low-income markets, but in organising and unleashing the under-utilised entrepreneurial potential of its inhabitants. For instance, Sri Mahila Grih Udyog (more popularly known for Lijjat Papad) mobilised the grassroot entrepreneurship of women into organising them into a Rs. 312crore business. Similarly, Aavishkar India Micro Venture Capital Fund provides venture capital to rural entrepreneurs to leverage rural innovations and appropriate technologies.

Bias 2: The quantum of profits is more important than its source. Like most contemporary management concepts, BOP primarily focuses on how corporates can create and exploit markets to reap large profits (though to be fair, along with “growth” and “profit”, CKP also added “incalculable contributions to humankind” as a benefit of focusing on BOP).

The concept of BOP, however, does not essentially discriminate among the sources from which the profits are generated. It would treat the profits from selling a Rs.5 bottle of aerated drink, or a Re.1 shampoo sachet as identical to the profits generated from making medicines or education available to this segment.

Like much of contemporary management literature, BOP also does not distinguish between the motives of “profit-making” and “being profitable”. Profit-making motive tilts the prioities away from the society to the owners of capital. It follows the dictum of the economist Milton Friedman: “there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits…”

Being profitable, on the other hand, is an imperative for the sustainability of any entrepreneurial venture. As Prof Mohammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank (the largest bank of Bangaldesh which services almost 3mn “poorest of the poor” across more than 40,000 villages) once mentioned: “Volume of profit is not important in Grameen in money-making sense, but important as an indicator of efficiency. We would like to make more profit so that we can reduce interest rate - and pass on the benefits to the borrowers.”

Bias 3: Wealth-creation is same as making profits. Lastly, the BOP concept takes a very narrow view of wealth-creation. It neglects the fact that a society’s “wealth” is not just the income-levels of its members, but also the the sustainability of its community relations and environment. By focusing on profit making, BOP reduces the concept of wealth to just money, and the rest – i.e., the community and the environment - become mere resources which need to be "exploited".

To make BOP a viable concept for social change, there is a need to reinterpret the meaning of wealth. Take for instance, the Yasaswini health insurance scheme, pioneered by Narayan Hrudayalaya in Bangalore, which provides complete health cover (from common cold to brain surgury to 1.7mn farmers at a cost of Rs.5/month). The scheme is self-funding, but the “wealth” it creates is not money, but a healthy community of economically active people.

Infinite Games

2010-04-27T12:03:00.000-07:00

A Helicopter Tour of The Infinite Games (TIG)

This site consists of an ever-growing, ever-evolving, body of knowledge — a collection of interdependent lenses, strategies, distinctions, examples, stories, tools, offerings, recommendations, forums, connections — all designed to serve those committed to the work of transforming their organizational systems. There is no lack of players who are ready and able to play important roles in this vital societal metamorphosis. As you explore the site sections described below you will find many clues as to how this movement can begin to accelerate.

http://www.theinfinitegames.org/e01/

What Are Infinite Games

James Carse, in his wonderful book, Finite and Infinite Games, suggests:

There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.

The finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play,
...and bringing as many persons as possible into the play.

Finite players play within boundaries;
infinite players play with boundaries.

DISTINGUISHING FINITE FROM INFINITE GAMES USING BUSINESS AS AN EXAMPLE

The purpose of business is to make a profit.
The purpose of business is to generate true wealth for all stakeholder groups.

The bottom line is supreme.
Excellent triple bottom line (People, Planet and Profit) performance is essential to ensure both organizational and global sustainability. Two out of three aren't enough.

Our mission is to be the best in the world.
Our mission is to be the best for the world.

Keep your eye on the ball. Do what it takes to achieve this quarter's financial goals.
Design for distributed resilient operational capacities, for excellence in all domains of performance, and for developing leadership's capacity to create a sustainable future—for our organization and for the larger whole.

Divide and conquer.
Connect, collaborate, co-create and co-evolve.

Corporate Social Responsibility is becoming an important compliance issue.
CSR, when approached creatively and proactively, can become a foundational ROI initiative—corporate social opportunity.

Effective leaders are able to motivate and otherwise manage the performance of their people.
Effective leaders create a context where leadership is widely distributed, where motivation is intrinsic in the work design, and where performance development is woven into the fabric of daily operations.

http://www.theinfinitegames.org/e01/03.php

Check out the "Profile" in our Community of Allies section
to see if this site is a fit for you.

http://www.theinfinitegames.org/e02/02.php

Spiritual Politics

2010-04-25T19:16:00.000-07:00

Spiritual Principles for a New Economics
© 1996 by Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson
http://www.visionarylead.org/sp_econ.htm

"From our experience and experimentation with different economic systems, and living according to the spiritual laws of manifestation, there seem to be important principles that govern economic well-being. We would like to share these with you, in hopes that they might be useful in your group or individual life. Please use your own intuition in determining their truth and relevance to your own situation - each individual is unique."

1. THE EARTH HOUSEHOLD

Economics literally means "earth household" a key image for understanding what right economics requires. If we care for the planetary economy as we would our own household, we can see that it must work for all members of the earth household, or it will not work for any part of the human family in the long term. Just as we wouldn't tear our house apart to make a fire to keep warm, or dump garbage in our living room, so we must learn to see the larger household of the earth as we do our own. And we must be concerned about the effect of our actions on future generations who will inhabit the earth.

2. CIRCULATION

The body of our planet is a living organism, (called "Gaia" by the ancients), and all economic interactions from the individual to the international take place within this body of moving energies. If circulation through the system is blocked through manipulation, hoarding, etc., then all parts of the organism suffer. When there is free circulation of goods, resources and services throughout the body, nourishing all parts of the system, then the system as a whole flourishes. Equally, when the whole is cared for all the parts within it are nurtured.

3. CREATOR/PRODUCER FIRST, A CONSUMER SECOND

As individuals develop their creative abilities connected to their spiritual Source, the need to consume from an inner sense of lack transforms into the ability and urge to create and give to the world. We then find our true creation or calling, and trust that what we put forth from our inner Self will be of value to others, and we will receive what we need to live in exchange.

4. ABUNDANCE AND SHARING

When we realize the great abundance-producing, creative energy and potential within us, we overcome the fear of lack or "scarcity consciousness." We are then able to share as we no longer fear "running out." And when we see with the eyes of unity the polarity of giver and receiver dissolves, as we realize that to receive is also giving the opportunity for others to give.

5. FAITH

As we have faith or trust in the abundance of the Life of the Universe we find greater abundance flowing to us. Faith allows us to act "as if" there is abundance and to do what we know is spiritually right for ourselves and others, trusting that it will work out economically for everyone, despite how it may appear to the rational mind. Faith eventually grows into knowing God's law works as we experience it in our lives.

6. AS WE GIVE, SO SHALL WE RECEIVE

We "prime the pump" of the universe by creating a vacuum in our lives by giving our time, money, energy and love to others. Giving is an act of faith that the abundance of the universe will circulate in return. The ancient law of tithing 10% of all income to spiritual purposes honors the Source from which all abundance emerges.

7. CUSTODIANSHIP/STEWARDSHIP

From a higher perspective, we can ultimately possess nothing on the material level, although it may possess us - (because we are too attached to and worried about it!). We can, however, be good custodians of what God has given us. The Great Economist is highly resource - and energy-efficient, and we harmonize with universal laws when we keep our resource channels clear and flowing. When we care for and improve what has been entrusted to us, and release to others things we don't use, we see a new inflow of abundance. And of course an attitude of gratitude brings plenitude.

8. DECENTRALIZATION OF CONTROL

Wealth-producing resources are the "common heritage of all mankind," as recognized by the United Nations in the Law of the Sea Treaty. The benefits of developing productive capacity through ideas, technology, labor or capital need to be shared between those who create the innovation and the social-planetary web that makes the production and wealth possible.

9. LOVE/GOODWILL

Love is the state of being that creates a positive sense of connectedness and allows harmonious economic interaction to take place. In legal terms it is called the "meeting of minds" and is the basis for all contracts, and in business it is called the "goodwill" a business has generated with customers which is assigned a dollar value in the worth of the business. It is the deeper ground of being which gives rise to the values of trust, honesty and fairness.

10. INTERDEPENDENCE

The attempt to achieve total self-sufficiency and self-centered independence emerges from the dominance of the illusory separativeness of the ego consciousness. As we participate in economic life we learn that we are part of an interdependent web of complex interactions, and changes in one part of the web affect all the participants. Thus establishing just, harmonious and honest relationships is the key to economic well-being for all.

11. A FAIR PROFIT

When an individual or business through their labor transforms material substance or provides a service which truly benefits others, without creating harm anywhere, then a fair and equitable profit for the work done is in order. Profit thus allows the service or "good" to be continued to be provided to others. Profit must include considerations of being good for the whole, on all levels both short and long term, or distortions are created.

12. MONEY AS CONCRETIZED ENERGY FLOW

Money is a symbolic medium of exchange among humanity and represents accumulated human and planetary creative energy. It is essentially neutral and its value depends on the uses to which it is put. The highest view of money is to see it as a sacred trust to be used for the good of all humanity.

Turning Hustlers into Entrepreneurs

2010-04-23T10:13:00.000-07:00

America can reduce poverty by enabling underground businesses
by Kai Wright, from The American Prospect

Excerpted from Utne Reader here;
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Turning-Hustlers-into-Entrepreneurs.aspx

Loretta Harrison is a born hustler.

“I been making and selling things since I was about 8 years old,” says the 45-year-old unemployed mom. She buys wholesale in Manhattan—balloons, socks, scarves, you name it—then loads up a pushcart and sells at retail prices on the streets of Jamaica, Queens. She’s peddled Icees off the back of a tricycle, teamed up with her teenage son to hawk bottled water for a dollar at stoplights, and organized “passion parties” where she brings together groups of women to gab about sex and buy erotic toys. “I love sales,” she says. “For me to have something that somebody else wants and for them to go in their pocket and bring out hard-earned money to get what I have is just—it’s like a high to me.”

Harrison hasn’t worked a traditional full-time job in nearly 14 years, since her eldest son, Malcolm, had a series of seizures in the second grade that resulted in brain damage. “After that, you know, he was a paranoid schizophrenic,” she says. “He’d think he didn’t have enough sugar in his cereal, and he’d run away and tell people we were bothering him. Punch out the windows and stuff.” So she quit her job delivering mail in the neighborhood to take care of him and her then-newborn daughter. “That whole year,” she says, “my Ready Teddy bags were the only thing that kept me going.”

Ready Teddy is Harrison’s pride and joy. It’s a crocheted teddy bear–and-tote combo that she’s been making since 1992. In the past, she’s sold the bags in a Brooklyn craft store for $35 a pop but now moves them herself for $20. “When I had people selling for me, I would charge them $15. They’d sell it for $20 and take out $5,” she explains, rattling off pricing and staffing schemes that have never been written down, let alone put into a business plan.

In fact, Harrison can’t so much as give a ballpark estimate of how much money she’s made or lost year to year on all of her little businesses. She figures that between her sales and her wage jobs—as a supermarket cashier, a newspaper carrier, a crossing guard—her income has probably peaked at $25,000 in a year. “As far as keeping records and whatnot—Loretta’s not so good at keeping records,” she jokes. “Especially when you get the money and you end up having to spend the money to live.”

Whether and how Harrison can actually live off her sales schemes are larger questions than she knows—and ones that may be getting more attention in coming years, as policy makers grope for solutions to the joblessness that’s strangling cities. Unemployment was at 10 percent at the end of 2009. More families went hungry in 2008 than at any time on record—an estimated 17 million households—and the poverty rate reached higher than it has been in more than a decade.

The conventional debate over how to help families who find themselves counted among those doleful statistics focuses on the social safety net—do we boost supports like welfare, provide low-skill job training, or just force folks to try harder to find work? The assumption lurking behind all of these answers is that poor people are broken and need to be fixed, or at least propped up. But a rarely noticed industry of small-business advocates and lenders say the problem is the other way around. What we need, they argue, is an economy that values the remarkable entrepreneurial instincts that people like Harrison already have. Their research suggests that with relatively small investments for training and with loans of as little as $500, small side hustles like Harrison’s could get neighborhoods like Jamaica churning with enterprise.

Microenterprise, as it’s called, has long been associated with the developing world. The Grameen Bank’s Muhammad Yunus pioneered the idea back in 1976 with a $27 loan to a group of Bangladeshi businesswomen following a famine. A global industry has since parceled out billions of dollars in microloans, and Yunus has won both a Nobel Peace Prize and a U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. But while the idea owes its fame to the developing world, it has also been slowly building in America since the mid-1980s—it’s just been ignored by an economic and political culture obsessed with the pursuit of large, rapid growth.

Now, with the U.S. economy in disarray, domestic microenterprise advocates believe this is finally their moment in the sun. Both Grameen and the celebrated peer-to-peer lending tool Kiva.org have announced new U.S. ventures since the recession began. And after years of hostility from Bush-era Washington, micro enterprise development has won the support of both the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress.

The effort is thus far relatively tiny: The Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO), a trade group, estimates that $100 million to $150 million is invested annually in U.S. microenterprise development. But industry researchers argue that Harrison is among an estimated 10 million low- to moderate-income people who could turn their ideas and hustles into thriving, job-creating businesses—and rescue inner-city economies in the process.

America’s roughly 6 million small businesses—defined as firms with fewer than 500 workers—employ about half the nation’s private-sector workforce. Another 21.7 million people ran their own businesses without employees in 2007. Politicians of all stripes love to laud these folks. In the American political narrative, small-business owners do everything from creating jobs to building communities. And they’re the people for whom Congress is still trying to pry open traditional credit markets. As President Barack Obama proclaimed in May 2009, “The entrepreneurial spirit lies at the core of our nation’s economy and identity.” Microenterprise-development advocates say politicians and bankers shouldn’t view people like Harrison any differently.

Microenterprise is defined, officially, as any business with fewer than five employees that takes less than $35,000 to get off the ground. According to the Aspen Institute’s Microenterprise Fund for Innovation, Effectiveness, Learning and Dissemination (FIELD), the vast majority of these ventures are both owned and staffed by an individual or a family. The AEO estimates that more than 24 million such businesses exist in the United States.

The idea of building upon tiny, family- run businesses has never caught on in U.S. economic-development circles. But according to Aspen’s most recent count, at least 500 organizations around the country either lend money or provide training to people who are trying to use small business to thwart poverty. The field started off providing capital largely to residents in black neighborhoods (particularly to black women) who had been walled off from banks for decades; it has since grown and splintered into both money lending and business training. Fifty-eight percent of the clients of today’s microenterprise-development groups are people of color, according to FIELD, and about 60 percent are women.

The changes driven by microenterprise programs are incremental but nonetheless meaningful. In 2008 Aspen surveyed about 1,400 clients served by micro enterprise-development groups. Over half of those who were living below the poverty line when they joined the programs had risen above it within a year. Average household income went from just under $30,000 to $36,000.

The programs have demonstrated a clear ability to help clients build sustainable businesses. In Aspen’s 2008 survey, nearly two-thirds of people who didn’t have businesses when they entered a program successfully got one started. Those new businesses split about evenly between full-time and part-time ventures; the full-time ones generated median revenues of $40,000 in 2007. That’s not Wall Street money, but it’s enough to move a family out of poverty-wage labor. And the biggest programs show even more potential. ACCION USA—the nation’s largest microlender—spokesperson Laura Kozien says, “For every microloan that ACCION approves, 2.7 jobs are created in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods.”

Tasha Stoudymire started working in department-store photo studios in high school when she took her newborn son for a portrait and ended up applying for a job. Over 11 years, she scraped her way up from $5.15 an hour to $16.70 an hour. “I couldn’t stand it,” she says of the sacrifice demanded by earning that money. “My son said to me, ‘Mama, you work more than you stay home. You go to work and you come home and sleep and shower.’ That hurt me.”

After a series of family and medical issues kept her away from the job, Stoudymire was let go. Now, at age 30, she has a new plan: opening a combination day-care and child-portrait business out of her Queens home. Skills aren’t the hard part. She just has to figure out how to make it all work as a proper business.

One night in the late fall, Stoudymire and a dozen other mothers and grandmothers attended a child-care business-development class conducted by the Business Outreach Center Network, a group that offers training and small loans to mostly immigrant clients. The women listened raptly as a trainer walked them through the impressive array of expertise they already have. “The word just—let’s eliminate that,” the trainer chided one woman, a gray-haired grandmother with a small, informal day care who introduced herself too humbly. “You’re not ‘just’ a child-care provider. You’re a child-care provider.”

Over the next two hours the women traded hard-won child-rearing and babysitting wisdom. Throughout, the trainer nudged the women toward a business owner’s mind-set, noting their legal responsibilities, marketing advantages, and money-saving opportunities. “Start looking at things in your house right now that could be used. Take off your adult cap and think as a child. What’s a toy?” She put a shoebox face down, propped the lid on its edge like a ramp, and sent a toy car sailing downward. “You don’t have to buy this! You’ve all got on shoes.”

Stoudymire and her classmates will go through 22 sessions like this, learn how to acquire free start-up supplies, and qualify to apply for a $1,000 grant. Since 2003, the BOC Network has put almost 800 New York City women through this training and given them more than $170,000 in grants. By BOC’s tally, the businesses those women later built created more than 275 jobs.

At the previous week’s orientation, Stoudymire burst into tears of joy as she listened to the talk about the market advantage of providers who understand kids’ developmental challenges and can help navigate city bureaucracy. She had that feeling all innovators get, that conviction that they know something nobody else does. And she embraced an emotion few have found in the recent economic downturn, declaring, “I’m excited.”

Excerpted from The American Prospect (Jan.-Feb. 2010), a perennial Utne Reader staff favorite for its smart, authoritative political reporting. A 2010 Utne Independent Press Award nominee for political coverage and general excellence.www.prospect.org
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Turning-Hustlers-into-Entrepreneurs.aspx

US Renewable Energy Advocates in Germany

2010-04-22T19:49:00.000-07:00

US Renewable Energy Advocates in Germany; Discussing COP15 and beyond from the trenches
http://renewableadvocates.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-feed-in-what/

A Feed-in WHAT?!
21 January 2010 by RE fan

Want something to work on that promotes the use of renewable energy so that the US has something to show at COP16? A renewable energy policy that began in the United States (Jimmy Carter: 1978), was popularized by Germany, is slowly (ever so slowly) making its way back to its maker—the “feed-in tariff” or FiT. (A tariff? could be dangerous. Well, make sure you read paragraph 4) Gainesville, FL adopted a FiT in March 2009 and has experienced huge gains in solar installations. There are a few other FiTs in Vermont and California too. That’s great, but what is a FiT anyway?

The Sunshine State!
Using sources of renewable energy (eg. solar, wind) is currently more expensive than traditional sources (eg. coal). Unless purchasing renewable energy is incentivised, the prohibitive high prices of renewables may mean that these clean energy technologies never take off, where economies of scale can allow renewable energy to reach grid parity (ie. same price as traditional energy sources). Basically, a FiT requires that utilities pay above market prices for energy produced from renewable sources and this is guaranteed for a set amount of time. The extra cost is distributed among the consumers where (in Germany) they may pay ~ 3% more on their electricity bill. So once you install solar panels, which are likely to be subsidized, the utilities will pay you for the electricity you produce!

