marc marc
marc
marc marc
blog about books journalism speaking contact

Archive for the ‘NGOs’ Category

Amazing gadgets for the poor

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Imagine that you live in a poor country, without money for a pair of glasses or access to an optometrist, and you’re not seeing as well as you once did.

This product, a pair of self-adjusting eyeglasses, could change your life.

big_66

Or imagine that you are one of the 1.1 billion people on earth without access to clean, safe drinking water. Your child is in danger of contracting water-borne diseases, which kills 1.8 million a year. What would you give for this portable, water-filtration device, called LifeStraw?

big_54

Maybe you are one of the 1.6 billion people without regular access to electricity. Your children study at night using a kerosene lantern, but the fuel is expensive and dirty. A solar-powered lantern would be a dramatic improvement.

big_107

These breakthrough products, all of them invented in the last 5 o 10 years, are examples of what can be done when technology is designed for the poor. You’ve probably heard about One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), the low-cost connected computer developed by Nicholas Negroponte and the MIT Media Lab, but it’s just one of dozens of high-tech, high-impact products aimed at helping to spur global economic development. The trouble is, even though many of the products are low-cost–the LifeStraw, for example, sells for about $6.50–they aren’t available to many who need them.

That’s where a nonprofit called Kopernik comes in. Kopernik connects innovative technologies, poor communities and people who want to help.

A startup, Kopernik is the brainchild of Ewa Wojkowska and Toshihiro Nakamura, who’d worked for the last decade or so with the World Bank, the UN and local nonprofits in East Timor, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. Ewa, 34, who grew up in Australia, and Toshi, 35, who is from Japan, saw the innovation going on in the private sector, particularly in the U.S., but didn’t see as much fresh thinking among the old-line aid organizations.

“We became bothered by the lack of innovation and new ideas in solving development challenges,” Ewa told me, when we spoke by phone. “It was the same people and the same projects being tried from place to place.”

Ewa Wojkowska

Ewa Wojkowska

Why weren’t products like getting to markets? Two reasons, Ewa and Toshi learned. The first was distribution. Inventors or producers “had connections in one country, and they found it difficult to go beyond that,” Ewa said. The other problem was cost. “Even though they were designed for the poor, the price was too high for the people who needed them,” she said.

The Kopernik platform is designed to connect the tech companies or nonprofits that make the products, groups in the developing world that need them and donors. NGOs in poor countries submit proposals that are vetted by Kopernik, then posted to the website so donors can choose which one to support.

So, for example, can help provide rural Ugandans with computer skills training using low-cost virtual desktop computers from a company called NComputing. Or they can ease the burden of carrying water for women in East Timor by supplying them with a Q-drum, or rollable water container.

If all goes well, Kopernik should be a boon to inventors like Piet Hendrikse, a South African who invented the Q-drum, and Josh Silver, an Oxford professor, atomic physicist and director of the Centre for Vision in the Developing World, who developed the first fluid-filled adjustable eyeglasses. (Here’s a blogpost from Gizmodo explaining how they work.)

The idea of connecting people in rich countries with those in need in the global south comes from Kiva, a microfinance site which has facilitated more than $124 million in small loans since its beginnings in 2005, and Global Giving, which connects donors to causes, countries and NGOs that they care about. (Global Giving was started by World Bank alums Mari Kuraishi and Dennis Whittle, who are acquaintainces of mine; it has given away about $27 million since 2002 and is well worth a look.)

“We’re huge fans of Kiva and Global Giving,” says Kopernik’s Ewa Wojkowska. “We’ve learned a lot from them.”

Kopernik will fund itself by charging donors and technology providers a 5% commission, as explained here. Ewa and Toshi live in New York, and they  expect to have an office in Indonesia as well. The startup is still very new–it launched February 19, the date on which Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus was born in 1473. (My birthday, too, so I couldn’t resist writing about Kopernik!)

“Copernicus changed the way that people see the world around them,” Ewa said. “In our own way, we at Kopernik (Copernicus’ Polish name) want to help change the way people think about development and see the world today.”

Here’s a video, with bouncy music, showing Eva distributing the self-adjusting glasses to a clinic in Manado, Indonesia.

The power of small changes

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

When Chris McKenna, who manages a fleet of trucks for Poland Spring, learned that the company’s drivers were racking up as much as 1,400 hours a month of idle time, he saw an opportunity to make a difference. Running truck engines in winter kept the cabs warm — the company is based in Maine — but it cost Poland Spring money and polluted the air.