Renewables Pay
In Germany, this incentive is designed to taper off to promote more efficient and greater production of renewables. The added cost per German household in 2007 was 3-4 Euros per month, or approximately 1 latte, as reported in the National Journal. Neville Williams, author of “Chasing the Sun: Solar Adventures around the World” (I recommend this to anyone interested in the potential impact that renewables can have in developing countries), comments on both the FiT adoption in Florida and Germany’s added costs to the consumer. He says the added costs in Florida is much cheaper than building new power plants for the needed energy.

For what it represents, the name “feed-in tariff” is quite misleading and may actually be one of the main reasons why it has not succeeded in the US thus far. Using the word “tariff” is big no-no for politicians. The original German term is “Einspeiseverguetung” Einspeise (feed-in, from “ein” and “speisen”) Verguetung (compensation, fee or payment). Basically, it is “compensation” for you (the producer) “feed(ing)-in” the renewable energy you produce to the grid. Wherever this policy is implemented, renewable installations take off! Germany has the solar isolation (amount of sunlight hitting the earth) equivalent to Alaska and they still accounted for almost half of all solar installations worldwide in 2007.

The U.S. can do Better
Think this is a great idea? It can be. There are some logistical/technical problems associated “tying into the grid” such as how to balance production using variable (coal) and intermittent (wind, solar, etc) power sources to meet demand. This has produced some headaches. For example, I was told that one really windy day a while back, wind turbines produced so much extra electricity in Germany that a coal-fired power plant had to be shut down for a while. All RE had to be purchased and to prevent excess electricity from being wasted the plant had to go offline. Cool right? Well, it is very difficult to stop and start a coal-fired power plant. Imagine having to synchronize something like this with more RE in the mix. That’s where careful planning, redesigning the grid and scientific breakthroughs in energy storage come in…what are you waiting for? Get to work!
http://renewableadvocates.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-feed-in-what/

A High School For Green Teens

2010-02-08T09:23:00.000-08:00

Excerpted below is a delightful and inspiring story of green community leadership from the weblog titled, The Green Fork on the Eat Well Guide, website, a free online directory for anyone in search of fresh, locally grown and sustainably produced food in the United States and Canada.

A High School For Green Teens
February 4th, 2010 by kerry
http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2010/02/a-high-school-for-green-teens/

With unemployment in the dismal double digits, there’s a lot of chanting and ranting about jobs right now. China’s cleaning our clock when it comes to clean tech, even as its growth continues to rely on dirty ol’ coal. And so does ours, for that matter. The difference is that China’s forging ahead with alternative energy while we bury our heads in the tar sands.

Our national unemployment rate seems stuck at 10 percent and in some urban areas, it’s risen above 15 percent, according to CNN. Creating more jobs is clearly job number one. But what color will those jobs be? A generation or so ago, jobs came in just two basic colors: blue collar and white. Now, we’ve got one black-collared Jobs, trotting out another supposedly game-changing gadget in his trademark mock turtleneck (color Pee Wee Herman among the unimpressed ).

The real game changer, though, is the thousands of green jobs we could be creating, if only we’d reallocate our deficit-depleted resources. And the Steve showing us how to do this is named Ritz, not Jobs.

Steve Ritz is a trail-blazing teacher with an impressive track record of achievement working with students in one of the most challenging environments in New York City, the South Bronx–that eternally dumped-on borough whose name is synonymous with urban blight.

Ritz has figured out how to grow good food, good jobs and good citizens by tapping into one of our greatest wasted resources–urban youth. And he’s doing it in Hunts Point, a quintessential “food desert” that, ironically, just happens to also be one of the world’s largest food distribution centers; 2.7 billion pounds of fresh produce from 49 states and 55 foreign countries passes through Hunts Point’s New York City Terminal Market annually on its way to more affluent neighborhoods.

Sadly, those endless truckloads of fresh fruits and vegetables don’t do the locals much good. In fact, all the fumes from that commerce contribute to the South Bronx’s extraordinarily high rate of respiratory illness, with a death rate from asthma that’s about three times the national average.

Hunts Point is also part of the poorest congressional district in the country, with over half the population living below the poverty line. The unemployment rate is at a whopping 28 percent. And the neighborhood’s 41st police precinct consistently records the highest violent crime rate per capita in New York City.

Undaunted by these grim statistics, Ritz took classes with a 40 percent attendance rate and brought them up to 93 percent. More remarkably still, his students have consistently achieved 100% passing grades on the state Regents exams in math and science.

Ritz’s current goal is to establish the Hunts Point High School for Sustainable Community Initiatives, an open enrollment NYC public school that would train local youth in emerging fields such as green roofing, urban agriculture, natural resource management, brown field remediation–in short, all the 21st century post-petroleum vocations in which our labor force needs to be skilled.

At his current position teaching at the Discovery High School in the Bronx, Ritz just oversaw the installation of a living, edible green wall in partnership with a for-profit enterprise called Green Living Technologies, a pioneering developer of cutting edge urban agricultural systems.

Green Living Technologies is sponsoring a team of Ritz’s students, bringing them to Boston later this month “to be the first high school students in America to be trained and certified as green wall and green roof installers,” Ritz told me, adding that this is “proof that we are poised, ready, willing and able to export our talent and diversity nationally as we transform the landscape and mindset of the South Bronx.”
http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2010/02/a-high-school-for-green-teens/

Accelerating Solar Power Adoption: Compounding Cost Savings Across the Value Chain

2010-02-08T08:02:00.000-08:00

This is a very important article excerpted from the Rocky Mountain Institute's (RMI)website. See more about the RMI below.

Accelerating Solar Power Adoption: Compounding Cost Savings Across the Value Chain
AUTHOR: Newman, Sam;Doig, Stephen;Hansen, Lena;Lacy, Virginia
DOCUMENT ID: 2009-03
YEAR: 2009
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
PUBLISHER: American Solar Energy Society
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-03_AcceleratingSolarPowerAdoption

This paper discusses common barriers to solar power adoption and techniques for getting around those barriers. The authors argue that for solar power to become a significant contributor to energy supply, and hence greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the industry has to achieve high annual growth rates for decades. The challenge cannot be overstated, especially once subsidies can no longer be relied upon to drive industry growth. Several barriers, including high costs, lack of reliable demand, supply chain dynamics, and utility integration issues, threaten to prevent adoption rates from rising as fast as is required. In particular, high costs are a major barrier, since solar power must soon be cost competitive unsubsidized.

Fortunately, large cost reduction potential is available, which has not been captured during the hectic expansion of the industry. Based on experience in other industries, the basic tools of end use efficiency, whole systems design, lean manufacturing, and economies of scale will let technology manufacturers and PV installers drive down costs by a factor of two or more. These savings, enabled with support from government policies, industrial collaboration, and process efficiency gains, can bring today’s PV technologies to grid parity in many markets, allowing the exponential growth curve to continue.
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-03_AcceleratingSolarPowerAdoption

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)
Vision and Mission

Vision
RMI’s vision is a world thriving, verdant, and secure, for all, for ever.

Mission
Our mission is to drive the efficient and restorative use of resources.
RMI's style is non-adversarial and trans-ideological, emphasizing integrative design, advanced technologies, and mindful markets. Our strategic focus, executed through specific initiatives designed to take our work rapidly to scale, is to map and drive the transition from coal and oil to efficiency and renewables.

We work extensively with the private sector, as well as with civil society and government, to create abundance by design and to apply the framework of natural capitalism.

Majora Carter: Activist for environmental justice

2010-02-02T07:00:00.000-08:00

Majora Carter fights for environmental justice in her hometown of New York's South Bronx. She's working not just to hold back the polluters who target low-income neighborhoods like hers, but to bring back the green -- and create green jobs.

Why you should listen to her:

Majora Carter is a visionary voice in city planning who views urban renewal through an environmental lens. The South Bronx native draws a direct connection between ecological, economic and social degradation. Hence her motto: "Green the ghetto!"

With her inspired ideas and fierce persistence, Carter managed to bring the South Bronx its first open-waterfront park in 60 years, Hunts Point Riverside Park. Then she scored $1.25 million in federal funds for a greenway along the South Bronx waterfront, bringing the neighborhood open space, pedestrian and bike paths, and space for mixed-use economic development.

Her success is no surprise to anyone who's seen her speak; Carter's confidence, energy and intensely emotional delivery make her talks themselves a force of nature. (The release of her TEDTalk in 2006 prompted Guy Kawasaki to wonder on his blog whether she wasn't "every bit as good as [Apple CEO] Steve Jobs," a legendary presenter.)

Carter, who was awarded a 2005 MacArthur "genius" grant, now serves as executive director of Sustainable South Bronx, where she pushes both for eco-friendly practices (such as green and cool roofs) and, equally important, job training and green-related economic development for her vibrant neighborhood on the rise.

"We could not fail to be inspired by Majora Carter's efforts to bring green space for exercise to the South Bronx. We need more ideas like these to bring solutions to minority communities."
http://www.ted.com/speakers/majora_carter.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ-cZRmHfs4

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/majora_carter_s_tale_of_urban_renewal.html

Social Compact

2010-02-01T10:04:00.000-08:00

About Social Compact

Social Compact is a non-profit organization that breaks down barriers to public investment in underserved urban areas. Since its founding in 1990, the organization has become a powerful force for change in overlooked urban markets by delivering the reliable, representative, and up-to-the-minute information about a community’s economic health needed to make critically important investments possible and partnering with investors, municipalities, and community leaders to leverage this valuable information in the decision-making process.

BETTER DATA = BETTER INVESTMENT

Over the last decade, Social Compact has focused its work on the development and deployment of a collection of innovative economic and demographic analyses custom tailored for inner-city neighborhoods. When these analytical tools, most often as part of a Social Compact DrillDown profile, are applied to a wide range of transactional data sets, the resulting information is an invaluable tool for attracting local investment. Findings have been successfully used by cities and businesses to provide quality financial and municipal services, encourage property as well as small business development, and attract retail investment.

Unlike most other methodologies, Social Compact’s analyses are not derived from census data and are calibrated to measure the vibrant, informal economies of underserved urban areas, integrating information about real estate, consumer expenditures, utility usage, bill payments and other critical factors. The organization’s groundbreaking research replaces outdated and outmoded, deficiency-based data on lower-income communities with current and reliable market analysis.

Cumulatively, Social Compact has identified:
• Aggregate household income $35 billion (22%) higher than census trend projections
• 350,000 more households than census trend projections
• 1.25 million more residents than census trend projections

BETTER NUMBERS = BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS

More than 20 cities have partnered with Social Compact to conduct analyses in over 350 urban neighborhoods. Because Social Compact is uniquely able to statistically capture the real-life picture of a community’s economic health, it can incisively identify and quantify opportunities in areas traditionally overlooked and underserved by businesses, financial establishments, and other services. Social Compact’s reports, and the investment that often follows, can catalyze the redefinition of a neighborhood’s business profile, create jobs, bolster the tax base, improve the availability of goods, and help create better-served, healthier, and safer neighborhoods.
http://www.socialcompact.org/

Building a Solidarity Economy

2009-12-20T08:51:00.000-08:00

"Other Economies Are Possible!": Building a Solidarity Economy
Published on Grassroots Economic Organizing (http://www.geo.coop)
By Ethan Miller, GEO Collective

Consider this: thousands of diverse, locally-rooted, grassroots economic projects are in the process of creating the basis for a viable democratic alternative to capitalism. It might seem unlikely that a motley array of initiatives such as worker, consumer, and housing cooperatives, community currencies, urban gardens, fair trade organizations, intentional communities, and neighborhood self-help associations could hold a candle to the pervasive and seemingly all-powerful capitalist economy. These "islands of alternatives in a capitalist sea" are often small in scale, low in resources, and sparsely networked. They are rarely able to connect with each other, much less to link their work with larger, coherent structural visions of an alternative economy.

Indeed, in the search for alternatives to capitalism, existing democratic economic projects are frequently painted as noble but marginal practices, doomed to be crushed or co-opted by the forces of the market. But is this inevitable? Is it possible that courageous and dedicated grassroots economic activists worldwide, forging paths that meet the basic needs of their communities while cultivating democracy and justice, are planting the seeds of another economy in our midst? Could a process of horizontal networking, linking diverse democratic alternatives and social change organizations together in webs of mutual recognition and support, generate a social movement and economic vision capable of challenging the global capitalist order?

To these audacious suggestions, economic activists around the world organizing under the banner of economia solidaria, or "solidarity economy," would answer a resounding "yes!" It is precisely these innovative, bottom-up experiences of production, exchange, and consumption that are building the foundation for what many people are calling "new cultures and economies of solidarity."

Origins of the Solidarity Economy Approach

The idea and practice of "solidarity economics" emerged in Latin America in the mid-1980s and blossomed in the mid to late 90s, as a convergence of at least three social trends.

First, the economic exclusion experienced by growing segments of society, generated by deepening debt and the ensuing structural adjustment programs imposed by the International Monetary Fund, forced many communities to develop and strengthen creative, autonomous and locally-rooted ways of meeting basic needs. These included initiatives such as worker and producer cooperatives, neighborhood and community associations, savings and credit associations, collective kitchens, and unemployed or landless worker mutual-aid organizations.

Second, growing dissatisfaction with the culture of the dominant market economy led groups of more economically privileged people to seek new ways of generating livelihoods and providing services. From largely a middle-class "counter-culture"-similar to that in the Unites States since the 1960's-emerged projects such as consumer cooperatives, cooperative childcare and health care initiatives, housing cooperatives, intentional communities, and ecovillages. There were often significant class and cultural differences between these two groups. Nevertheless, the initiatives they generated all shared a common set of operative values: cooperation, autonomy from centralized authorities, and participatory self-management by their members.

A third trend worked to link the two grassroots upsurges of economic solidarity to each other and to the larger socioeconomic context: emerging local and regional movements were beginning to forge global connections in opposition to the forces of neoliberal and neocolonial globalization. Seeking a democratic alternative to both capitalist globalization and state socialism, these movements identified community-based economic projects as key elements of alternative social organization.

At the First Latin Encuentro of Solidarity Culture and Socioeconomy, held in 1998 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, participants from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Colombia, and Spain created the Red latinoamericana de la economía a solidaria (Latin American Solidarity Economy Network). In a statement, the Network declared, "We have observed that our experiences have much in common: a thirst for justice, a logic of participation, creativity, and processes of self-management and autonomy." By linking these shared experiences together in mutual support, they proclaimed, it would be possible to work toward "a socioeconomy of solidarity as a way of life that encompasses the totality of the human being."

Since 1998, this solidarity economy approach has developed into a global movement. The first World Social Forum in 2001 marked the creation of the Global Network of the Solidarity Socioeconomy, fostered in large part by an international working group of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural, and United World. By the time of the 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai, India, the Global Network had grown to include 47 national and regional solidarity economy networks from nearly every continent, representing tens of thousands of democratic grassroots economic initiatives worldwide. At the most recent World Social Forum in Venezuela, solidarity economy topics comprised an estimated one-third of the entire event's program.

Defining Solidarity Economics

But what exactly is this "solidarity economy approach"? For some theorists of the movement, it begins with a redefinition of economic space itself. The dominant neoclassical story paints the economy as a singular space in which market actors (firms or individuals) seek to maximize their gain in a context of scarce resources. These actors play out their profit-seeking dramas on a stage wholly defined by the dynamics of the market and the state. Countering this narrow approach, solidarity economics embraces a plural and cultural view of the economy as a complex space of social relationship in which individuals, communities, and organizations generate livelihoods through many different means and with many different motivations and aspirations-not just the maximization of individual gain. The economic activity validated by neoclassical economists represents, in this view, only a tiny fraction of human efforts to meet needs and fulfill desires.

What really sustains us when the factories shut down, when the floodwaters rise, or when the paycheck is not enough? In the face of failures of market and state, we often survive by self-organized relationships of care, cooperation, and community. Despite the ways in which capitalist culture generates and mobilizes a drive toward competition and selfishness, basic practices of human solidarity remain the foundation upon which society and community are built. Capitalism's dominance may, in fact, derive in no small part from its ability to co-opt and colonize these relationships of cooperation and mutual aid.

In expanding what counts as part of "the economy," solidarity economics resonates with other streams of contemporary radical economic thought. Marxist economists such as Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff, for example, have suggested that multiple "modes of production" co-exist alongside the capitalist wage labor mode. Feminist economists have demonstrated how neoclassical conceptions have hidden and devalued basic forms of subsistence and caregiving work that are often done by women. Feminist economic geographer J.K. Gibson-Graham, in her books The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It) (1998) and A Postcapitalist Politics (2006), synthesizes these and other streams of thought in what she calls the "diverse economies perspective." Addressing concerns that are central to the solidarity economy approach, she asks, "If we viewed the economic landscape as imperfectly colonized, homogenized, systematized, might we not find openings for projects of noncapitalist invention? Might we not find ways to construct different communities and societies, building upon what already exists?"

Indeed, the first task of solidarity economics is to identify existing economic practices-often invisible or marginal to the dominant lens-that foster cooperation, dignity, equity, self-determination, and democracy. As Carola Reintjes of the Spanish fair trade association Iniciativas de Economia Alternativa y Solidaria (IDEAS) points out, "Solidarity economy is not a sector of the economy, but a transversal approach that includes initiatives in all sectors." This project cuts across traditional lines of formal/ informal, market/non-market, and social/economic in search of solidarity-based practices of production, exchange and consumption- ranging from legally-structured worker cooperatives, which engage the capitalist market with cooperative values, to informal affinity-based neighborhood gift networks. (See "A Map of the Solidarity Economy," pp. 20-21.) At a 2000 conference in Dublin on the "Third Sector" (the "voluntary" sector, as opposed to the for-profit sector and the state), Brazilian activist Ana Mercedes Sarria Icaza put it this way: "To speak of a solidarity economy is not to speak of a homogeneous universe with similar characteristics. Indeed, the universe of the solidarity economy reflects a multiplicity of spaces and forms, as much in what we would call the â??formal aspects' (size, structure, governance) as in qualitative aspects (levels of solidarity, democracy, dynamism, and selfmanagement)."

At its core, solidarity economics rejects one-size-fits-all solutions and singular economic blueprints, embracing instead a view that economic and social development should occur from the bottom up, diversely and creatively crafted by those who are most affected. As Marcos Arruda of the Brazilian Solidarity Economy Network stated at the World Social Forum in 2004, "a solidarity economy does not arise from thinkers or ideas; it is the outcome of the concrete historical struggle of the human being to live and to develop him/herself as an individual and a collective." Similarly, contrasting the solidarity economy approach to historical visions of the "cooperative commonwealth," Henri de Roche noted that "the old cooperativism was a utopia in search of its practice and the new cooperativism is a practice in search of its utopia." Unlike many alternative economic projects that have come before, solidarity economics does not seek to build a singular model of how the economy should be structured, but rather pursues a dynamic process of economic organizing in which organizations, communities, and social movements work to identify, strengthen, connect, and create democratic and liberatory means of meeting their needs.

Success will only emerge as a product of organization and struggle. "Innovative practices at the micro level can only be viable and structurally effective for social change," said Arruda, "if they interweave with one another to form always-broader collaborative networks and solidarity chains of production-financedistribution-consumption-education-communication." This is, perhaps, the heart of solidarity economics-the process of networking diverse structures that share common values in ways that strengthen each. Mapping out the economic terrain in terms of "chains of solidarity production," organizers can build relationships of mutual aid and exchange between initiatives that increase their collective viability. At the same time, building relationships between solidarity-based enterprises and larger social movements builds increased support for the solidarity economy while allowing the movements to meet some of the basic needs of their participants, demonstrate viable alternatives, and thus increase the power and scope of their transformative work.

In Brazil, this dynamic is demonstrated by the Landless Workers Movement (MST). As a broad, popular movement for economic justice and agrarian reform, the MST has built a powerful program combining social and political action with cooperative, solidarity-based economics. From the establishment of democratic, cooperative settlements on land re-appropriated from wealthy absentee landlords to the development of nationwide, inter-settlement exchanges of products and services, networks of economic solidarity are contributing significantly to the sustenance of more than 300,000 families-over a million people. The Brazilian Solidarity Economy Forum, of which the MST is a part, works on an even broader scale, incorporating twelve national networks and membership organizations with twenty-one regional Solidarity Forums and thousands of cooperative enterprises to build mutual support systems, facilitate exchanges, create cooperative incubator programs, and shape public policy.

Building a Movement

The potential for building concrete local, national, and even global networks of solidarity-based support and exchange is tremendous and yet barely realized. While some countries, notably Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Spain, and Venezuela, have created strong solidarity-economy networks linked with growing social movements, others have barely begun. The United States is an example. With the exception of the Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural, a U.S.-Mexico cross-border agricultural solidarity organization, the United States has been nearly absent from global conversations about solidarity economics. Maybe it's harder for those in the "belly of the beast" to imagine that alternatives to capitalism are possible. Are alternative economic practices somehow rendered more invisible, or more isolated, in the United States than in other parts of the world? Are there simply fewer solidarity-basedinitiatives with which to network?

Perhaps. But things are changing. An increasing number of U.S. organizations, researchers, writers, students, and concerned citizens are questioning capitalist economic dogma and exploring alternatives. A new wave of grassroots economic organizing is cultivating the next generation of worker cooperatives, community currency initiatives, housing cooperatives and collectives, community garden projects, fair trade campaigns, community land trusts, anarchist bookstores ("infoshops"), and community centers. Groups working on similar projects are making connections with each other. Hundreds of worker-owners from diverse cooperative businesses across the nation, for example, will gather in New York City this October at the second meeting of the United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives (see p. 9). In the realm of cross-sector organizing, a broad coalition of organizations is working to create a comprehensive public directory of the cooperative and solidarity economy in the United States and Canada as a tool for networking and organizing.

It takes no great stretch of the imagination to picture, within the next five to ten years, a "U.S. Solidarity Economy Summit" convening many of the thousands of democratic, grassroots economic projects in the United States to generate a stronger shared identity, build relationships, and lay the groundwork for a U.S. Solidarity Economy Alliance. Move over, CEOs of the Business Roundtable!

Wishful thinking? Maybe not. In the words of Argentinian economist and organizer Jose Luis Corragio, "the viability of social transformation is rarely a fact; it is, rather, something that must be constructed." This is a call to action.

Ethan Miller is a writer, musician, subsistence farmer, and organizer. A member of the GEO Collective and of the musical collective Riotfolk (www.riotfolk.org), he lives and works at the JED Community Land Trust, a land-based mutual-aid cooperative in Greene, Maine.

SOURCES

Marcos Arruda, "Solidarity Economy and the Rebirth of a Matristic Human Society," World Social Forum, Mumbai, India, January 2004, www. socioeco.org

Jose Luis Corragio, "Alternativas para o desenvolvimento humano em um mundo globalizado," Proposta No. 72, 1997

J-K Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006

J-K Gibson-Graham, A Postcapitalist Politics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006

Ana Mercedes Sarria Icaza, "Tercer Sector y Economia Solidaria en el Sur de Brasil: caracteristicas y perspectives," www.truequemarysierras.org.ar/BLES36.zip

Latin Meeting on a Culture and a Socioeconomy of Solidarity, "Letter from Porto Alegre," Porto Alegre, Brazil, August 1998, www.socioeco.org

Euclides Mance, "Construindo a socioeconomia solidaria no Brasil," Report from the First Brazlilian Meeting on a Culture and Socioeconomy of Solidarity, Rio de Janeiro, June 11-18, 2000

Ethan Miller, "Solidarity Economics: Strategies for Building New Economies from the Bottom-Up and the Inside-Out," Greene, Maine. May, 2002, www.geo.coop

Carola Reintjas, "What is a Solidarity Economy?" Life After Capitalism Talks, World Social Forum III, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2003, www.zmag.org/carolase.htm

Harriet Fraad, Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff, Bringing It All Back Home: Class, Gender and Power in the Modern Household, London: Pluto Press, 1994

Workgroup on a Solidarity Socioeconomy, "Exchanging Visions of a Solidarity Economy: Glossary of Important Terms and Expressions," November, 2005, www.socioeco.org.

Source URL:
http://www.geo.coop/node/35
http://www.transformationcentral.org/solidarity/solidaritydocuments/othereconomies.pdf

Imagine Green Future

2009-12-10T12:31:00.000-08:00

What Are Sustainable Communities?

"Sustainable communities are those communities which support the dignity of families and individuals and in which the quality of life is renewed and enhanced within the context of responsible environmental practice through collective decision-making and action. Sustainable communities depend upon the existence of a social infrastructure which provides for the basic needs of shelter, jobs/income, health, education and social support."

"Sustainable development can be defined as development that delivers basic environmental, social, and economic services to all residents of community without threatening the viability of the natural, built, and social systems."
http://www.grpartners.org/communities.php

You are probably aware of the condiments company, Newman's Own. Newman's Own (http://www.newmansown.com/) is a company started by Paul Newman that donates all profits and royalties after taxes to educational and charitable purposes. I believe that this concept --using private enterprise for public good-- can be applied to many other applications. Before I explain how I propose we utilize this concept, I will offer a view of the landscape as I see it.

Wall St wobbles waiting for Main St. to find it's footing and Main St. is scared. Noted conservative journalist and commentator David Brooks put it this way in a New York Times article;

"If there’s a thread running through the gravest current concerns, it is that people lack a secure environment in which they can lead their lives. Wild swings in global capital and energy markets buffet family budgets. Nobody is sure the health care system will be there when they need it. National productivity gains don’t seem to alleviate economic anxiety. Inequality strains national cohesion. In many communities, social norms do not encourage academic achievement, decent values or family stability. These problems straining the social fabric aren’t directly addressed by maximizing individual freedom."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12brooks.html?hp

It seems that everyone is treading water waiting for meaningful positive change. Meanwhile, firms are laying off, businesses are failing, families frayed, communities are stressed, and people are suffering. The ebbs and flows of economic cycles always involve some pain, free markets are constantly weeding out marginal players, this is par for the course. Yet, we may be in uncharted territory as we face severe challenges domestically and from abroad. Because of war commitments, huge and growing entitlement programs and a citizenry hammered by a low tax mantra, policy makers have extremely difficult choices to make. Education budgets are being cut even when studies show that investments early on save expenditures down the road. Public safety costs are escalating and recidivism as well. We are increasingly paying more and getting less.

Essentially this is a method to use the power of the free market, volunteerism and self-help to build beauty, self-sufficiency and sustainability from the ground up in areas of society that are now a drain on public resources and often resistant to current remediation methods. The impulse to do good works, the need for social justice and the quickening wave of excitement about green energy creates an elegant community project generating a synergy greater than it's parts.

This project will not raise our taxes. This project will not force government regulation on overburdened business or people. This project will facilitate our working together to create a green Delray, bringing capital and income to areas of historic deficits. Please keep an open mind and have a look. As presented it functions in a municipal context. I can show how the framework can be utilized in for-profit and non-profit organizations as well, including your own business. Using this method business owners may enhance recruitment, retention and job satisfaction for their valued team members and support Social Ventures through an innovative funding mechanism.

Adam Smith saw the invisible hand of the marketplace as using selfish motives to work to the greater good. This is good as far as it goes but as my dear 'ol dad used to say in answer to my libertarian rants, "Billy, in the long run the free market solves all problems. But in the long run, we are all dead." We currently have a global economy that can produce far more than consumers have money to buy. In the past several years our economy has been running on paper profits, home equity, credit cards, Chinese financed debt, Internet and Real Estate bubbles, smoke and mirrors and fumes. We are also spending our natural capital, our children's inheritance, with our devil-may-care, winner-take-all policies. Wages have stagnated, benefit costs, most especially health benefit costs, are rising along with the cost of food and other essentials.

The path to a green future is from the ground up. If we are to meet the goals of a sustainable future, then we must find ways around the inertia, politics and left/right conflicts of government, and, the real or perceived, heartless, short-term, bottom-line focus of business. We need to find ways of engaging and exciting the bottom half of society and providing tangible benefits to them for joining efforts to mitigate climate change.

The methods that we use should allow a broad cross-section of people to work together in building a mutually beneficial green future. Organizations and individuals working on behalf of social and economic justice and green initiatives, need to create vehicles for cooperative ventures between their communities and enlightened entities in the private sector. By building communities of practice and cooperative networks around shared goals and using the network to create funding mechanisms, we can bypass the pitfalls of being dependent on taxpayers to fund critical needs in our community. Working together we can accomplish much.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair

"If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst."
~Thomas Hardy

Let's be honest. Alternative Energy is the ultimate Disruptive technology. The primary impediment to wider implementation of climate friendly technology is the same impediment to many needed social advancements; powerful corporations and the decades of carbon-based wealth behind them and over our government.

American society is a consumption-based economy. We are a get rich quick at any cost society. We are a live for today and "who gives a hoot about tomorrow" society. We are a "me first" society. For our type of social system, "all of nature is not enough". We need systemic change but the power and influence of status quo money makes meaningful political change that truly empowers people and honors the Earth a difficult if not Quixotic goal.

Systemic change in the political realm will happen when we strengthen the social bonds between our divided people. When the people lead, the leaders will follow. When individual people move beyond our comfort zones and build common ground with those beyond our ideologies, races, cultural grounding, personal orbit and life experiences, we will find the means and the answers to meet our most difficult challenges.

Much of everything else we do is further dividing us, destroying any remaining hope, wasting our treasure, burning up our time and spinning our wheels. We have the appearance of progress because we vote for candidate A over candidate B, or demonstrate against the war or for climate change legislation, or when one lower-class group moves forward at the expense of another or when our words sound so noble and impressive and we excite and inspire our "team", but if we can not see the road towards common ground, if we can not find unity of purpose between our divided people, we implicitly support the status quo. We can do better.

Discretionary incomes are flat if not falling and we are in a slash and burn jobs spiral with consequent family breakdown, loss of much middle-class wealth and increases in crime and other unforeseen consequences for our society. I believe that purpose and profit can work to the benefit of each other. I believe that people have the capability to craft cooperative structures that allow for the unleashing of our collective civic energies. I believe that if we are able to use our imaginations, willing to take small risks and trust one another we can together do some amazing things.

Possible positive outcomes include;
Green our Neighborhoods
Create Green Jobs
Increase the municipal tax base
Lower the costs of crime and social disorganization
Mitigate the foreclosure crisis
Create a green consumer base
Build a green political constituency
Increase racial reconciliation
Strengthen our non-profit sector
Raise levels of trust between citizen and government
Increase trust between business and consumers/workers
Cure cancer and turn sand to gold

Well, maybe not the last one. At least not this time around. LOL

Let's look at a concrete example of how our project will work in the example of an architect. We will need architects to create design elements that can be retrofitted onto existing structures that will allow for maximum use of prevailing winds, and other innovative architectural applications to conserve energy thereby lowering energy costs to struggling homeowners and reducing our carbon footprint.

Working with habitat for Humanity, our local CDC's, the TED Center, Workforce Development, private staffing agencies, and forward thinking architectural, construction and building supply firms, we can retrofit existing homes, build new high efficient, off-the-grid, housing stock and mitigate our rapidly masticating financial crisis with this project. The magic is in the fact that we will be mounting a project that is beneficial community-wide, it runs on voluntary energy financed by market forces and it targets it's resources in areas of most need and maximum ability to stimulate the moribund economy.

Furthermore, since the capital aggregated and the income paid out will be funneled through TBL (Triple Bottom Line) metrics, we will build a sustainable and durable foundation for the future. More magic is found in the novelty of the idea and the way we are turning on it's head a business model more known for enriching folk with superior sales and marketing skills and the stamina, initiative and moxie to make those skills pay. Once public perceptions of the motivations of many in the business are turned upside down and the capital generated is used in ways that are clearly and demonstrably socially useful, then the image of the Network Marketing business model will also evolve and the conventional business model as well. In a best-case scenario, we will maintain the capital aggregation power of free markets within a consumer driven context of social justice and environmental sustainability.

Working Together for a Green New Deal

By Van Jones

The article excerpted below appeared in the November 17, 2008 edition of The Nation.
October 29, 2008

This article is adapted from The Green Collar Economy, by Van Jones with Ariane Conrad.

Society faces some huge challenges. The individuals, entrepreneurs and community leaders who will step up to make the repairs and changes are going to need help. They require and deserve a world-class partner in our government. The time has come for a public-private community partnership to fix this country and put it back to work. In the framework of a Green New Deal, the government would become a powerful partner to the problem solvers of the world--and not the problem makers.

Now, we cannot achieve the goal of a Green New Deal just by wishing for it. The first step in getting the government to support an inclusive, green economy is to build a durable political coalition.

To change our laws and culture, the green movement must attract and include the majority of all people, not just the majority of affluent people. The time has come to move beyond eco-elitism to eco-populism. Eco-populism would always foreground those green solutions that can improve ordinary people's standard of living--and decrease their cost of living.

But bringing people of different races and classes and backgrounds together under a single banner is tougher than it sounds. I have been trying to bridge this divide for nearly a decade. And I learned a few things along the way.

What I found is that leaders from impoverished areas like Oakland, California, tended to focus on three areas: social justice, political solutions and social change. They cared primarily about "the people." They focused their efforts on fixing schools, improving healthcare, defending civil rights and reducing the prison population. Their "social change" work involved lobbying, campaigning and protesting. They were wary of businesses; instead, they turned to the political system and government to help solve the problems of the community.

The leaders I met from affluent places like Marin County (just north of San Francisco), San Francisco and Silicon Valley had what seemed to be the opposite approach. Their three focus areas were ecology, business solutions and "inner change." They were champions of "the planet"--rainforests and important species like whales and polar bears. Many were dedicated to inner-change work, including meditation and yoga. And they put a great deal of stress on making wise, earth-honoring consumer choices. In fact, many were either green entrepreneurs or investors in eco-friendly businesses.

Every effort I made to get the two groups together initially was a disaster--sometimes ending in tears, anger and slammed doors.

Trying to make sense of the differences, I wrote out three binaries on a napkin:

1. Ecology vs. Social Justice

2. Business Solutions (Entrepreneurship) vs. Political Solutions (Activism)

3. Spiritual/Inner Change vs. Social/Outer Change

People on both sides of the equation tended to think that their preferences precluded any serious consideration of the options presented on the opposite side.

Increasingly, I saw the value and importance of both approaches. I thought, What would we have if we replaced those "versus" symbols with "plus" signs? What if we built a movement at the intersection of the ecology and social justice movements, of entrepreneurship and activism, of inner change and social change? What if we didn't just have hybrid cars--what if we had a hybrid movement?

To return to the metaphor of the slave ship Amistad, the question in my mind has become, What if those rebel Africans, while still in chains, had looked out and noticed the name of their ship was not the Amistad but the Titanic? How would that fact have affected their mission? What would change if they knew the entire ship was imperiled, that everyone on it--the slavers and enslaved--could all die if the ship continued on its course, unchanged?

The rebels suddenly would have had a very different set of leadership challenges. They would have had the obligation not just to liberate the captives but also to save the entire ship. In fact, the hero would be the one who found a way to save everyone on board--including the slavers. And the urgency of freeing the captives would have been that much greater--because the smarts and the effort of everyone would have been needed to save everyone.

For the sake of the ship--our planet--and all aboard it, the effort to go green must be all hands on deck.

We can take the unfinished business of America on questions of inclusion and equal opportunity and combine it with the new business of building a green economy, thereby healing the country on two fronts and redeeming the soul of the nation. We must.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081117/jones

What is the CSP?
The Community Sustainability Partnership is a coalition of businesses, community members, and city administrations to facilitate the sharing of information, combination of strengths, and to take advantage of opportunities.

Building Social Capital

What is it worth to have employees who feel fulfilled? What is the value of healthy communities? Of the three legs in sustainability, social capital is the most difficult to define and measure, and therefore has a tendency to be placed on the back burner.

From a business perspective, it is costly and time-consuming to attract, train and retain quality employees. A business committed to the triple bottom line will provide an environment for their employees that welcomes diversity and innovation, and provides a sense of fulfillment and pride. A sustainable business will treat their employees with respect, and offer a livable wage, fair health benefits, and a work environment that improves productivity, safety and well being. These types of organizations have a competitive advantage, as worker retention and productivity are certainly measurable improvements to the bottom line. In addition, investors and consumers are increasingly valuing this type of social responsibility

A business' employees are part of a community and they carry sustainable values with them, allowing social equity to spill into the other component of building social capital: building healthy communities.

http://www.centerforsustainability.org/resources.php?root=176&category=153

Sustainable Community Design

To create a sustainable world, we must live in sustainable communities. People will need to decrease or eliminate their reliance on cars, fossil fuels, cheap goods from China, and vegetables grown in the deserts of California with the application of billions of gallons of water. Sustainable urban and community planning will produce a new symptom of healthy people living in walkable, bikeable communities. Community design that allows people to walk, bike or utilize public transportation to arrive at their local grocery, bank or workplace is the ultimate goal of sustainability.

The return to regional economies will systematically rather than technologically reduce transport miles, time wasted in traffic jams, unemployment, and environmental degradation. Imagine being able to once again purchase high quality goods that are manufactured within your community by your neighbors. Local resources will be utilized in the processes and the nutrients returned back to the earth upon disposal. Renewable energy will be generated on site or within the community, so as to decrease energy loss from transmission.

Sustainable communities are all about species 'belonging' to a community, with every sense of that word. Many people today believe that we can just leave our cities, states, country, or even planet if the environmental destruction becomes too severe. This way of living cannot be sustainably maintained into the future.

"Lets not make a big mess here and go somewhere else less hospitable even if we figure out how. Let's use our ingenuity to stay here; to become, once again, native to this planet" (McDonough & Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 87).

http://www.centerforsustainability.org/resources.php?category=10&root=10

The Next Green Revolution
How technology is leading environmentalism out of the anti-business, anti-consumer wilderness.
By Alex Nikolai Steffen

For decades, environmentalists have warned of a coming climate crisis. Their alarms went unheeded, and last year we reaped an early harvest: a singularly ferocious hurricane season, record snowfall in New England, the worst-ever wildfires in Alaska, arctic glaciers at their lowest ebb in millennia, catastrophic drought in Brazil, devastating floods in India - portents of global warming's destructive potential.
Green-minded activists failed to move the broader public not because they were wrong about the problems, but because the solutions they offered were unappealing to most people. They called for tightening belts and curbing appetites, turning down the thermostat and living lower on the food chain. They rejected technology, business, and prosperity in favor of returning to a simpler way of life. No wonder the movement got so little traction. Asking people in the world's wealthiest, most advanced societies to turn their backs on the very forces that drove such abundance is naive at best.