To see which of the company’s 65 drivers were racking up the most idle time, McKenna ranked them, based on data from onboard computers. “All we did was talk to them about it, and put a list up in the break room,” he told me. “Human nature, no one wants to be at the bottom of the list.” To sweeten the deal, the 10 drivers with the lowest idling time got a gift card for fuel they could use for their own cars.

The results were dramatic. Idle time dropped from 1,400 hours in February 2007 to 1000 hours in February 2008 to just 380 hours in February 2009. Depending on fuel costs, cutting idle time has saved the company thousands of dollars a year—roughly $20,000 during 2008, for example.

There are two lessons here. First, as I wrote recently about OPower, changing behavior is a powerful and low-cost way to curb climate change. Second, small changes can add up to big impacts, as the Environmental Defense Fund makes clear in this cool video from its Innovation Exchange website.

As EDF notes, fleet vehicles are driven hard, averaging nearly double the mileage, fuel consumption and emissions of personal vehicles. Currently, EDF says there are more 3 million corporate fleet vehicles in the United States emitting 45 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

I spoke with Chris McKenna last summer while helping EDF write a series of case studies on greening fleets. (The case studies (more…)

Have Americans stopped loving their cars?

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

2009 was a terrible year for Detroit, the worst in three decades. Americans bought 10.4 million cars — 21% fewer than in 2008 and a whopping 40% fewer than the 17 million or so cars and light trucks sold, on average, in the early 2000s.

A Thunderbird convertible

A Thunderbird convertible

This is normally seen as bad news, and anyone who’s visited Detroit lately understands why. But what if the bad news for U.S. automakers, their workers and the economy of the industrial Midwest turns out to be good for the rest of us?

That’s the argument being made by environmentalist and author Lester Brown. If fewer cars are being driven fewer miles, America’s dependence on imported oil will decrease, as will air pollution, carbon emissions, traffic congestion, respiratory diseases and the demand for new roads or highways.

Because Americans scrapped 14 million cars last year, there are fewer registered vehicles in the U.S. today than there were a year ago–about 246 million, according to Brown, who is president of the Earth Policy Institute. The U.S. now has more registered cars than licensed drivers, of which there are 209 million.

“When is enough enough?,” Brown asks. “Continuing growth in our car fleet is no longer in our national interest or in our interest as individuals.”

What’s more, the drop in car sales may be more than a reflection of a down economy. America’s century-old love affair with the automobile may be coming to an end, Brown said yesterday during a conference call with reporters.

This is a bold claim and, while I’m not persuaded that he’s right, Brown’s ideas are worth thinking about. He says  that an array of forces—ranging from urbanization to rising oil prices to the popularity of text messages and Facebook among teenagers—mean that more Americans are learning to live without a car. (more…)

Why Stewart Brand’s new book is a must-read

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Many books shaped my thinking about business, economics and the environment during 2009. Last year was the year that I discovered Nassim Nicholas Taleb and The Black Swan, to my great delight, as well as the year that I began to explore behavioral economics by reading Daniel Ariely’s Predictably Irrational and Nudge by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. I enjoyed my friend Russell Roberts’ libertarian romance (yep) The Invisible Heart, and I learned a lot from The Myth of the Rational Market, a timely and readable history of the economics of markets by my ex-Fortune colleague Justin Fox.  The Good Soldiers by David Finkel is a searing up-close look at the surge in Iraq that should be read by any American citizen who wants to better understand the human costs of the wars being waged by our government.

SBjpg-filteredBut the book that I most want to recommend to readers of this blog is Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto by Stewart Brand. It’s brilliant, controversial, unconventional and lively. Nothing I read in 2009 changed my thinking more.

I’m not alone in my admiration for Stewart’s book. Paul Hawken calls it “likely one of the most original and important books of the century.…” Edward O. Wilson says it is “ominous and exhilirating.” Larry Brilliant says it is “an absolutely seminal work, extraordinarily well written, a tour de force of so many interconnected worlds and lives and studies.” Nice blurbs, no?

The praise is all the more remarkable because Whole Earth Discipline argues that we need nuclear power to combat global warming, that we need biotechnology to feed the world and that we need to take  geo-engineering seriously — ideas that are anathema to much, though not all, of the environmental movement that Stewart helped create roughly 40 years ago.

For those of you (younger readers) who aren’t familiar with his work, Stewart, who is a vigorous 72-year-old, is best known as the editor of Whole Earth Catalog, an influential compendium of all things countercultural, published in the late 1960s and 1970s, with a photo of the earth seen from space on its cover. After an LSD-induced experience that got him thinking about the curve of the earth, Stewart campaigned to have NASA release the picture. Later, he wrote:

It is no accident of history that the first Earth Day, in April 1970, came so soon after color photographs of the whole earth from space were made by homesick astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission to the moon in December 1968. Those riveting Earth photos reframed everything. For the first time humanity saw itself from outside… Humanity’s habitat looked tiny, fragile and rare. Suddenly humans had a planet to tend to.

Since then, Stewart has been a writer, a speaker, an organizer, a pioneer of online communities as a founder of the WELL (the “Whole Eart ‘Lectronic Link,” where I first discovered the power of the Internet), a consultant to companies and the owner of a tugboat in San Francisco where he lives with his wife, Ryan Phelan. He writes: (more…)

Google, Jane Goodall, forests and the cloud

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Not long ago, the only people who could access and analyze satellite images of the earth were government officials, the military, well-equipped scientists and oil, gas and mining companies.

Today, anyone with a computer and Internet connection can access to Google Earth. Since its introduction in 2005, Google Earth has become a powerful tool for scientists, activists and ordinary citizens who want to better understand, monitor and communicate about the environment.

It’s not just westerners either: Tanzanian villagers are working with the Jane Goodall Institute to monitor deforestation and identify chimpanzee habitats and elephant paths. Indigenous tribes in Brazil can map their lands and track illegal logging and mining. All they need are mobile phones equipped with cameras and GPS technology.

What’s more, the technology is getting better all the time. Last week in Copenhagen during the UN climate negotiations, Google Earth announced that it has worked with experts in remote sensing to build a new platform that incorporates satellite images, massive data and online computing power, making it easier, faster and cheaper to analyze forest ecosystems. (See this and this at the google.org blog.) It’s currently being tested by a handful of organizations, but will be rolled out more widely before long. The red spots on map below, for example, show new deforestation in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso.

2

On my way home from Copenhagen, I learned about these new developments from Lilian Pintea, who is the director of conservation science at the Jane Goodall Institute, which is best known for its pioneering research on chimpanzee behavior. We met when we missed a connection in Geneva, so we arranged to have dinner during the layover. (more…)

COP15: Unchopping a tree

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

On my last night in Copenhagen, I hosted a gala event on behalf of REDD organized by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations and the governments of Gabon, Guyana and Papua New Guinea. It was, to be a honest, a long night–more than three hours of speeches and ceremonies, many quite moving but some, again to be honest, repetitive and overlong. This crowd of environmentalists really didn’t need to be told that climate change is bad and forests are good. Come to think of it, I may have said those things myself at one point. Oops.

The point is, we need to find more creative ways to communicate about the climate crisis. One example is the beautiful three-minute film below from Maya Lin, called Unchopping a Tree, which made its public (as opposed to Internet) debut at the event. It  grabbed everyone’s attention, and for good reason. (If you click on the arrows at bottom right, you should be able to watch the video in full-screen mode.) If for some reason it doesn’t play well on this blog, you can check it out here or at Maya Lin’s What Is Missing? website which is worth a visit.

Maya Lin – Unchopping A Tree from Unchop A Tree on Vimeo.

It gave me great a deal of pleasure to introduce Maya Lin because, although we’d never met before, I felt connected to her. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which she designed as a 21-year-old undergraduate at Yale–she won a “blind” public design competition–stirred enormous controversy when it opened in 1982 but is the most powerful memorial, and-maybe the most successful piece of public art, that I’ve ever seen. As someone who lives just outside Washington, I’ve visited it many times and it is unfailingly an emotional experience.

Maya Lin calls “What Is Missing?” her last memorial and explains on the website:

Imagine a memorial that exists not as a single, stationary monument but that exists in several mediums and places simultaneously. What Is Missing?, my last memorial, is a multi-sited artwork dedicated to bringing awareness to the current crisis surrounding biodiversity and habitat loss. It will bring attention not just to species that have gone extinct but to things we do not realize we have lost..