With climate change hard upon us, a new green movement is taking shape, one that embraces environmentalism's concerns but rejects its worn-out answers. Technology can be a font of endlessly creative solutions. Business can be a vehicle for change. Prosperity can help us build the kind of world we want. Scientific exploration, innovative design, and cultural evolution are the most powerful tools we have. Entrepreneurial zeal and market forces, guided by sustainable policies, can propel the world into a bright green future.

Americans trash the planet not because we're evil, but because the industrial systems we've devised leave no other choice. Our ranch houses and high-rises, factories and farms, freeways and power plants were conceived before we had a clue how the planet works. They're primitive inventions designed by people who didn't fully grasp the consequences of their actions.

Consider the unmitigated ecological disaster that is the automobile. Every time you turn on the ignition, you're enmeshed in a system whose known outcomes include a polluted atmosphere, oil-slicked seas, and desert wars. As comprehension of the stakes has grown, though, a market has emerged for a more sensible alternative. Today you can drive a Toyota Prius that burns far less gasoline than a conventional car. Tomorrow we might see vehicles that consume no fossil fuels and emit no greenhouse gases. Combine cars like that with smarter urban growth and we're well on our way to sustainable transportation.

You don't change the world by hiding in the woods, wearing a hair shirt, or buying indulgences in the form of save the earth bumper stickers. You do it by articulating a vision for the future and pursuing it with all the ingenuity humanity can muster. Indeed, being green at the start of the 21st century requires a wholehearted commitment to upgrading civilization. Four key principles can guide the way:

Renewable energy is plentiful energy. Burning fossil fuels is a filthy habit, and the supply won't last forever. Fortunately, a growing number of renewable alternatives promise clean, inexhaustible power: wind turbines, solar arrays, wave-power flotillas, small hydroelectric generators, geothermal systems, even bioengineered algae that turn waste into hydrogen. The challenge is to scale up these technologies to deliver power in industrial quantities - exactly the kind of challenge brilliant businesspeople love.

Efficiency creates value. The number one US industrial product is waste. Waste is worse than stupid; it's costly, which is why we're seeing businesspeople in every sector getting a jump on the competition by consuming less water, power, and materials. What's true for industry is true at home, too: Think well-insulated houses full of natural light, cars that sip instead of guzzle, appliances that pay for themselves in energy savings.

Cities beat suburbs. Manhattanites use less energy than most people in North America. Sprawl eats land and snarls traffic. Building homes close together is a more efficient use of space and infrastructure. It also encourages walking, promotes public transit, and fosters community.

Quality is wealth. More is not better. Better is better. You don't need a bigger house; you need a different floor plan. You don't need more stuff; you need stuff you'll actually use. Ecofriendly designs and nontoxic materials already exist, and there's plenty of room for innovation. You may pay more for things like long-lasting, energy-efficient LED lightbulbs, but they'll save real money over the long term.

Redesigning civilization along these lines would bring a quality of life few of us can imagine. That's because a fully functioning ecology is tantamount to tangible wealth. Clean air and water, a diversity of animal and plant species, soil and mineral resources, and predictable weather are annuities that will pay dividends for as long as the human race survives - and may even extend our stay on Earth.

It may seem impossibly far away, but on days when the smog blows off, you can already see it: a society built on radically green design, sustainable energy, and closed-loop cities; a civilization afloat on a cloud of efficient, nontoxic, recyclable technology. That's a future we can live with.

Alex Nikolai Steffen (alex@worldchanging.com) runs Worldchanging.com and edited the book Worldchanging: A User's Guide for the 21st Century.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/green.html

How can I be more green?
Three questions from the enviro frontier.
By Brendan I. Koerner

Should I ditch my old Toyota Corolla and buy a Prius? Hybrids get better mileage, but it takes energy to build a new car, right?
Right - but the green choice is still the Prius. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 10 percent of the energy consumed by an automobile during its life cycle. Gas burned by the engine makes up almost everything else. So if a 1993 Corolla gets 27.5 miles per gallon and a 2006 Prius gets 55 mpg, you should earn back the energy "investment" that went into making the hybrid in about four years.

Additionally, by purchasing a Prius, you help tilt the economies of scale in favor of hybrids. Toyota's hybrid technology is still relatively expensive, but production costs will come down as more Priuses are sold. And the more Priuses that fill the roads, the more consumers will view them as a legitimate option for their next car, rather than just trendy eco-boxes for Hollywood do-gooders.

What percentage of our nation's energy currently comes from so-called alternative sources?
Officially, 6.1 percent of our 2004 energy consumption came from renewable sources. But half of this energy is provided by hydroelectric power, which environmentalists usually don't regard as "alternative" (rare is the eco-warrior who loves the idea of damming up rivers).

Strip away the hydroelectric, then, and you're left with a less impressive figure that encompasses geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass (which includes everything from switchgrass and ethanol to "sludge waste") sources: a piddling 3.4 percent. Solar energy accounted for less than 0.1 percent of our 2004 total consumption.

Is eating organic food good for the environment, or am I falling victim to the hype every time I pay 79 cents extra for organic grape tomatoes?
The latest data from the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, a 22-year comparison of organic-versus-conventional farming, firmly supports going organic: The chemical-free approach yielded the same amounts of corn and soybeans as the conventional method but required 30 percent less energy and produced less soil erosion and groundwater pollution. (The jury is still out on whether organic farming is better for crops such as cherries and grapes, which suffer from graver pest-control issues.)

Before you go patting yourself on the back, however, keep transportation costs in mind. A 2005 report in the journal Food Policy calculated the energy expended to truck produce from farm to market and concluded that consumers would do less environmental damage by buying locally grown conventional food than organic produce from across the continent. The ideal is to buy organic food from within 12 miles of your dinner table. For most of us, though, this is impossible, and inadequate labeling makes it difficult to know if a box of tomatoes came from a local orchard or from Chile.

- Brendan I. Koerner

Grading the Old Guard
By Josh Rosenblum

Here's a Wired scorecard rating the major green groups.

Natural Capitalism?

2009-12-03T14:44:00.000-08:00

New Internationalist 329 November 2000

Sustainability / CAPITALISM
http://www.newint.org/issue329/natural.htm

Can the free market be used to jump-start the switch to
sustainability? Mary Jane Patterson has her doubts.

In the packed ballroom of a glittering downtown hotel, Amory Lovins is working his magic. Calmly and confidently, the mustachioed guru of eco-efficiency explains how ‘natural capitalism’ can save money and the planet both at the same time. An enthusiastic standing-room-only audience of businesspeople, environmental activists, municipal politicians and university students is lapping it up – hook, line and ‘powerpoint’ presentation.

Along with everyone else, I am swept up in the logic and common sense of it all. But I wonder why we haven’t been doing this before? And why aren’t we doing it now?

After the presentation there are questions and comments from the audience. The head of a national NGO exults that finally she won’t have to feel guilty about driving a car. A local councillor steps up to the microphone to share the city’s own efficiency success stories. The buzz in the air is palpable. It is an Amory love-in.

There is no denying the appeal of Lovins’ message. In his recent best-selling book Natural Capitalism (co-authored with his ex-spouse L Hunter Lovins and eco-entrepreneur Paul Hawken) he describes how an enlightened form of capitalism, retuned to seek eco-efficiencies, would save the environment, stimulate the economy, increase employment and bridge the gap between rich and poor.

What’s not to like? Similar concepts calling for ten-fold or four-fold gains in resource efficiency (‘Factor Ten’ and ‘Factor Four’) have been embraced in Europe as ‘the new paradigm for sustainable development’. It is an attractive vision of the future that is rare in its appeal to environmentalists and the business community alike.

There is no denying the credentials of the messengers either. The Lovinses are co-founders of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, a nonprofit think tank. They are also among Time magazine’s ‘Heroes for the Planet’ for Earth Day 2000. A dynamic speaker and writer, Amory Lovins has been a prominent critical voice in energy policy and resource use for more than 20 years. Co-author Paul Hawken is both an entrepreneur and an environmental activist – and a thoughtful writer on the nexus between the two worlds. Together these three have set out to save capitalism from itself – to ‘harness the talent of business to solve the world’s deepest environmental and social problems’.

The central premise behind ‘natural capitalism’ is that we have the technical capacity to use the planet’s resources much more efficiently, allowing us to maintain and even enhance our material well-being while sharply reducing resource extraction, waste discharge and associated damage. Businesses would operate more like biological systems, recycling waste into new raw materials and providing services rather than products. The motivation for ecologically sound ways of doing business would be economic rather than altruistic because efficiency measures would also save money. In effect, we could have our cake and eat it too.

Lovins illustrates his hypothesis with many real-life examples from the business world, where companies found that ‘greening up’ was good for the bottom line. His public presentation and the book abound with success stories: $2.8 million saved here, 81-per-cent reduction in resource extraction there. The stories are numerous and attractive.

But they are more the exception than the rule. Eco-efficiency is not what drives most of real-life capitalism. ‘Natural capitalism’ may be reasonable and desirable. And certainly it is a refreshing notion for environmentalists weary of being the continual bearers of bad news. But it is not the way the world runs at the moment. In general business has blithely ignored and vigorously denied its role in degrading the environment.

So how do we get the market to favour eco-efficiencies? How do we achieve a ‘natural capitalism’ that is also equitable, given the free market’s tendency to deepen the gulf between rich and poor? And given the rampant consumerism that dominates Western culture and is quickly spreading around the globe, how do we ensure that the savings from eco-efficiencies are not simply spent on more consumer trinkets?

The market is undeniably powerful and it does seek efficiencies. Traditionally the ‘efficient’ way of dealing with wastes was to dump them, cost-free, into the air or water. But if efficiency could be harnessed to reduce resource use and waste, capitalism could be made to work in the service of the environment.

Lovins and company are not alone in exploring this possibility. Eco-sensitive economists have long advocated the use of market mechanisms to encourage anti-pollution measures. And activists have for years lobbied for removal of the subsidies that support unsustainable energy projects and industrial agriculture. There is also a growing international movement for ‘green’ taxes. These would remove taxes from ‘goods’ (things like jobs and income) and instead put them on ‘bads’ (things like pollution and resource extraction).

Photo: Ray Pfortner

Grains of sand
The question is not whether such steps are desirable or whether they could work, but whether the necessary political will to make it happen can be mustered. Can this be accomplished under the Lovins’ banner? Not everyone is persuaded.

‘It’s a mystification,’ says Joel Kovel, professor of Social Studies at Bard College in New York. ‘They are using a popular, easy-to-assimilate and apolitical definition of capitalism. The whole weight of evidence is that this is not what real capitalism is about.’

Kovel argues that virtuous small businesses can exist but that they play no role in the overall workings of society. ‘A couple of grains of sand on the beach’ is how he puts it. One should not imagine that the realm of exchange is neutral. ‘The real forces of society are dictated by the accumulation of capital. The inherent nature of capitalism is to expand, and it sucks everything into its orbit.’

There are examples of businesses saving money while operating in a more environmentally friendly manner. But this doesn’t mean that most businesses could follow suit. For most, absorbing the ecological and social costs of their operations would be expensive and perhaps suicidal, unless their competitors did the same.

To counter this, ‘natural capitalism’ boosters advocate ‘a fundamental rethinking of the structure and the reward system of commerce’. Only by overhauling the entire system can we ensure that it is competitive to be environmentally friendly. But where does this overhauling begin? And how far does it extend?

Photo: Ray Pfortner

Virtually any country would find it difficult to make these changes on its own. If Australia, for example, were to attempt such a turnaround it might conceivably find a way to equalize the increased costs for Australian business competitors in the domestic market. But an integral part of the present market system is the globalization of trade. With the increasing reliance on exports to international markets, encouraged by the World Trade Organization, Australia would find it impossible to attempt economic reforms such as these in isolation. Australian corporations would be immediately outbid in foreign markets by competitors from other countries with lower costs and fewer restrictions. Such a transformation could only be successful on a global scale, through international treaties and agreements imposed on the now virtually lawless world of global corporate finance.

Silent politics
This does not mean that reforms such as green taxes, appropriate subsidies and internalization of costs are not worthy goals. In fact, they may be the only way to turn around our self-destructive economic system. But the changes would require substantial political intervention into the market and extraordinary political will at all levels from the municipal to the international. And this is not something that the natural capitalists address. They are largely silent on the subject of politics, preferring to paint themselves as proudly and deliberately apolitical. The Rocky Mountain Institute website describes their work as ‘independent, nonadversarial, and transideological’. They’re careful not to rock the boat, trying to appeal to the widest audience (mainly North American) possible.

Maybe they do understand the US public well. And maybe they’re right to assume they’ll have more success if changes are wrapped in the cloak of neutral economic logic. But the reality is that the conditions for Lovins’ brand of ‘natural capitalism’ are unlikely to arise from the market itself. They will have to be imposed by co-operative, collective action – by governments and other organizations of civil society hip-deep in politics.

And that’s not all. If the market won’t deliver eco-efficiency without substantial political intervention, it certainly won’t deliver an equal distribution of the benefits or ensure that the savings aren’t squandered on more consumption. These changes won’t happen without strong government intervention in the workings of capital. Self-regulation, based on the record to date, just won’t do it.

An appealing package
There is much to admire in the ‘natural capitalism’ approach. It’s both innovative and positive, a more attractive image than the negative, we’re-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket messages that come so often from environmental groups. It has the potential to galvanize the business and technology communities in a way that no other initiative has – if only because it affirms their modus operandi. And it pulls together some sorely needed economic and environmental changes into one appealing package.

That said, ‘natural capitalism’ is a programme for change that is at best partially developed. Very little that it advocates will emerge from capitalism as it’s currently structured. Both the core of its agenda – aggressive pursuit of eco-efficiencies – and the associated objectives of equity and overcoming consumerism, demand ambitious political action. When Lovins and company avoid discussion of political or cultural change they are not telling the whole story.

Maybe their restraint on the political aspects is strategic. Quite possibly the Lovinses and Hawken are trying to get North Americans to buy into the concept first. Then they will slowly introduce the scarier parts about political and cultural change.

Whether this strategy is appropriate or not is an open question. As Joel Kovel says, ‘natural capitalism’ presents lots of good technocratic ideas but ‘we shouldn’t think of it as a substitute for genuine political engagement’.

(pattersonmary@yahoo.com) is a masters student in environmental studies. This article was produced in consultation with Robert Gibson, an associate professor of Environment and Resource Studies. They are both at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

Green Housing For the Rest of Us

2009-11-18T08:31:00.000-08:00

Green Housing For the Rest of Us

Real estate developers at Full Spectrum NY had been told that sustainably designed buildings are only for the rich. The company's response? The Kalahari, a green high-rise with all the latest features but a reasonable price tag.
By Nitasha Tiku | Nov 1, 2007

Not so precious
The Kalahari, located on 116th Street in New York's Harlem neighborhood, has almost all of the accouterments of luxury green buildings--solar panels, vegetated green rooftops, wind-powered electricity, low-flow water fixtures, energy-efficient appliances, and bamboo floors. But nearly half of the 249 condos at the Kalahari are set aside for families earning as little as $56,000 a year--something unheard of in the usually precious world of green architecture.

The Design
The Kalahari is named for the southern African desert. The building's unusual façade is inspired by designs from the region's Ndebele tribes.

Another kind of green
In 1996, Full Spectrum set out to build its first green housing complex in Harlem, called 1400 on Fifth. But officials at New York's Housing and Preservation Department, which had to sign off on the project, were skeptical. "We wanted at least some evidence it was going to be cost-effective," says the department's commissioner, Shaun Donovan. Full Spectrum spent $700,000 gathering research to make the case that green housing was a sound investment. It eventually raised $40 million from a hodge-podge of investors. When 1400 on Fifth finally opened its doors in 2004, it had cost just $135 per square foot, roughly what it costs to build a standard affordable housing complex.

Clean Air Act
Before breaking ground on the Kalahari in 2005, Full Spectrum held a series of focus groups with Harlem residents and potential buyers from throughout the region. "Everyone in each of our groups had family members with asthma," says co-founder Carlton Brown. In fact, a 2003 study by Harlem Hospital Center found that 25 percent of children in central Harlem suffer from the condition, compared with less than 10 percent nationally. That inspired Full Spectrum to install high-efficiency MERV 13 air filters, which remove the particulate matter that aggravates asthma.

Rooftop Garden
On green rooftops, plants, grasses, and mosses are used to help insulate the building and filter pollutants out of air and rainwater. They also look pretty. But in New York City they're even more vital. That's because the city's antiquated sewer system is not equipped to handle storm water runoff during heavy rainstorms, which results in untreated sewage getting dumped in the East River. The unplanted parts of the rooftops use an inexpensive coating that deflects sunlight, thereby cutting down on energy costs.

The Walls
In many residential developments, insulation is installed next to the exterior walls rather than the interior ones. The problem: Condensation in the walls, which leads to mold and mildew, another contributor to asthma. With the Kalahari, Full Spectrum placed the insulation next to interior walls instead, keeping the condensation on the outside of the building--something few builders of affordable housing opt to do.

Friends of Brad
By 2006, Full Spectrum boasted revenue of $20 million. It has developments under way in New Orleans and Jackson, Mississippi, and is talking with community groups in Biloxi, Mississippi, that are hoping to take advantage of the $1.2 billion in tax credits available to build green commercial and retail space in the struggling gulf region, where Carlton Brown was raised. All the activity has dropped a little stardust on the developers. Brown was featured on the Sundance Channel's Big Ideas for a Small Planet in April, and Full Spectrum recently signed on as a consultant for the Holy Cross Project, a large residential development in New Orleans's Ninth Ward. The project is being funded in part by actor Brad Pitt via his involvement in the nonprofit Global Green.

We Are Hard-Wired to Care and Connect

2009-11-18T08:11:00.000-08:00

The good news: The changes we must make to avoid ultimate collapse are identical to the changes we must make to create the world of our common dream.

The story of purple America is part of a yet larger human story. For all the cultural differences reflected in our richly varied customs, languages, religions, and political ideologies, psychologically healthy humans share a number of core values and aspirations. Although we may differ in our idea of the “how,” we want healthy, happy children, loving families, and a caring community with a beautiful, healthy natural environment. We want a world of cooperation, justice, and peace, and a say in the decisions that affect our lives. The shared values of purple America manifest this shared human dream. It is the true American dream undistorted by corporate media, advertisers, and political demagogues—the dream we must now actualize if there is to be a human future.

For the past 5,000 years, we humans have devoted much creative energy to perfecting our capacity for greed and violence—a practice that has been enormously costly for our children, families, communities, and nature. Now, on the verge of environmental and social collapse, we face an imperative to bring the world of our dreams into being by cultivating our long-suppressed, even denied, capacity for sharing and compassion.

Despite the constant mantra that “There is no alternative” to greed and competition, daily experience and a growing body of scientific evidence support the thesis that we humans are born to connect, learn, and serve and that it is indeed within our means to:

Create family-friendly communities in which we get our satisfaction from caring relationships rather than material consumption;

Achieve the ideal, which traces back to Aristotle, of creating democratic middle-class societies without extremes of wealth and poverty; and

Form a global community of nations committed to restoring the health of the planet and sharing Earth’s bounty to the long-term benefit of all (see YES! Summer 2008: A Just Foreign Policy).

The first step toward achieving the world we want is to acknowledge that there is an alternative to our current human course. We humans are not hopelessly divided and doomed to self-destruct by a genetic predisposition toward greed and violence.
Culture, the system of customary beliefs, values, and perceptions that encodes our shared learning, gives humans an extraordinary capacity to choose our destiny. It does not assure that we will use this capacity wisely, but it does give us the means to change course by conscious collective choice.

The Story in Our Head
The primary barrier to achieving our common dream is in fact a story that endlessly loops in our heads telling us that a world of peace and sharing is contrary to our nature—a naïve fantasy forever beyond reach. There are many variations, but this is the essence:

It is our human nature to be competitive, individualistic, and materialistic. Our well-being depends on strong leaders with the will to use police and military powers to protect us from one another, and on the competitive forces of a free, unregulated market to channel our individual greed to constructive ends. The competition for survival and dominance—violent and destructive as it may be—is the driving force of evolution. It has been the key to human success since the beginning of time, assures that the most worthy rise to leadership, and ultimately works to the benefit of everyone.

I call this our Empire story because it affirms the system of dominator hierarchy that has held sway for 5,000 years (see YES! Summer 2006: 5,000 Years of Empire). Underlying the economic and scientific versions of this story is a religious story which promises that enduring violence and injustice in this life will be rewarded with eternal peace, harmony, and bliss in the afterlife.

To reinforce the Empire myth, corporate media bombard us with reports of greed and violence, and celebrate as cultural heroes materially successful, but morally challenged politicians and corporate CEOs who exhibit a callous disregard for the human and environmental consequences of their actions.

Never mind the story’s moral contradictions and its conflict with our own experience with caring and trustworthy friends, family, and strangers. It serves to keep us confused, uncertain, and dependent on establishment-sanctioned moral authorities to tell us what is right and true. It also supports policies and institutions that actively undermine development of the caring, sharing relationships essential to responsible citizenship in a functioning democratic society. Fortunately, there is a more positive story that can put us on the road to recovery. It is supported by recent scientific findings, our daily experience, and the ageless teachings of the great religious prophets.

Wired to Connect
Scientists who use advanced imaging technology to study brain function report that the human brain is wired to reward caring, cooperation, and service. According to this research, merely thinking about another person experiencing harm triggers the same reaction in our brain as when a mother sees distress in her baby’s face.

Conversely, the act of helping another triggers the brain’s pleasure center and benefits our health by boosting our immune system, reducing our heart rate, and preparing us to approach and soothe. Positive emotions like compassion produce similar benefits. By contrast, negative emotions suppress our immune system, increase heart rate, and prepare us to fight or flee.

These findings are consistent with the pleasure most of us experience from being a member of an effective team or extending an uncompensated helping hand to another human. It is entirely logical. If our brains were not wired for life in community, our species would have expired long ago. We have an instinctual desire to protect the group, including its weakest and most vulnerable members—its children. Behavior contrary to this positive norm is an indicator of serious social and psychological dysfunction.

Happiness Is a Caring Community
These neurological findings are corroborated by social science findings that, beyond the minimum level of income essential to meet basic needs, membership in a cooperative, caring community is a far better predictor of happiness and emotional health than the size of one’s paycheck or bank account. Perhaps the most impressive evidence of this comes from studies conducted by University of Illinois professor Ed Diener, and others, comparing the life-satisfaction scores of groups of people of radically different financial means. Four groups with almost identical scores on a seven-point scale were clustered at the top.

Consistent with the Empire story that material consumption is the key to happiness, those on Forbes magazine’s list of richest Americans had an average score of 5.8. They were in a statistical tie, however, with three groups known for their modest lifestyles and strength of community: the Pennsylvania Amish (5.8) who favor horses over cars and tractors; the Inuit of Northern Greenland (5.9), an indigenous hunting and fishing people; and the Masai (5.7), a traditional herding people in East Africa who live without electricity or running water in huts fashioned from dried cow dung. Apparently, it takes a very great deal of money to produce the happiness that comes with being a member of a caring community with a strong sense of place. The evidence suggests we could all be a lot healthier and happier if we put less emphasis on making money and more on cultivating caring community.

The purple American desire to create a society of healthy children, families, communities, and natural systems is no fluke. It is an expression of our deepest and most positive human impulses, a sign that we may overall be a healthier and less divisive society than our dysfunctional politics suggest.

Beyond the minimum level of income essential to meet basic needs, membership in a cooperative, caring community is a far better predictor of happiness and emotional health than the size of one’s paycheck or bank account.

Learning to be Human
If the properly functioning human brain is wired for caring, cooperation, and service, how do we account for the outrageous greed and violence that threaten our collective survival? Here we encounter our distinctive human capacity to suppress or facilitate the development of the higher order function of the human brain essential to responsible adult citizenship.

We humans have a complex three-part brain. The base is the “reptilian” brain that coordinates basic functions, such as breathing, hunting and eating, reproducing, protecting territory, and engaging the fight-or-flight response. These functions are essential to survival and an authentic part of our humanity, but they express the most primitive and least-evolved part of our brain, which advertisers and political demagogues have learned to manipulate by playing to our basest fears and desires.

Layered on top of the reptilian brain is the limbic or “mammalian” brain, the center of the emotional intelligence that gives mammals their distinctive capacity to experience emotion, read the emotional state of other mammals, bond socially, care for their children, and form cooperative communities.

The third and, in humans, largest layer is the neocortical brain, the center of our capacity for cognitive reasoning, symbolic thought, awareness, and self-aware volition. This layer distinguishes our species from other mammals. Its full, beneficial function depends, however, on the complementary functions of our reptilian and mammalian brains.

Most of the development of the limbic and neocortical brains essential to actualizing the capacities that make us most distinctively human occurs after birth and depends on lifelong learning acquired through our interactions with family, community, and nature. Developmental psychologists describe the healthy pathway to a fully formed human consciousness as a progression from the self-centered, undifferentiated magical consciousness of the newborn to the fully mature, inclusive, and multidimensional spiritual consciousness of the wise elder.

Realizing the fullness of our humanity depends on the balanced development of the empathetic limbic and cognitive neocortical brains to establish their primacy over the primitive unsocialized instincts of the reptilian brain. Tragically, most modern societies neglect or even suppress this development.

A depersonalized economic system with no attachment to place disrupts the bonds of community and family and makes it nearly impossible for parents to provide their children with the nurturing attention essential to the healthy development of their limbic brains. Educational systems that focus on rote learning organized by fragmented disciplines fail to develop our potential for critical holistic thinking. Leaving social learning to peer groups lacking the benefit of adult mentors limits development of a mature, morally grounded social intelligence. We are conducting an unintended evolutionary experiment in producing a line of highly intelligent but emotionally challenged reptiles wielding technologies capable of disrupting or even terminating the entire evolutionary enterprise.

The Power of Conversation
Getting out of our current mess begins with a conversation to change the shared cultural story about our essential nature. The women’s movement offers an instructive lesson.

In little more than a decade, a few courageous women changed the cultural story that the key to a woman’s happiness is to find the right man, marry him, and devote her life to his service. As Cecile Andrews, author of Circles of Simplicity, relates, the transition to a new gender story began with discussion circles in which women came together in their living rooms to share their stories. Until then, a woman whose experience failed to conform to the prevailing story assumed that the problem was a deficiency in herself. As women shared their own stories each realized that the flaw was in the story. Millions of women were soon spreading a new gender story that has unleashed the feminine as a powerful force for global transformation.

The voluntary simplicity movement organizes similar opportunities for people to share their stories about what makes them truly happy. The fallacy of the story that material consumption is the path to happiness is quickly exposed and replaced with the fact that we truly come alive as we reduce material consumption and gain control of our time to nurture the relationships that bring true happiness.

We must now begin a similar process to affirm that those of us who choose to cooperate rather than compete are not fighting human nature. We are, instead, developing the part of our humanity that gives us the best chance, not merely for survival, but for happiness.

The process of changing the powerful stories that limit our lives begins with conversation in our living room, library, church, mosque, or synagogue. By speaking and listening to each other, we begin to discover the true potentials of our human nature and our common vision of the world. It is not a new conversation. Isolated groups of humans have engaged in it for millennia. What is new is the fact that the communications technologies now in place create the possibility of ending the isolation and melding our local conversations into a global one that can break the self-replicating spiral of competitive violence of 5000 years of Empire.

As this conversation brings a critical mass of people to the realization that the Empire story is both false and devastatingly destructive, we can turn as a species from perfecting our capacity for exclusionary competition to perfecting our capacity for inclusionary cooperation. We can create a cultural story that says competition and polarization, whether the red-blue political divide or the rich-poor economic one, is not the inevitable result of being human. It is the result of suppressing the healthiest part of our humanity.

There are no trade-offs here. The institutional and cultural transformation required to avert environmental and social collapse is the same as the transformation required to nurture the development of the empathetic limbic brain, unleash the creative potentials of the human consciousness, and create the world we want. It is an extraordinary convergence between our reptilian interest in survival, our mammalian interest in bonding, and our human interest in cultivating the potentials of our self-reflective consciousness.

David Korten wrote this article as part of Purple America, the Fall 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. David is co-founder and board chair of YES! His latest book is The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. His website is davidkorten.org.

Save The World, Inc.

2009-11-11T11:36:00.000-08:00

For Love or Money?
VIEWPOINT April 3, 2009, 3:00PM EST
For Love or Money
Is forming a nonprofit the way to solve social ills, or is it more efficient for business to do it?

TIM DELANEY
President and CEO
National Council of Nonprofits
Washington, D.C.

As a nonprofit you have an opportunity to get foundation dollars. Foundations are required to spend at least 5% of their assets every year on either internal operations or contributions to nonprofits. But with asset values down so much, it's becoming harder to get funding.

Sometimes there's no direct link between the issue and a sustainable business model. Take human rights in China, for example. I don't see a way to take that on through a for-profit model. Whereas I can see setting up a nonprofit where you get a foundation and some individuals to invest their dollars knowing they will not get a [monetary] return on it.

As a nonprofit you have the ability to wear the white hat. I started a nonprofit center on leadership ethics and public service. If it had been a for-profit consulting firm or law firm, there may have been pressure to give the client the answer they want instead of the right answer.

WILLIAM FULBRIGHT FOOTE
Founder and CEO
Root Capital, a nonprofit investment fund
Cambridge, Mass.

If you can use a for-profit model, you should. There's going to be a Darwinian flush on the nonprofit side as the financial meltdown causes funding to be reduced. So if you don't have to be out with your hat in hand, you are in a better position.

Business has the ability to scale. If you can bring the engine of business and real capital to bear, you can really move the needle. You can unlock billions and even trillions of dollars to address problems that are so huge. There just isn't that kind of money in the philanthropic world.

You have to be a starry-eyed romantic to think you won't have the dilemma of profit vs. the public good [if you use the for-profit model]. But the answer is to build awareness so that you have real consumer demand and shareholder pressure for ethical sourcing and environmentally responsible production.

—As told to Amy Barrett

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS April 3, 2009, 3:00PM EST
BusinessWeek Magazine
Making a Profit and a Difference aren't mutually exclusive. Five entrepreneurs show how it's done

As the economy reels, enterprising individuals who apply business practices to solving societal problems are gaining support from public and private sectors
By Stacy Perman

Social entrepreneurs—enterprising individuals who apply business practices to solving societal problems, such as pollution, poor nutrition, and poverty—are now 30,000 strong and growing, according to B Lab, a nonprofit organization that certifies these purpose-driven companies. Together, they represent some $40 billion in revenue.

The idea of blending a social mission with business is not new. One of the founding forces behind the movement, the Ashoka Foundation, since its inception 1981 has granted multiyear living stipends to support more than 2,000 fellows dedicated to finding answers to a host of social ills through business ventures. Indeed, the concept of building a profitable business model in which doing good is an intrinsic part of the business and not just a philanthropic sideline has been gaining ground in recent years. Sally Osberg, president and chief executive of the Skoll Foundation in Palo Alto, Calif., another guiding force within the social venture community, says the number of institutes, universities, and organizations that are now tapping into social entrepreneurship has mushroomed since former eBay (EBAY) President Jeff Skoll established the foundation in 1999.

Now, as the economy reels, both the government and the private sector are looking for inventive ways to bring back prosperity, and many are counting on these entrepreneurs as a powerful tool for change. "Social entrepreneurship correlates to this growing realization that entrepreneurs are the key to a vibrant economy and to solutions that are badly needed," says Osberg. It's not all pie in the sky, says Bo Fishback, vice-president for entrepreneurship at the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Mo. "Many social entrepreneurs have shown they can accomplish their mission," he says. "They can deliver on the social good and report a cash flow."

Not surprising, then, that they've caught the attention of such venture capitalists as those at Acumen Fund, a nonprofit that invests in companies that try to alleviate poverty, and Bay Area Equity Fund, which backs businesses aiming to make social or environmental improvements to San Francisco's needier neighborhoods. (See these additional resources for entrepreneurs seeking funding sources that back social ventures.) President Obama has even suggested starting a new government agency to help socially conscious startups gain more access to venture capital.

WHO YOU LIKE BEST
In January, we asked readers, staffers, and members of the social venture community to nominate candidates whose trailblazing companies, in operation for at least a year, aimed to turn a profit while tackling social ills. The 200-plus nominations we received included such entrepreneurs as Alex Mittal, whose Philadelphia-based Innova Materials makes antimicrobial products for private industry, then uses revenues from these efforts to develop water purification systems for the developing world. Kirsten Tobey and Kristin Richmond, founders of Revolution Foods, deliver nutritious lunches to more than 100 schools (that's 20,000 meals a day) in low-income areas in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Rachel Sterne, another social entrepreneur, encourages those living under repressive regimes to post their own reportage at her profit-sharing Web site, Groundreport.com. You can take a look at each of the 25 ventures we profiled in our slide show, then vote for the business you feel holds the most promise.

Some attribute social models pioneered by small outfits to the social responsibility efforts espoused by large corporations. For instance, about three years ago, Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), the world's biggest retailer, launched a program to promote sustainability, urging its many vendors to produce ecofriendly products while encouraging its consumers to buy them. General Electric (GE) made its green mark manufacturing high-efficiency incandescent light bulbs, and such manufacturing giants as Clorox (CLX) have begun to roll out their own lines of "green" cleaning products. In March, Cadbury (CBY), manufacturer of England's top-selling chocolate bar, announced a deal to use 15,000 tons of Fair Trade certified cocoa from Ghana by the end of this summer for its popular Dairy Milk bar. The company said the move would improve the standard of living of thousands of Ghanaians by tripling the sales of cocoa farmers there.

One of this year's finalists, Daniel Lubetzky, founder of $25 million Peaceworks, which works as a catalyst for peace by encouraging joint snack-food ventures among people of different backgrounds in volatile regions around the world, says it is not enough to impose an artificial business model on a social issue. Lubetzky, who was awarded a $1 million grant from the Skoll Foundation in 2008, says that doing good alone will not ensure success. "I had an earlier company that totally tanked," he says. "I didn't understand the product line well, but I was passionate about the mission. The failure taught me that one can't advance a social mission if the business model doesn't sell. You can't just sell a social mission. You still have to come up with the best product with the best prices." Given the current economic climate, that rings particularly true.

For a look at all 25 businesses, flip through this slide show. More elements of this special report are available here.

Perman is a staff writer for BusinessWeek in New York.
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/mar2009/sb20090330_541747.htm

The California Experiment

2009-11-09T14:40:00.000-08:00

Busted budgets, failing schools, overcrowded prisons, gridlocked government—California no longer beckons as America’s promised land. Except, that is, in one area: creating a new energy economy. But is its path one the rest of the nation can follow?
by Ronald Brownstein
The California Experiment

AMID ALL THE starpower assembled in the White House Rose Garden on a crystalline afternoon last May, the unassuming gray-haired woman who sat beaming in a prime first-row seat went largely unnoticed. But if not for California state Senator Fran Pavley, none of the other people who had gathered might have been there at all. In 2002, as a first-term member of the California Assembly, she had steered through the nation’s first law requiring automakers to reduce the tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. Fourteen other states indicated they planned to adopt the California law. But George W. Bush’s administration refused to provide the federal waiver the state needed to proceed, and the major auto companies added new hurdles by challenging the state law in court. In January 2009, when Bush left office, the California plan was as stuck as a commuter caught behind a rush-hour pileup.

With the change of administrations, though, the road suddenly cleared. Candidate Obama endorsed the California initiative, and once he became president, his aides negotiated an agreement between the state, environmentalists, the auto-workers union, and the leading auto companies to use the California law as the basis for nationwide regulations to dramatically improve the fuel efficiency, and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, of all new cars and trucks. The result was the unprecedented, almost unimaginable, scene that unfolded, fittingly enough, under perfect California weather that May afternoon in the Rose Garden. On the podium, President Obama stood flanked by senior executives from 10 global auto companies (including eight that the U.S. government did not own). In the chairs arrayed across the lawn, environmentalists mingled with auto-industry lobbyists, and Californians who had led the fight for stronger fuel-economy standards, like Pavley and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, wedged in beside Michigan legislators who had fiercely resisted them. Obama didn’t acknowledge Pavley by name, but he made clear that without California’s “extraordinary leadership,” the landmark environmental agreement he was announcing might never have been reached. Californians “have led the way on this,” Obama said, “as they have in so many other efforts to protect our environment.”

In politics and policy at large, the time is long past when the nation routinely looked to California, as it did in the 1960s and the ’70s, as the most fertile incubator of new ideas. On many fronts, the state government appears almost dysfunctional, hobbled by constitutional constraints and partisan polarization. The collapse of the state’s (latest) real-estate bubble has sent California’s economy into free fall. A short list of the state’s current problems would include surging unemployment, struggling schools, and a budget deficit larger than the entire budget in almost every other state.

But on energy and climate change, the story is very different. Ever since the first Arab oil embargo, in 1973, California has consistently defined the forward edge of energy-policy innovation in America. In 2006, California’s per capita energy consumption was the fourth-lowest in the country. The state emits only about half as much carbon per dollar of economic activity as the rest of America. It generates significantly more electricity than any other state from non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and biomass. California registers more patents associated with clean energy than any other state and attracts most of the venture capital invested in U.S. “cleantech” companies exploring everything from electric cars to solar power generation.

“I unequivocally believe we are a model for the rest of the country,” says F. Noel Perry, the founder of Next10, a nonpartisan Silicon Valley–based think tank, whose “California Green Innovation Index” studies have tracked these trends.

Some of California’s edge can be traced to the state’s natural advantages, particularly a temperate climate that does not require as much heating in the winter or cooling in the summer as do many other parts of the country. But the difference is also rooted in conscious policy decisions. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a leading nonprofit research group, recently ranked California first among the states in promoting energy efficiency.

“California has fouled up plenty of things,” said John Bryson, the former chairman of both the California Public Utilities Commission and Southern California Edison, the major Los Angeles–area utility that is a national leader in energy efficiency. “But on this set of issues—the clean-energy issues, the kind of things that need to be done in terms of the risk of climate change—I think California is getting it right… More than any other state I know of, California has done already most of the things that need to be done.”