Maya Lin's Listening Cone

Maya Lin's Listening Cone

What Is Missing? is a science-based long-term, ambitious project whose components include permanent sculptures, traveling exhibits and offline and online media. Two examples: Last fall, “Listening Cone,” in which visitors can hear the sounds of extinct species and read about their history, was installed at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. On Earth Day, a five-minute video will debut on MTV’s billboard in Times Square and, presumably, on the network and the Internet as well.

There’s no doubt in my mind that What Is Missing? will engage people in ways that neither the written nor the spoken word can. This is not to take anything away from our speakers last night–they including Jane Goodall, Bianca Jagger, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, Indian wind-power magnate Tulsi Tanti and UN enviro chief Achim Steiner, as well as, very briefly, Frances Beinecke of NRDC, Mark Tercek of The Nature Conservancy and Carter Robers of WWF. A great lineup, to be sure.

But art and music simply communicate in different ways. We need more art and music about the climate crisis and, perhaps, fewer words.

Speaking of which, I also thoroughly enjoyed our opening and closing musical acts: O-Shen, a singer and musician raised by American parents in Papua New Guinea, opened the show, and the guitarist and singer Baaba Mal of Senegal first hushed the crowd (it was past 11, and people were getting restless) and then entranced everyone. Baaba, by the way, seems to be  a really nice guy, as well as a great entertainer.

Here are the credits for the What Is Missing? video:

©What is Missing? Foundation

Produced by

@radical.media

Music donated by

Brian Eno and Brian Loucks

Support provided by

The Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation

Louis Bacon, Moore Charitable Foundation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

COP15: Not so bella in Copenhagen

Monday, December 14th, 2009

Some people had to wait for a very, very long time to register for the UN climate talks at the Bella Center in Copenhagen where the meetings are being held. The Danes are very democratic so VIPs stood in line with the rest of us.  I ran into Frances Beinecke, president of The Natural Resources Defense Council. Temperatures were in the 30s, and tempers were rising.

The UN did not enhance its reputation for efficiency or crowd control today.

photo

Frances and NRDC founder John Adams ended up waited for eight hours, according to her blog, where she wrote:

Little matter. After three decades at the climate change ramparts, I figured, what was another eight hours at the Danish barricades?

An insider told me later that the only thing that made the long wait bearable was that Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense was waiting behind them in line.

COP15: A demand for climate justice

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

sea_of_light.tck_Many thousands of people protested in Copenhagen yesterday and last night, demanding, among other things, climate justice. According to tcktcktck.org, which has a gallery of images, many thousands more held vigils areound the world. But what does climate justice mean?

To give you a flavor, here is a statement from an activist named Hemantha Withnage of Sri Lanka, who was speaking to a UN-backed group called the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, which oversees the Kyoto Protocol. I’m not going to comment other than to say that there is a yawning gap between the views expressed here and those heard in the halls of the United States Congress. And yet a global agreement to regulate climate will require an accord that, in some way, takes these views into account. Remember, China and India are seeking climate justice, too.

We are movements gathered under the Climate Justice Now! Network – many from the South, from developing countries.  Thousands of our members are here in Copenhagen, joining thousands of other citizens in a historic march.

We are calling for Reparations for Climate Debt, the debt that is owed by northern countries, multinational corporations, and international financial institutions to the peoples and countries of the South. This debt is owed by the North for using up more than their fair share of the earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, and in the process depriving the peoples of the (more…)

Richard Heinberg: Trying to save the world

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Today’s guest blogger is Richard Heinberg, senior fellow in residence at the Post Carbon Institute, an expert on peak oil and the author of nine books, the latest of which is Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis. My friend Ed Maibach sent me this essay, and I liked it so much that I obtained permission from Richard to run in on the blog. While I edited it for space, it’s still longer than the usual blogpost—but worth reading, I think, for what it says about the need to rethink economic growth and to have a more honest debate about climate.

Heinberg Hi. My job is trying to save the world, and I’d like to tell you a little about my line of work.

First, it’s a job I enjoy. I get to feel good about what I do, and I meet a lot of smart, interesting people. I get to travel to exciting places to attend conferences, and at least some people respect my efforts (though many others think I’m crazy or misguided).

It’s not all a bed of roses. The biggest problems with trying to save the world are: first, that it doesn’t always seem to want to be saved; and second, that those of us trying to save it can’t agree on why it needs saving or how to go about doing so. Let me explain.