California hasn’t solved all the puzzles associated with replacing fossil fuels. And its successes cannot necessarily be easily replicated. But the state is grappling with every major energy-related issue that currently faces the country. Its experience doing so is also likely to shape an intensifying national debate, because so many key players have roots in the state, from Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman, who chair the Senate and House committees that are considering climate change, to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. California’s story illuminates some of the obstacles the nation will need to overcome as it seeks cleaner forms of power. But more broadly, California demonstrates how sustained political leadership can reshape how we produce, sell, and use energy—can “bend the curve,” as they say in Silicon Valley.

The epicenter of California’s energy revolution might justifiably be considered a roomy, dimly lit office in the bunker-like Energy Commission building in downtown Sacramento. There, behind a long conference table, surrounded by an untouched cup of chili and plates of apples, bananas, grapes, and tomatoes, sits Art Rosenfeld, at 83 years of age compact and contained, with thinning gray hair and a slight hunch. Looking natty in a hunter-green wool sport coat and a plaid shirt, Rosenfeld has hearing aids in both ears and a BlackBerry on his belt. Nothing about Rosenfeld is imposing, except his ideas, which for decades have earned him an audience at the highest levels of government. Former Vice President Al Gore, for one, described him to me as “a national resource. He’s quite a thinker. I like him a lot.” Then Gore laughed. “I also like that he starts to get more innovative as he gets older.”

In 1973, Rosenfeld was working as a particle physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That September, the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a bill creating a commission to manage California’s energy policy. Ronald Reagan, then governor, vetoed it as an intrusion on free enterprise. But after the first Arab oil embargo caused energy prices to spike, two things happened. First, Reagan switched his position. Stung by popular discontent in car-conscious California, he agreed in 1974 to create what eventually became known as the California Energy Commission. Second, Rosenfeld shifted his focus toward energy efficiency, organizing a working group (which eventually became the Center for Building Science) at the laboratory. “I thought,” he told me dryly, “we had better do such things as learning how to turn out the lights.”

California’s new commission was born with something of an identity crisis: environmentalists hoped it would promote conservation, while utilities wanted it to fast-track production (particularly of nuclear power) to close a potentially crippling shortage in electricity generation. Rosenfeld, who had initially come to the commission’s attention when he critiqued its first energy-efficiency standards for residential buildings, quickly proved instrumental in setting the agency’s direction. In 1976, San Diego Gas & Electric Company asked the commission to approve a nuclear-power plant called Sundesert. Jerry Brown, the eclectic Democrat who succeeded Reagan as governor, didn’t want to authorize the plant, but he faced pressure to close the anticipated gap between electricity demand and supply. Rosenfeld squared the circle for him, telling Brown that if the state imposed efficiency standards on refrigerators (which then consumed about 20 percent of a typical home’s power), it would save at least as much electricity as Sundesert could produce. The state went on to block the Sundesert plant, and in 1977 the commission approved aggressive efficiency standards not only for refrigerators and freezers but also for air conditioners.

“Efficiency just gradually took over,” Rosenfeld said. In the next decade, the Energy Commission followed with efficiency standards for furnaces, dryers, swimming-pool heaters, household cooking appliances, heat pumps, showerheads, and fluorescent-lamp ballasts, among other products. Those rules became models for use in other states and, eventually, for federal appliance standards. In 1978, using a pioneering computer program developed by Rosenfeld and his colleagues, the Energy Commission opened another front by approving more-sophisticated energy-efficiency standards for new buildings. Other states, and even other countries, followed.

Around the same time, an even more obscure California regulatory agency produced another landmark innovation. Utilities traditionally make more money when they sell more electricity, especially since the fixed investment of building power plants and transmission lines comprises such a large part of their costs. As a result, their natural inclination is to encourage their customers to use more. With the state trying to save energy through its efficiency standards, that incentive seemed increasingly perverse—especially after energy prices again soared after the second oil shock, in 1979. John Bryson, a founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, whom Brown had appointed as chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission, began looking for ways to enlist the utilities in promoting efficiency.

“I thought it was evident that [they] could make a big difference,” Bryson recalled. “But there was the fundamental fact that you were asking utilities, under the regime that existed at the time, to forego returns for their shareholders, because their returns were meaningfully based on increasing electricity sales.”

The solution was a policy known as “decoupling” because it severed the link between consumption and profits. Here’s how it worked: the commission first set a revenue target for utilities by calculating how much money they needed to make to recover their fixed costs, plus an approved profit rate. Next, the commission estimated how much power it expected the utility to sell. Then, it established an energy price that would allow the utility to meet its revenue target at the expected level of sales. If the utility sold more power than it needed to meet its target, the difference was returned to consumers. If it sold less, rates were increased to make up the difference. Applied to natural-gas sales in 1978 and electricity in 1982, decoupling had a profound effect.

“Utilities were rendered indifferent to sales,” says Ralph Cavanagh, a senior NRDC attorney and central figure in California energy policy since the late 1970s. “They couldn’t make more money by selling more; they didn’t lose money by selling less. Their addiction to increased sales was eliminated.” In September 2007, the state utility regulators shifted the incentives for utilities further toward conservation by allowing them to split the savings with customers whenever energy use falls below state targets.

How much those twin rules—decoupling and decoupling-plus, as they are known—have changed the motivation of utility companies became clear when I visited Peter A. Darbee, the chairman, CEO, and president of Pacific Gas & Electric. Darbee works on the 24th floor of a San Francisco office tower in a glass-enclosed corner office that looks like a ship’s bridge. The office has panoramic views of the Embarcadero, and on the windy, sunny day we spoke, boats silently glided through the water in the distance, as if a painting had somehow been set into motion.

“I think the biggest key to the success in California was putting in place the right incentives for California utilities,” Darbee noted. Echoing Cavanagh, Darbee said that decoupling made the utilities “neutral or indifferent” to sales; then decoupling-plus provided utilities “an incentive to sell less power rather than more.” With those economic signals nudging the utilities, he continued, “all of a sudden you’ve unleashed the power of these huge organizations to work with you rather than against you.” Darbee said that sometimes when he’s out sailing with customers, they will say to him, “‘Peter, you would love us, because we have all sorts of lights and air conditioning and we are using a lot of your power.’ And I look at them and say, ‘Well, actually I’d prefer that you use a lot less.’ And they look at me like I’m crazy. And then I say to them, ‘We actually make more money if we sell you less power, and we make less if we sell you more power.’”

Efficiency and decoupling have helped California to consume electricity far more thriftily than the rest of America. At the time of the 1973 oil shock, California used about 17 percent less electricity per person than the country at large. Since then, as Rosenfeld likes to point out in a chart that has been dubbed “the Rosenfeld Curve,” per capita electricity use in the nation has increased by about 50 percent to about 12,000 kilowatt-hours annually. Meanwhile, over that same period, per capita electricity use in California has remained absolutely flat at about 7,000 kilowatt-hours per year. That means the average Californian today uses about 40 percent less electricity per year than the average American.

James Sweeney, who runs Stanford University’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, has calculated with Anant Sudarshan, a colleague, that much of that difference can be explained by factors such as California’s temperate climate, less heavy industry, and even smaller-sized households. But, Sweeney says, the state’s policy decisions still account for a substantial amount—roughly one-fifth to one-fourth—of the gap in electricity usage between California and the nation. The focus on efficiency has produced huge savings: though per kilowatt electricity rates are higher in California than in most other places, consumers pay lower electricity bills because they use so much less power than people elsewhere. A few years ago, the California Energy Commission calculated that the state’s efficiency efforts had preempted the need for 24 large-scale power plants and saved state consumers $56 billion.

Rosenfeld says the past generation’s gains indicate the state can improve its energy intensity (the amount of energy required to produce each dollar of GDP) by about 30 percent every decade. “Efficiency,” he says with a twinkle, “seems to be a renewable resource.”

And there is the initial lesson from California’s energy experience: efficiency is the foundation of any effort to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. As California has learned, the most cost-effective way to replace coal or natural gas or petroleum isn’t to rely on solar or wind or biofuels; it’s to squeeze more work out of less energy.

After the state’s early breakthroughs, the 1990s were largely a lost decade for California on energy. The state detoured into a failed experiment with utility deregulation that produced price spikes and rolling blackouts, forced PG&E into bankruptcy, and helped to make Enron a household name. But even that disaster, which ended when the state legislature suspended the deregulation experiment in 2001, fueled another burst of energy innovation in California.

In July 2002, the legislature passed Fran Pavley’s bill establishing the precedent-setting requirement for auto companies to reduce the tailpipe emissions of the gases linked to global warming, a standard the companies had been expected to meet primarily by improving the fuel efficiency of their vehicles. Since the Clean Air Act in 1970, California—alone among all states—has had the authority to impose pollution-control standards more stringent than the national rules, so long as the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the regulations were not arbitrary or unreasonable. But the lawsuits from the major auto companies, and the Bush administration’s refusal to provide an EPA waiver, had prevented California from implementing the Pavley law until President Obama announced the breakthrough with the auto industry this May.

Those anticipating that the name Pavley is some clever policy acronym like CAFE or COBRA are sometimes surprised to find attached to the legislation the actual Fran Pavley. “It’s really quite hysterical,” she says. “I’ve been at some conferences and there will be legislators from different states and they will go around the room and they’re like, ‘We’ve adopted Pavley.’ ‘They killed Pavley.’ ‘I can’t bring up Pavley.’ And I’ll go, ‘I’m Pavley.’ And they’ll go, ‘What?’ I don’t know what they thought.”

Disarmingly informal and chatty, Pavley is in her spare but somehow homey office in the California Capitol in Sacramento, talking as if we were sitting across a kitchen table. Though we were deep inside the dusky Capitol building, a pair of sunglasses was improbably perched in her hair. Before going into state politics, first in the Assembly and now in the Senate, she had spent most of her career as a middle-school teacher. Even though she had accumulated some political and environmental background as a local mayor and a member of the state Coastal Commission, Pavley might have seemed an unlikely architect of such important legislation. In fact, she benefited from being underestimated (“First-term freshman, middle-school teacher—the opposition didn’t show up in droves,” she recalls), and ultimately she assembled a broad coalition.

Pavley also benefited from another factor she had not anticipated: California’s legacy as an environmental pace-setter. That work dates back to the 1940s, when concern about smog in Los Angeles led the state to establish the nation’s first county-level air-pollution-control districts. Rather than being intimidated by the prospect of setting a new national standard, legislators seemed to welcome that role, particularly after George W.Bush in 2001 renounced the global climate-change treaty. “They weren’t going anywhere [in Washington],” Pavley said. “We had pushed the envelope on unleaded gas and catalytic converters. This was sort of the same.” Governor Gray Davis signed the tailpipe bill into law in late July 2002.

Just weeks later, in September, Davis signed another landmark bill. This one required the state’s three investor-owned utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2017. This wasn’t the nation’s first so-called Renewable Portfolio Standard for utilities, but it was among the most ambitious. After Schwarzenegger arrived, the state raised the bar on the utilities’ renewable-power requirement twice more: the utilities must generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010 and fully 33 percent by 2020.

The state approved its initial renewable-sources standards law soon after the collapse of the dot-com bubble. The new mandates on utilities to buy renewable power reinforced the nascent sense among investors and entrepreneurs that clean energy might be the Next Big Thing. From 2005 through 2008, the amount of venture capital flowing into cleantech start-up companies in California exploded from about $456 million a year to $3.3 billion. By one estimate, California was home to nearly three-fifths of all the U.S. venture capital invested last year in clean energy. With the investment spigots opened, the number of clean-energy companies in California increased by nearly 30 percent between 1995 and 2007.

All of this activity points to the second lesson from California’s energy experience: regulations can create markets. “It’s much easier to make a big investment knowing that there will be a market and an opportunity to participate in it,” says Ellen K. Pao, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a leading Silicon Valley venture firm. Initially, neither the utilities nor the investors seemed convinced that state regulators would enforce the renewable standards. But once the legislature and Schwarzenegger sent a clear message by toughening the requirements, the pace of activity enormously accelerated. Solar energy today provides less than 1 percent of the state’s power, but over the past few years, PG&E and Southern California Edison have leapfrogged each other in signing contracts with start-up companies for what is planned as the world’s largest solar production facility. (The California utilities find solar more attractive than wind because the sun’s energy is available on the hottest days, when demand is greatest, but hot days in California are usually still; the wind in the state blows mostly at night, when demand is lower.) Both SoCal Edison and, more recently, PG&E are also seeking approval from state regulators to operate their own large-scale photovoltaic arrays, many on the roofs of warehouses and other big commercial buildings.

The slow start, and the long lead time needed to construct large renewable facilities and the associated transmission lines, mean the utilities are unlikely to reach the state’s 20 percent threshold by 2010. But most experts believe they will meet the goal not long thereafter. And the tilt in the utilities’ priorities toward alternative energy now appears irreversible.

“There is a smattering of activity in other states… but not what you’d call a marketplace with a recurring flow of opportunity,” says Mike Ahearn, the CEO of First Solar Incorporated, which is manufacturing thin-film solar panels for SoCal Edison’s rooftop project. “California is the solar market in the United States.”

Storm clouds, both literal and metaphoric, were buffeting the Capitol building on the blustery day when I met with Schwarzenegger to discuss the state’s energy strategy. Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the state legislature were still locked in a budget standoff with legislative Republicans. (The immediate impasse was finally broken two days later, but the state didn’t reach a final resolution on the budget until this summer, after voters rejected all but one of the ballot initiatives central to the original agreement.) We met in a tent Schwarzenegger has had constructed, complete with Astroturf flooring, in an interior courtyard of the Capitol building, where he can smoke cigars without violating the building’s no-smoking rule. When I arrived, Schwarzenegger, in a blue suit and cowboy boots emblazoned with the California state seal, was contentedly puffing a stogie. For a man facing fiscal meltdown, he appeared remarkably relaxed, though the weather seemed to be offering its own commentary: the torrential downpour lashing Sacramento that day drummed on the tent so loudly that at times it was hard to hear him talk.

Schwarzenegger had pledged to advance environmental causes during his initial gubernatorial campaign in 2003. But when he arrived in Sacramento, environmentalists and legislative Democrats were skeptical about the commitment of a Republican governor whose most prominent previous association with energy issues had been to encourage General Motors to adapt the Humvee for civilian use. “They felt … when I came here, ‘Oh, here’s a Republican, he is going to set us back seven years, so let’s not hope for much,’” Schwarzenegger told me. Legislators may have heard all his campaign promises, but “they thought it was just stuff that you say in order to get elected.”

In fact, Schwarzenegger would bang heads with environmentalists and their legislative allies on some regulatory issues. But on questions surrounding the transition toward a new energy economy, no governor would prove as visionary or determined. Ambitious new initiatives have cascaded out of Schwarzenegger’s office—including the two measures raising the renewable-power requirement on utilities, a state subsidy program to encourage the installation of electricity-generating solar panels on 1 million California roofs, and in January 2007, an executive order establishing the nation’s first “low-carbon fuel standard,” which requires a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon emissions from transportation fuels by 2020.

“People make decisions in this building, a lot of times, based on what is their term,” he told me, gesturing with his cigar toward the offices around him. “So they make a decision, what can be done in the next four years … I always look 50 years ahead, because to me, I cannot think just about what can I accomplish while I am in office. The thing that is important is, what should the state look like 20, 30, 40 years from now.” The search for a new energy strategy also spoke to Schwarzenegger’s desire to define California (and undoubtedly himself) as the forward edge of innovation. “My idea [was] that you shouldn’t just do it for California, that everything we do, we should use as a way of pushing the rest of the world, because I am a big believer in marketing,” he said.

Schwarzenegger’s interest in big, course-changing initiatives, and the continuing desire among Democratic legislative leaders to challenge then-President Bush’s energy policies, converged to produce yet another landmark initiative in 2006. After some occasionally tense maneuvering, the legislature passed and Schwarzenegger signed a Pavley-sponsored bill imposing the nation’s first mandatory statewide reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. The bill required the state by 2020 to roll back its emissions to the 1990 level—a reduction of about 15 percent from the current level. (By separate executive order, Schwarzenegger also committed the state to an 80 percent reduction by 2050.) Environmentalists had been promoting exactly those goals as national policy without success under Bush. Once again, the stalemate in Washington emboldened Sacramento. California acted, Schwarzenegger told me, “because we saw no hope on the national level.” It was, he continued, “very important to let Washington know, ‘Look, you are not the one making all the decisions.’”

Once California had passed its greenhouse-gas-emissions law, Schwarzenegger deputized Terry Tamminen, his key environmental adviser, to encourage other states to follow. That effort has been a striking success: six states, and four Canadian provinces, have joined with California in the Western Climate Initiative, which has pledged to impose mandatory greenhouse-gas-emission reductions comparable to California’s 2020 goal through a market-based regional cap-and-trade system.

The passage of California’s climate-change legislation captured a third major lesson of the state’s experience: just as regulations create markets, markets create constituencies. Much of the state’s business establishment opposed the bill. But the legislation drew countervailing support from the state’s cleantech community, which was growing partly in response to the state’s earlier alternative-energy initiatives. At a critical moment, a delegation of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and entrepreneurs led by John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers visited the Capitol to declare that the greenhouse bill would, in the group’s words, “stimulate innovation, efficiency, and economic benefits.” “It changed the whole dynamic,” Pavley said. “Before, all the papers were [saying], ‘This is an environmental bill,’ and businesses were opposed. After that… It changed the whole discussion.” Schwarzenegger meanwhile helped coax support from more-traditional business interests, including PG&E.

Peter Darbee, a self-described conservative, has become an ardent proponent of mandatory carbon-emission reductions. After assuming PG&E’s top job in 2005, he convened a series of meetings for senior executives with scientists on both sides of the climate issue. The conclusion he reached was unequivocal: “The Earth was warming, mankind was responsible, and the need for action is now.” And partly because of the utility’s experience at meeting the state’s energy-efficiency goals, he said, he also concluded that while there will be “some cost” to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, “that cost is very small, compared to the cost of not doing something. If people approach this, as we have, as an opportunity, it could actually have zero or little cost, or [produce] a net benefit.”

Darbee’s optimism reflects a larger truth about the politics of energy in California: unlike in most states, enough industries in California have found ways to profit from the state’s first waves of reform to create a durable constituency for continued change and innovation.

As a result of the climate-change bill, the state is several years ahead of the country again, this time in exploring what reducing carbon emissions will actually take. “There was no model to work from,” said Mary D. Nichols, the chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, which has been tasked with administering the climate bill. Last December, the board approved a “scoping plan” that offered the most detailed road map any government agency has yet charted for reducing greenhouse emissions. It pointed to a fourth major lesson from the California energy experience: moving toward a low-carbon economy will require attacking the problem from almost every conceivable angle.

The plan anticipates that the largest reductions will come from the major reforms the state has adopted in recent years, including the Pavley emissions law, the renewable portfolio requirement, and the cap-and-trade system itself. But it also envisions renewed efficiency efforts, improved regional planning to reduce sprawl, more installation of distributed solar power on rooftops, changes in forestry and water-distribution practices, and so on.

For all of the changes required, Nichols is confident the state is on course to launch its cap-and-trade system one year early (in 2011) and to meet its 2020 carbon-reduction goals. Still, California’s experience highlights several obstacles the country may face in any transition toward a lower-carbon economy. Foremost among these, ironically, may be the environmental challenges of producing more renewable power. Large-scale solar arrays consume substantial amounts of land. As plans move forward for new facilities in the Mojave Desert and elsewhere, environmentalists are uneasily monitoring the potential impact on sensitive habitats. Even more daunting are the extended permitting and regulatory processes for building the transmission lines required to carry wind and solar power to population centers.

“Transmission is the biggest constraint,” says Michael R.Peevey, who is the president of the California Public Utilities Commission. Typically, he says, it takes eight to 10 years to plan, permit, and build a high-voltage transmission line. The commission has projected that California will need to build five such lines to meet its 2020 renewable-power goals. The likelihood that that will happen is even lower than the likelihood that Los Angeles will ban Botox.

Another challenge is the precarious financial condition of some of the start-up alternative-energy companies that the California utilities are relying upon to deliver wind and solar power. Even before the credit crunch, skeptics questioned whether the new energy companies possessed the financial, engineering, and logistical capacity to fulfill their agreements with state utilities to build huge generation plants. The difficulty in obtaining credit will likely make it harder for some suppliers to reach the size required to deliver their technologies at an industrial scale. Some analysts think many of the alternative-energy start-ups may instead need to license their technology to the utilities, which can more easily raise the money to build generating facilities themselves. But while more direct ownership by the utilities (or, for that matter, oil companies) might speed the deployment of alternative energy, it would also raise concerns about concentrating control over the next century’s energy supplies in the same behemoths that dominated the fossil-fuel era.

Other technological challenges also loom—from upgrading the electricity grid so it can handle the intermittent nature of solar and wind power, to developing the battery capacity required to make electric cars more than a niche competitor. But the greatest unknown may be whether the state’s energy agenda will eventually provoke a backlash among voters. To meet the greenhouse-gas reduction targets, the state may need to consider measures that average families might consider too intrusive, like imposing fees on the owners of cars that emit the most carbon dioxide. Energy prices are another wild card. If household utility bills noticeably rise, the political calculus might change, particularly if the economy remains weak.

Yet, for now, the key to energy politics in California is that the state has transcended the assumption, common in many other regions, that sustainability requires scarcity. The California perspective reflects the fusion of the state’s long-time environmental ethos with the techno-optimism of Silicon Valley. “We look at this as an economic opportunity,” says Doug Henton, an economic consultant to Next 10 and the chairman and CEO of Collaborative Economics. “What’s been holding back other states and [the nation] is this fear that we’re going to lose more than we gain.”

Clearly, some structural advantages have encouraged that attitude in California. It is easier for California to shift toward renewable sources of electricity, for instance, because it never relied as much as most states on low-cost coal (even including its imports of coal-generated power from neighboring states); it also has an unusually favorable climate for generating solar energy.

“This isn’t something you can design as an exact blueprint, a cookie cutter that is applicable everywhere,” says Mary D. Nichols. But in moving toward a low-carbon future, California has its own unique challenges, starting with its excessive reliance on cars. On balance, the state’s energy successes have been shaped less by the state’s underlying circumstances than by the public policies California has pursued.

The big lessons of the California energy experience—rely on efficiency first, use regulation to create markets, use markets to create constituencies, attack the problem from all angles—might be implemented in different ways, but their basic principles can be applied everywhere. California’s experience says the evolution to a lower-carbon, more energy-efficient economy is possible and compatible with economic growth, but that the change requires endurance, consistency, and flexibility. Schwarzenegger captures the point with a characteristically personal metaphor:

“The key thing with everything is not to concentrate so much on the process but to concentrate on the goal. When I said I am going to be Mr. Universe, and I was 15 years old in Austria, I had no idea how to train and how to get there. But I had the fire in the belly, and I had the will to say that I will be the world champion even though it was not an Austrian sport, and no one had ever done it in Austria … The will was there. So the same is here. We have the will to get there by 2020 …and therefore we are going to … make decisions based on getting there.”

No one exemplifies that spirit of persistence more than Art Rosenfeld. He has been around long enough that as a graduate student he studied under Enrico Fermi. The wall of Rosenfeld’s office is covered with awards that stretch back decades. Yet, at 83, he has a new passion. Rosenfeld is crusading to replace dark roofs, which trap most of the sun’s heat, with white or “cool” roofs that are far more reflective, and thus save energy by keeping the building below cool. California has accepted his logic by requiring all newly constructed commercial buildings with flat roofs to use white. In 2010, Energy Commission rules will encourage new homes and remodeling projects in the state’s five hottest regions to use “cool color” roof surfaces in green, brown, or other shades that reflect more heat than dark roofs.

Rosenfeld finds those rules a little disappointing, because the cool-color roofs reduce energy use by only about one-third as much as white roofs, but he understands the need to ease homeowners into a new approach. And even those requirements could yield substantial reductions. Rosenfeld has calculated that a global conversion, over the next 20 years, to white flat roofs and cool-color sloped roofs as far north as Chicago and as far south as Buenos Aires would reduce carbon emissions by an amount equivalent to taking about one-half of the world’s passenger cars off the roads. Rosenfeld is content to start small but, as always, he’s thinking big. To him, after all, it seems an eminently reasonable proposition that one American state can prompt the entire country, if not the world, to save massive amounts of energy and combat climate change, by reconsidering a central pillar of how buildings have been designed for centuries. Based on California’s experience over the past 35 years, I wouldn’t bet against him.

NextEra Energy Resources

2009-11-07T13:05:00.000-08:00

The Fast Company 50
Even in these tough times, surprising and extraordinary efforts are under way in businesses across the globe. From politics to technology, energy, and transportation; from marketing to retail, health care, and design, each company on the following pages illustrates the power and potential of innovative ideas and creative execution. These are the kinds of enterprises that will redefine our future and point the way to a better tomorrow.

#16 NextEra Energy Resources
Juno Beach, FL

"Who is the largest renewables company in the country?" demands Mike O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development for NextEra Energy Resources. "Is it GE? Goldman Sachs? BP? If you read the ads on the back of The Wall Street Journal you would think these guys are the big gorillas. But in fact, nobody in the U.S. has invested as much in renewables as we have."

Since 2000, NextEra has quietly -expanded to become the nation's No. 1 producer of green energy from both wind and solar. It has invested $8 billion in wind alone. But what may be most interesting about NextEra, a national independent power producer, is how differently it behaves from its very own sister, Florida Power & Light Co., a more conventional regulated utility serving 10 million people across half the Sunshine State. Both are owned by FPL Group, a $20 billion public company, yet their respective performances illustrate how ground rules can drive an industry toward innovation -- or reinforce the status quo.

NextEra operates in 25 deregulated states and Canada, wherever it has the right to compete. Where the existing utilities have sunk large costs in fossil-fuel plants, NextEra can invest shareholder capital in renewables to help states meet increasingly stringent green-energy quotas. Its projects include the world's largest wind farm, the 735-megawatt Horse Hollow in Texas, and the world's largest solar-thermal plant, the 310-megawatt Solar Electric Generating System in California's Mojave Desert. It buys more wind turbines from both GE and Siemens than anybody else. Even after bowing to the economy by cutting costs and shelving some expansion plans, NextEra still grew earnings 18%, to $650 million, in the first three quarters of 2008, and plans to add 1,100 megawatts of wind power in 2009, compared to 1,000 added in 2007.

Jay Apt, director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, calls the staff "alpha geeks" whose wind-control center in Juno Beach, Florida, is "state of the art," as good as anything he has seen in Europe. "It's the most data-driven utility I think I've seen, and I've seen some very good ones," he says. In 2006, NextEra bought one of the industry's leading consulting firms, WindLogics; there, a staff of PhDs uses the latest National Weather Service data to figure out the optimal placement for turbines and forecast their likely output. O'Sullivan calls them "our rocket scientists."

Florida Power & Light Co., meanwhile, looks a lot more like business as usual. The regulated utility has clashed with activists -several times in recent years over plans to build fossil-fuel power plants on environmentally sensitive land in and near the Everglades; its power mix includes 52% natural gas, 19% nuclear, and 6% coal; and it is proposing new coal and Nuclear plants. "Coal is a four-letter word to us," says O'Sullivan. Eric Silagy, an FPL Co. VP, counters, "For certain folks, coal is an important resource."

Why the split between the two subsidiaries? "Follow the money!" says Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, who watches the overall company closely. "These guys love to go into somebody else's service territory and compete with clean energy. But when they've got a monopoly, a captive customer base, they revert to the business-as-usual rate-base paradigm: large nukes and coal."

Lately, with Governor Charlie Crist pushing for a renewable portfolio standard in Florida, FPL Co. has been moved to follow its sister's lead. In December, the utility broke ground on the world's first hybrid solar plant, using solar thermal to boost natural gas, the first of 110 megawatts of planned solar plants that represent $729 million in new investments and, when completed around 2010, will make Florida the second-biggest sun-power state in the country after California.

If the nation's objective is to see more power companies behave as innovatively as NextEra does, the solution is clear: Introduce real competition across the country, create strong portfolio standards, and allow better price signals into the market through a carbon tax or a 100% auction-based cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Even Smith gives FPL Group credit for advocating the latter. "It is one of the most forward-looking utilities on climate and global-warming policy," he says. "One-hundred-percent auction is the position of the president, and it's the right position."
http://www.fastcompany.com/fast50_09/profile/list/nextera-energy-resources

Green Energy Agenda Favors Rural Denmark

2009-11-06T13:11:00.000-08:00

Green Energy Agenda Favors Rural Denmark
The Danes' shift to renewable, local energy sources have revitalized former textile towns and turned blacksmiths into wind-power entrepreneurs.
By Sam Adams
11/05/2009
Daily Yonder

The Danish port of Frederikshavn, pop. 25,000, is dedicated to becoming the first city ever powered entirely by renewable energy. Green energy is not only powering Denmark’s homes and appliances, it is powering Denmark’s rural economy.

On Samsø Island, a farming and tourist destination in the Kategat, wind turbines can churn out 13 times the electricity the 4,100 residents need, and farmers are selling their wheat straw to be burned in district heating plants.

On the Jutland Peninsula, manure produced by cattle and pig farms is turned into biogas and mixed into the natural gas in pipelines. And Vestas Wind Systems, the world’s largest wind turbine maker, was founded and maintains factories on Jutland.

Far from taking jobs, green energy is creating jobs in Denmark and, more and more, around the world. Vestas, for example, employs 20,000 people worldwide, many in small towns like Ringkøbing, Denmark, population about 9,300, and headquarters of Vestas Nacelles. (Nacelles are the streamlined housings that hold the inner workings of wind turbines).

“We have created thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in this sector,” said Connie Hedegaard, Minister for Climate and Energy. Even amid the economic crises of 2008, the Danish export of energy efficient technologies grew by 19 percent last year. “It has tripled over the recent 10 years,” said Hedegaard, “and if you go and see where we have some of those strongholds … they will often be located in rural areas very far from here in Jutland.”

Denmark was forced into green energy production by the oil crisis of 1973. At that time, the nation was 100 percent dependent on foreign energy, with all of its oil coming from the Middle East. The situation became so bad that weekend driving was curtailed, and residents were only allowed to drive on alternating Sundays based on their car license numbers.

Since then, the country has discovered oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and invested heavily in renewable energy sources. Denmark now gets 17 percent of its energy through renewable sources. While it still produces about 60 percent of its electricity from imported coal, it is now a net exporter of energy.

Connie Hedegaard, Denamrk's Minister for Climate and Energy, sees environmentalism and economic growth as compatible. Perhaps surprisingly to Americans, Hedegaard is a member of the Conservative Party; conservative by Danish standards, it is still slightly to the left of most European conservative parties, and far to the left of the U.S. conservative movement. Hedegaard said that the “Greens” in Denmark had created an “anti-growth” agenda. She adheres to another brand of environmentalism, quite the opposite.

“I have been working with this for five years now,” said Hedegaarrd, “and I have tried to turn this into a growth agenda”

She said much of the growth in the green energy sector has been in areas where there had been tremendous job loss in the textile industry. With the help of green energy and conservation measures, Denmark’s current unemployment rate is less than two percent while per capita energy use has declined for the past three decades.

To those who would argue that green energy standards restrict economic growth, Hedegaard answered, “No. We can prove that we have had 30 years of high growth when we kept our energy use stable, and from that we gained money from not pouring it into the Middle East.”

The Danish government has invested in green infrastructure with a variety of programs. One, a contest, funded a community as a pilot for energy planning (Samsø Island won); others have offered tax breaks for using wind energy. The government has also matched money for communities to build biogas facilities and plans 50 new biogas plants by 2020.

But while government has worked to spur local investment in green energy, much of the reason the renewable energy industry has boomed in rural areas is the character those areas. Vestas wind systems, for example, grew out of a firm that company vice president Peter Wenzel Kruse described as “the Danish version of John Deere,” a tractor company based on the West coast of Denmark.

“It was in the windy part of Denmark, which happened to be rural area with a long history of blacksmiths. That was the cradle of entrepreneurism in Denmark, in the back of Jutland,” Kruse said.

That farming background has also helped bring wind energy and biogas production to rural areas. Biogas has flourished in farm country because farmers have to do something to get rid of manure, and sending it to biogas plants is cheaper than any other disposal method available to them.

On Samsø, Danish Energy Academy president Søren Hermansen said farmers were used to investing in expensive pieces of farm equipment and jumped at the chance to buy wind turbines.

For Peter Kruse, the wind power executive, selling communities on wind power is simple.

“What is wind power offering today? We call it an ‘investor’s high five.’ It’s competitive – it’s no more far more expensive than fossil fuels.” In places like Texas, natural gas may be free, “but it won’t last,” Kruse said. Alternatively, wind power “is competitive, it’s independent, it’s local power – it’s up there – and it’s local jobs.”

Journalist and author Sam Adams [5] lives in Letcher County, Kentcuky.

Rural Economies Must Change or Die
Danville Regional Foundation
Rural economies can be both old and new.
If we bail out New York City, what about New York Mill? Are we in this together, or are we on our own?
By Karl Stauber

Dear Mr. President:

Your presidency occurs at a critical time. Americans are afraid; we are having trouble seeing the future and our places in it. We can see that you are trying to create a new social contract and a renewed faith in the common good. The vast majority of Americans want prosperity for themselves and their families and are willing to work hard and play by the rules to achieve it. But people must believe, and that includes the 20 percent of America that is rural. Continue here.

Future Wonders of Green Technology and Green Design

2009-11-05T10:26:00.000-08:00

15 (More) Future Wonders of Green Technology: From Spinning Towers to Seawater Greenhouses

As the world increasingly focuses on sustainable initiatives, green architecture is a booming industry. Everything from single-family residences to giant 1.2-million-square-foot complexes complete with giant skyscrapers is getting the green treatment, and the innovation that iss going into these plans is more complex than ever. Some of these structures will debut as early as the fall of 2008 while others present a view of what 100 years from now may hold, but all represent amazing leaps in green technology that push the boundaries of what we’ve ever thought possible.
http://weburbanist.com/2008/07/08/15-more-future-wonders-of-green-technology/

24 Fantastic Future Wonders of Green Design

The ‘green movement’ has swept the world and architecture is at the forefront of the new industrial revolution – buildings being by far the biggest energy-sappers in the world. Many contemporary architects are limited by the confines of budgets, time tables and constricting clients. Some industrious innovators, however, are breaking convention and collaborating to launch our imaginations into the future of green design. A surprising number of the following projects are even slated to be built.

Why For-Profits Need Not-For-Profits

2009-11-04T11:30:00.000-08:00

Jurassic Park Syndrome
Why corporations shouldn't take the cause out of cause marketing
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/133/do-something-jurassic-park-syndrome.html
Why For-Profits Need Not-For-Profits
BY: NANCY LUBLIN Tue Feb 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM

In Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs roam the island terrorizing the humans, who seek refuge in the main building -- a sanctuary with security that beasts surely aren't smart enough to breach, right? Wrong! The big moment of terror is when those dumb animals learn to turn the doorknobs. Uh-oh. Now the humans hiding in the kitchen are really screwed.

We're witnessing a Jurassic Park moment in the social-good space: Not-for-profits are screwed, and it's partly our own doing. For years, we -- the martyrs, the saints, the do-gooders -- have had the keys to that door to heaven. But then we shared them with corporate America, through a practice known as "cause marketing" since 1983, when American Express launched a campaign in partnership with the National Park Service for the Statue of Liberty restoration project.

You see these campaigns everywhere now. Companies buy goodwill by touting that "a percentage of the proceeds goes to ..." or slapping a charity's logo on packaging. Want to show moms that your company cares about children? Partner with the Make-A-Wish Foundation or St. Jude Children's Research Hospital -- moms love sick kids. Need marketing oomph with African-Americans? Call the United Negro College Fund or the National Urban League.

Both sides benefit: Not-for profits get brand recognition from being featured on that cereal box, and of course we ♥ the funds -- more than $1.5 billion per year -- which are usually "unrestricted," meaning we can spend the money on unsexy things like rent. Corporations improve their image and build internal pride. Cause marketing has been one big lovefest; we all reaped rewards -- and together did a lot of good.

But what if corporate America didn't need charitable America to show love? What would happen if they, the dinosaurs in our story, learned to turn that doorknob by themselves? In September, Macy's hosted "Shop for a Cause" in its stores. It bought full-page newspaper ads to promote the day "in support of nonprofit organizations." No mention of specific groups. The day's real draw? Simply the notion of shopping for a cause. Any cause. In fairness to Macy's, it did raise more than $9 million for deserving groups (whose names you can find on its Web site). But the cause-agnostic ads proved that organizations are easily written out of the cause-marketing story line.

Aleve has taken it even further. One TV ad for the painkiller shows a woman "on a three-day walk for charity." She is strong in her spandex, putting her body on the line for her cause -- and no specific cause is named. Another ad features a woman who volunteers at a homeless shelter. The medication helps her enjoy the physical work. Did Aleve give to a worthy group that helps the homeless? No idea, but it's the preferred pain medication of people who care!

Corporate America has realized it can bask in the glow of causiness without actually partnering with a cause. That could mean the end of a gravy train for not-for-profits and the beginning of competition with big, well-funded companies. (Read: We're all kinda annoyed and scared.)

But does that make good business? Charities lend more value than just their good names. Cause is our core competency. It's what we do. We might not know how to make lipstick or sell shoes, but what do those companies know about curing cancer? Plus, we're incentivized to make the campaign work, and have our own promotional armories -- which often include celebs!

Partnering with a dot-org is simply smart outsourcing. Because, besides eating humans, what else can dinosaurs really do in the kitchen?

Nancy Lublin founded Dress for Success and is CEO of the not-for-profit Do Something.

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE)

2009-10-27T13:36:00.000-07:00

DSIRE is a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility, and federal incentives and policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. Established in 1995 and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, DSIRE is an ongoing project of the N.C. Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.

Established in 1995, the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE) is an ongoing project of the North Carolina Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC). It is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), primarily through the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis (PBA). The site is administered by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is operated for DOE by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Amazing Grace; finding Common Ground to Build a future together

2009-10-25T06:56:00.000-07:00

'Amazing Grace' and the End of the Slave Trade
February 22, 2007

Two hundred years ago, the passion and oratory of a man named William Wilberforce drove the British Parliament to abolish slavery. Michael Apted, director of Amazing Grace, talks about the film adaptation of the life of Wilberforce.