When I say “save the world,” I mean preventing human civilization from collapsing in a chaotic, violent way that would entail enormous amounts of suffering and death. I also mean preserving the natural world, so as to minimize species extinctions and the loss of wild habitat.

I regard both of these priorities as about equally important, since they are closely interrelated: if civilization collapses chaotically, billions of people will do an enormous amount of damage to remaining ecosystems in their desperate attempts at survival; and if nature goes first, that means civilization will go too, because we rely on ecosystem services for everything we do.

But not everyone who works full-time at saving the world has the same balance of priorities. (more…)

A devastating critique of cap-and-trade

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

“You can only compromise to a point before a solution isn’t really a solution.”

That, in a sentence, is about as succinct a critique of the cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress as you are likely to read. For more, when you have 10 minutes, watch the video below from Annie Leonard, best known as the creator of The Story of Stuff. In language anyone can understand–it’s a cartoon, after all–she argues that a global cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, which is what the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks are all about, won’t solve the problem of global warming.

She makes great points. Among them:

Giving away the permits to pollute under a cap-and-trade system is inequitable. As she puts it:

Industrial polluters will get the vast majo of these valuable permits for free. Free! The more they are polluting, they more they get. It’s like we’re thanking them for creating this problem in the first place.

The U.S. has a moral obligation to help poor countries which didn’t, after all, create the global-warming mess we’re in. As she says:

Don’t we have a responsibility to help those most harmed? It’s like we had a big party, didn’t invite our neighbors and then stuck them with the cleanup bill. It’s just not cool.

Carbon offsets are a risky business. She worries:

The danger with offsets is that it’s very hard to guarantee that real carbon is being removed to create the permit, yet these permits are worth real money, This creates a very dangerous incentive to create false offsets—to cheat. Now in some cases cheating isn’t the end of the world. In this case, it is.

Her solution? Cap emissions, let EPA regulate them, tax carbon, use the money for clean energy or to help poor countries adapt or mitigate their emissions.

In an ideal world, maybe. Her solution isn’t as simple as it sounds. Any effort by EPA to regulate emissions could be tied up in the courts for years.

In today’s world, forget it. As David Roberts points out in his acerbic critique-of-the-critique in Grist, the problems with cap-and-trade legislation as it is now written are a direct result of the power of the fossil fuel lobby. When Big Coal and Big Oil go toe-to-toe with Big Green, industry wins.

The fundamental problem we’re facing is that the environmental movement–even at its most mainstream– doesn’t have the clout to get a truly strong climate bill enacted. Getting even the current watered-down version enacted will be tough. Indeed,  inside-the-Beltway BINGOs (big NGOS) worry so much about losing supporters  that they are reluctant to engage in an honest conversation about climate change: That is, one that says we will likely have to sacrifice now–by paying higher prices for energy, subsidizing renewable power, and sharing clean tech with poor countries–to save the planet for future generations.  Instead, they chant the mantra of “green jobs.”

One more thing to note about this video: Leonard says carbon trading will be run by the likes of Goldman Sachs and Enron, the people who gave us the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis. (Somehow Bernie Madoff’s name comes up as well.) She doesn’t like markets or big business, clearly.

This isn’t an argument. It’s name-calling.

But because some people in corporate America have screwed up so badly lately, it is, unfortunately, effective name-calling.

That’s a problem for those of us who still believe that well-regulated markets–including a carbon market–can be part of the solution to global warming.

Your thoughts?

UPDATE: I rushed this blogpost into “print” yesterday because Annie Leonard’s video was sweeping through the green blogosphere and I was eager to join the conversation. In retrospect, I wouldn’t call her critique “devastating” in the headline. “Pointed” or “hard-hitting” would be better.

What’s more, while Leonard effectively highlights the flaws of cap-and-trade, the policy debate around whether it will work, whether it has worked in Europe, who will benefit, whether a carbon tax would be better, why offsets are essential to any cap-and-trade scheme (or not) is obviously much more complicated than any 10-minute video or 800-word blogposting can capture. (See the comments to David Roberts’ post if you like, for a useful discussion of these issues, with numerous links.) For what it’s worth, I believe cap-and-trade can be made to work despite its dizzying complexity and the risks of gaming the system–although I’d prefer to see a cap-and-dividend approach where the proceeds from auctioning permits are returned to consumers or even a revenue-neutral carbon tax.