Guests:

Michael Apted, director, most recently, of the film Amazing Grace, which opens nationwide on Friday, February 23

Eric Metaxas, most recent book is Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery; author of many children's books; humor pieces have appeared in Harper's magazine, and The New York Times

Excerpt: 'Amazing Grace'
We often hear about people who "need no introduction," but if ever someone did need one, at least in our day and age, it's William Wilberforce. The strange irony is that we are talking about a man who changed the world, so if ever someone should not need an introduction — whose name and accomplishments should be on the lips of all humanity — it's Wilberforce.

What happened is surprisingly simple: William Wilberforce was the happy victim of his own success. He was like someone who against all odds finds the cure for a horrible disease that's ravaging the world, and the cure is so overwhelmingly successful that it vanquishes the disease completely. No one suffers from it again — and within a generation or two no one remembers it ever existed.

The roots of the thing Wilberforce was trying to uproot had been growing since humans first walked on the planet, and if they had been real roots, they would have reached to the molten core of the earth itself. They ran so deep and so wide that most people thought that they held the planet together.

The opposition that he and his small band faced was incomparable to anything we can think of in modern affairs. It was certainly unprecedented that anyone should endeavor, as if by their own strength and a bit of leverage, to tip over something about as large and substantial and deeply rooted as a mountain range. From where we stand today — and because of Wilberforce — the end of slavery seems inevitable, and it's impossible for us not to take it largely for granted. But that's the wild miracle of his achievement, that what to the people of his day seemed impossible and unthinkable seems to us, in our day, inevitable.

There's hardly a soul alive today who isn't horrified and offended by the very idea of human slavery. We seethe with moral indignation at it, and we can't fathom how anyone or any culture ever countenanced it. But in the world into which Wilberforce was born, the opposite was true. Slavery was as accepted as birth and marriage and death, was so woven into the tapestry of human history that you could barely see its threads, much less pull them out. Everywhere on the globe, for five thousand years, the idea of human civilization without slavery was unimaginable.

The idea of ending slavery was so completely out of the question at that time that Wilberforce and the abolitionists couldn't even mention in publicly. They focused on the lesser idea of abolishing the slave trade — on the buying and selling of human beings — but never dared speak of emancipation, of ending slavery itself. Their secret and cherished hope was that once the slave trade had been abolished, it would then become possible to being to move toward emancipation. But first they must fight for the abolition of the slave trade; and that battle — brutal and heartbreaking — would take twenty years.

Of course, finally winning that battle in 1807 is the single towering accomplishment for which we should remember Wilberforce today, whose bicentennial we celebrate, and whose celebration occasions a movie, documentaries, and the book you now hold. If anything can stand as a single marker of Wilberforce's accomplishments, it is that 1807 victory. It paved the way for all that followed, inspiring the other nations of the world to follow suit and opening the door to emancipation, which, amazingly, was achieved three days before Wilberforce died in 1833. He received the glorious news of his life-long goal on his deathbed.

Wilberforce was one of the brightest, wittiest, best connected, and generally talented men of his day, someone who might well have become prime minister of Great Britain if he had, in the words of one historian, "preferred party to mankind." But his accomplishments far transcend any mere political victory. Wilberforce can be pictured as standing as a kind of hinge in the middle of history: he pulled the world around a corner, and we can't even look back to see where we've come from.

Wilberforce saw much of what the rest of the world could not, including the grotesque injustice of one man treating another as property. He seems to rise up out of nowhere and with the voice of unborn billions — with your voice and mine – shriek to his contemporaries that they are sleepwalking through hell, that they must wake up and must see what he saw and know what he knew — and what you and I know today — that the widespread and institutionalized and unthinkably cruel mistreatment of millions of human beings is evil and must be stopped as soon as conceivably possible — no matter the cost.

How is it possible that humanity for so long tolerated what to us is so obviously intolerable? And why did just one small group of people led by Wilberforce suddenly see this injustice for what it was? Why in a morally blind world did Wilberforce and a few others suddenly sprout eyes to see it? Abolitionists in the late eighteenth century were something like the characters in horror films who have seen "the monster" and are trying to tell everyone else about it — and no one believes them.

To fathom the magnitude of what Wilberforce did we have to see that the "disease" he vanquished forever was actually neither the slave trade nor slavery. Slavery still exists around the world today, in such measure as we can hardly fathom. What Wilberforce vanquished was something even worse than slavery, something that was much more fundamental and can hardly be seen from where we stand today: he vanquished the very mind-set that made slavery acceptable and allowed it to survive and thrive for millennia. He destroyed an entire way of seeing the world, one that had held sway from the beginning of history, and he replaced it with another way of seeing the world. Included in the old way of seeing things was the idea that the evil of slavery was good. Wilberforce murdered that old way of seeing things, and so the idea that slavery was good died along with it. Even though slavery continues to exist here and there, the idea that it is good is dead. The idea that it is inextricably intertwined with human civilization, and part of the way things are supposed to be, and economically necessary and morally defensible, is gone. Because the entire mind-set that supported it is gone.

Wilberforce overturned not just European civilization's view of slavery but its view of almost everything in the human sphere; and that is why it's nearly impossible to do justice to the enormity of his accomplishment; it was nothing less than a fundamental and important shift in human consciousness.

In typically humble fashion, Wilberforce would have been the first to insist that he had little to do with any of it. The facts are that in 1785, at age twenty-six and at the height of his political career, something profound and dramatic happened to him. He might say that, almost against his will, God opened his eyes and showed him another world. Somehow Wilberforce saw God's reality — what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven. He saw things he had never seen before, things that we quite take for granted today but that were as foreign to his world as slavery is to ours. He saw things that existed in God's reality but that, in human reality, were nowhere in evidence. He saw the idea that all men and women are created equal by God, in his image, and are therefore sacred. He saw the idea that all men are brothers and that we are all our brothers' keepers. He saw the idea that one must love one's neighbor as oneself and that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

These ideas were at the heart of the Christian Gospel, and they had been around for at least eighteen centuries by the time Wilberforce encountered them. Monks and missionaries knew of these ideas and lived them out in their limited spheres. But no entire society had ever taken these ideas to heart as a society in the way that Britain would. That was what Wilberforce changed forever.

As a political figure, he was uniquely positioned to link these ideas to society itself, to the public sphere, and the public sphere, for the first time in history, was able to receive them. And so Wilberforce may perhaps be said to have performed the wedding ceremony between faith and culture. We had suddenly entered a world in which we would never again ask whether it was our responsibility as a society to help the poor and the suffering. We would only quibble about how, about the details — about whether to use public funds or private, for example. But we would never again question whether it was our responsibility as a society to help those less fortunate. That had been settled. Today we call this having a "social conscience," and we can't imagine any modern, civilized society without one.

Once this idea was loosed upon the world, the world changed. Slavery and the slave trade would soon be largely abolished, but many lesser social evils would be abolished too. For the first time in history, groups sprang up for every possible social cause. Wilberforce's first "great object" was the abolition of the slave trade, but his second "great object," one might say, was the abolition of every lesser social ill. The issues of child labor and factory conditions, the problems of orphans and widows, of prisoners and the sick — all suddenly had champions in people who wanted to help those less fortunate than themselves. At the center of most of these social ventures was the Clapham Circle, an informal but influential community of like-minded souls outside London who plotted good deeds together, and Wilberforce himself was at the center of Clapham. At one point he was officially linked with sixty-nine separate groups dedicated to social reform of one kind or another.

Taken all together, it's difficult to escape the verdict that William Wilberforce was simply the greatest social reformer in the history of the world. The world he was born into in 1759 and the world he departed in 1833 were as different as lead and gold. Wilberforce presided over a social earthquake that rearranged the continents and whose magnitude we are only now beginning to fully appreciate.

Unforeseen to him, the fire he ignited in England would leap across the Atlantic and quickly sweep across America — and transform that nation profoundly and forever. Can we imagine an America without its limitless number of organizations dedicated to curing every social ill? Would such an America be America? We might not wish to credit Wilberforce with inventing America, but it can reasonably be said that the America we know wouldn't exist without Wilberforce.

As a result of the efforts of Wilberforce and Clapham, social "improvement" was so fashionable by the Victorian era that do-gooders and do-goodism had become targets of derision, and they have been so ever since. We have simply forgotten that in the eighteenth century, before Wilberforce and Clapham, the poor and suffering were almost entirely without champions in the public or private sphere. We who are sometimes obsessed with social conscience can no longer imagine a world without it, or a society that regards the suffering of the poor and others as the "will of God." Even where this view does exist, as in societies and cultures informed by an Eastern, karmic view of the world, we refuse to believe it. We arrogantly seem to insist that everyone on the planet think as we do about society's obligation to the unfortunate, but they don't.

No politician has ever used his faith to a greater result for all of humanity, and that is why, in his day, Wilberforce was a moral hero far more than a political one. Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Nelson Mandela in our own time come closest to representing what Wilberforce must have seemed like to the men and women of the nineteenth century, for whom the memory of what he had done was still bright and vivid.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both hailed him as an inspiration and example. Lincoln said every schoolboy knew Wilberforce's name and what he had done. Frederick Douglass gushed that Wilberforce's "faith, persistence, and enduring enthusiasm" had "thawed the British heart into sympathy for the slave, and moved the strong arm of that government to in mercy put an end to his bondage." Poets and writers such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and George Eliot sang his praises, as did Henry David Thoreau and John Greenleaf Whittier. Byron called him "the moral Washington of Africa."

The American artist and inventor Samuel Morse said that Wilberforce's "whole soul is bent on doing good to his fellow men. Not a moment of his time is lost. He is always planning some benevolent scheme, or other, and not only planning but executing ... Oh, that such men as Mr. Wilberforce were more common in this world. So much human blood would not be shed to gratify the malice and revenge of a few wicked, interested men."

The American abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison went further yet. "His voice had a silvery cadence," he said of Wilberforce, "his face a benevolently pleasing smile, and his eye a fine intellectual expression. In his conversation he was fluent, yet modest; remarkably exact and elegant in his diction; cautious in forming conclusions; searching in his interrogations; and skillful in weighing testimony. In his manner he combined dignity with simplicity, and childlike affability with becoming gracefulness. How perfectly do those great elements of character harmonize in the same person, to wit — dovelike gentleness and amazing energy — deep humility and adventurous daring! ... These were mingled in the soul of Wilberforce."

An Italian nobleman who saw Wilberforce in his later years wrote: "When Mr. Wilberforce passes through the crowd on the day of the opening of Parliament, every one contemplates this little old man, worn with age, and his head sunk upon his shoulders, as a sacred relic: as the Washington of humanity."

We blanch at such encomia today, for indeed, ours is an age deeply suspicious of greatness. Watergate seems to have come down upon us like a portcullis, cutting us off forever from anything approaching such hero worship, especially of political figures. With the certainty of a Captain Queeg, we are forever on the lookout for the worm in the apple, the steroid in the sprinter or slugger. And lurking behind every happy biographical detail we see the skulking figure of Parson Weems and his pious fibs about cherry trees and — of all things — telling the truth.

If ever someone could restore our ability to again see simple goodness, it should be Wilberforce. If we cannot cheer someone who literally brought "freedom to the captives" and bequeathed to the world that infinitely transformative engine we call a social conscience, for whom may we ever cheer? Especially knowing that he has been more forgotten than remembered, and that he himself would have been the first to denigrate his accomplishments — as we can see from his diaries and letters, which show us that he went to the grave sincerely and deeply regretted that he hadn't done much more.

In the thick of the battle for abolition, one of its many dedicated opponents, Lord Melbourne, was outraged that Wilberforce dared inflict his Christian values about slavery and human equality on British society. "Things have come to a pretty pass," he famously thundered, "when one should permit one's religion to invade public life." For this lapidary inanity, the jeers and catcalls and raspberries and howling laughter of history's judgment will echo forever — as they should.

But after all, it is a very pretty pass indeed. And how very glad we are that one man led us to that pretty pass, to that golden doorway, and then guided us through the mountains to a world we hadn't known could exist.

Creative Capitalism; L3C, Low-profit Limited Liability Company

2009-10-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

L3C
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A low-profit limited liability company (L3C) is a legal form of business entity in the United States that was created to bridge the gap between non-profit and for-profit investing by providing a structure that facilitates investments in socially beneficial, for-profit ventures while simplifying compliance with Internal Revenue Service rules for "Program Related Investments".

Legislation

Vermont. The pioneer legislation approving the L3C as a legally-recognized form of business entity (House Bill 0775) was approved by the full Vermont House of Representatives on February 27, 2008 and by the Vermont Senate on April 11, 2008. It was signed into law by Governor of Vermont James H. Douglas on April 30, 2008. As of August 10, 2009 Vermont lists about 60 L3Cs in the state database, including a chess camp, theater, alternative energy companies, publishers, food companies and numerous consulting firms. [9]

Michigan. Introduced by Traverse City Republican State Senator Jason Allen on July 24, 2008, Senate Bill 1445 was signed into law on January 16, 2009[10] as an amendment to the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act[11] by Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm. The bill was supported by the Council of Michigan Foundations[12], and the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth[13].
Utah. February 2009 - State Senator Lyle Hillyard (Utah politician) from District 25 introduced the Low-profit Limited Liability Company Act S.B. 148 on February 2, 2009. The Act is sponsored in the House by State Representative Kraig Powell of District 54.On March 23, 2009, Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. signed the Low-Profit Limited Liability Company Act S.B. 148 into law. [14]

Wyoming. January 2009 - Wyoming State Representative, Dan Zwonitzer, introduced the L3C bill HB0182. On February 26, 2009 Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed the L3C Legislation into law.

Illinois. August 2009 - Gov. Pat Quinn signed Illinois' L3C bill on August 4, 2009. The law will take effect on January 1, 2010. [2] The law aims to make it easier for social enterprises to attract capital, said Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago), who sponsored the bill. "Foundations have a growing interest to not only make grants that achieve a social purpose but also use investments to do that," Steans said. Chicago attorney and financial adviser Marc Lane of Marc J. Lane Wealth Group, who helped spearhead the Illinois legislation, said the L3C law could create new jobs by supporting social enterprises that otherwise couldn't exist. It's particularly timely given the credit crunch, he said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3C

The L3C: A More Creative Capitalism

By Jim Witkin | January 15th, 2009

During his 2007 Harvard commencement address, Bill Gates, now the world’s best funded philanthropist, called on the graduates to invent “a more creative capitalism” where “we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities.”

It doesn’t take a Harvard grad (or Harvard dropout like Gates) to understand that traditional market forces mostly work against the notion of a socially beneficial enterprise (one that seeks social returns first and financial second). Existing for-profit corporate structures demand a higher financial return than a social enterprise can usually deliver; while non-profit organizations have limited access to capital and a tax-exempt format that limits a strong profit orientation. If the social enterprise field is to evolve and grow, what’s needed is a hybrid of the two forms, a structure that supports a “low profit corporation.”

Enter the L3C (low-profit, limited liability company), a new corporate structure designed to attract a wide range of investment sources thereby improving the viability of social ventures. In April 2008, Vermont became the first state to recognize the L3C as a legal corporate structure. Similar legislation is pending in Georgia, Michigan, Montana and North Carolina. But if the L3C seems like the right choice for your social enterprise, you don’t have to wait! L3Cs formed in Vermont can be used in any state.

Flexible Ownership Attracts a Range of Investors
The goal of the L3C form is to bring together a mix of investment money from a variety of sources. This process starts with investments from Foundations known as Program Related Investments (PRIs). Foundations are required to spend at least five percent of their assets in a given fiscal year in order to maintain their tax-exempt status. They have two basic options for spending their money: they can make grants, where there is no financial return on the money, or they can make program-related investments (PRIs) investing in for-profit ventures and potentially earn a return.
But to qualify as a PRI, the investment must relate to the Foundation’s mission and the risk/reward ratio must exceed that of a standard market-driven investment (ie, the risk must be higher, and the return lower). Surprisingly, the use of PRIs by Foundations is limited even with the potential to earn a small return. Because of burdensome and costly IRS requirements to verify PRIs, many foundations shy away from investing in for-profit ventures due to the uncertainty of whether they would qualify as PRIs.

Unlike the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), the L3C is explicitly formed to further a socially beneficial mission. The L3C’s operating agreement specifically outlines its PRI-qualified purpose. This should make it much easier for Foundations to make program related investments in social ventures while ensuring their tax-exempt status remains secure.

Like the LLC, the L3C is able to form flexible partnerships where ownership rights can be tailored to meet the requirements of each partner. This flexibility permits a tranched or layered investment and ownership structure. The Foundation’s L3C membership stake provides for a very low rate of return and can be subordinate to the other investors. Because the Foundation can invest through PRIs at less than the market rate while embracing higher risk levels, this lowers the risk to other investors and increases their potential rate of return. So the remaining L3C memberships can then be marketed at risk/return profiles necessary to attract market driven investors.

The end result: the L3C is able to leverage Foundation PRIs to access a wide range of investment dollars through a flexible partnership structure. Additionally, profit and loss flow through the L3C to its members and are taxed according to each investor’s particular tax situation, making it easier for non-profits and for-profits to partner together.

Some examples of L3C entities that have been created or are in the process: carbon trading, alternative energy, food bank processing, social services, social benefit consulting and media, arts funding, job creation programs, economic development, housing for low income and aging populations, medical facilities, environmental remediation, and medical research.

L3C Advocacy
The L3C concept was formed by Robert Lang, CEO of the Mary Elizabeth & Gordon B. Mannweiler Foundation, Inc. Marcus Owens, a tax attorney with Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, DC, wrote the basic law. The Mary Elizabeth & Gordon B. Mannweiler Foundation has funded the Americans for Community Development whose purpose is to promote the L3C and the adoption of this new corporate form in all fifty states. Mr. Lang and others formed the first L3C, L3C Advisors, for the purpose of helping social ventures structure, organize & finance L3C’s.

The L3C is still in “proof of concept” form, but will be put to the test this year. Because the first L3Cs were formed in 2008, this means 2009 will be the first year that the concept will be tested with the IRS. Hopefully, the IRS will readily accept Foundation investments in L3Cs as valid PRIs. Steve Gunderson, CEO of the Council on Foundations, which supports the L3C approach says “we’re optimistic” that the IRS will also support this approach to PRI investing.

The economic realities of connecting social needs with capital markets is leading to innovations like the L3C form. As the problems that social ventures try to solve get bigger and more widespread, hopefully these types of innovations will keep pace.

Nonprofit Law Blog
L3C - Developments & Resources
http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/home/2009/03/l3c-developments-resources.html
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/the-l3c-a-more-creative-capitalism/

Smart City Radio

2009-10-18T08:08:00.000-07:00

Smart City is a weekly, hour-long public radio talk show that takes an in-depth look at urban life, the people, places, ideas and trends shaping cities. Host Carol Coletta talks with national and international public policy experts, elected officials, economists, business leaders, artists, developers, planners and others for a penetrating discussion of urban issues. You can find a list of radio stations that air Smart City here

The guests on today's show offered ideas about building sustainability in areas of economic distress and poverty.

Katy Locker, Dave Egner and Prathima Manohar

Detroit is in the news again with Time Magazine launching a bureau of sorts from the city. But to get a real local's perspective we'll talk with Katy Locker and David Egner of the Hudson Webber Foundation. Hudson Webber provides grants to improve the quality