Global Giving

298x231Meet Georgina Teye. She sells plastic housewares–baskets, bowls, mugs and the like–at an outdoor market in Somanya, Ghana. She’d like to install solar-powered lanterns at her shop, which is also her home, so that she can remain open later and so that her three children can study at night.

I’m loaning her $100.

I made the loan through a startup nonprofit called Energy in Common.

I did so mostly to make a point–that the problems of energy, climate change and poverty are all tied together. Getting clean energy to poor people is one of the best ways to help them to escape poverty, to combat global warming and to deal with food and water shortages and poor health as well.

This isn’t easy for those of us in rich countries to grasp. We live in a world of cheap, abundant energy. Sure, you may nag your spouse or your kids to turn off the lights or turn down the thermostat. But when was the last time you thought about the energy needed to power your laptop, your TV, your stove or even your car? Probably the last time your power went out during a storm.

In the global south, and particularly in Africa and south Asia, energy is a daily worry for the more than 1.5 billion people who don’t have access to electricity. Without safe and reliable energy, people can’t grow crops beyond subsistence levels, operate a factory, get water to where it is needed, refrigerate food or drugs, or study  at night.

Worse, some of the alternatives to clean energy for the poor–cooking or heating by burning wood, dung, agricultural residues or coal, or using expensive, dirty kerosene lamps–are not only bad for the planet, they’re terrible for human health.

This set of problems led Hugh Whalan, a 26-year-old Australian, to start Energy in Common.

“Energy, he said, is at the base of just about any development outcome you’d want,” he said. “Yet it isn’t a Millenium Development Goal. We’d like to give energy a higher profile.”

Hughprofile1Hugh traveled widely in the global south–he volunteered at refugee camp on the Sudanese border, helped victims of land mines in Cambodia, and taught English in Uganda–before coming to the United States where he landed a job at a carbon finance company called Environmental Credit Corp. There, he met Scott Tudman, with whom he co-founded Energy In Common. They wanted to combine their knowledge of energy and carbon finance with their desire to bring clean energy to the poor.

“I wanted to make an impact in Africa,” Hugh told me. “I was torn between development work and business.”

Think of Energy in Common as a green Kiva. Entrepreneurs, most of them women, are featured on the website. Donors decide how much money they want to lend. Local microfinance institutions deliver the funds to the borrowers, who are expected to repay. Of course, there are no guarantees.

For borrowers, there’s an added bonus–carbon credits. Here’s how Energy in Common explains that:

A little team of brainy people here at EIC analyze the carbon data over the period of your loan and add up the amount of emission reductions created by the entrepreneur. These emission reductions are then sold to lenders (like you) as carbon offsets, which means you can buy the very carbon offsets that you helped to create allowing you to reduce your carbon footprint too. That tax-deductible purchase then goes straight back into finding and helping even more entrepreneurs – and so the cycle begins again.

If Georgina Teye succeeds with her solar lanterns, replacing electricity from the grid, she will save 0.8 metric tons of CO2 per year, which is the equivalent of a U.S. family not using electricity for 49 days. And I’ll get my loan repaid, and be able to lend the money to someone else. Nice.

Which raises a question: Why have markets and aid groups failed, so far, to deliver energy to the poor. “Part of the reason,” Whalan told me,  “is that for many years, investment was channeled into large-scale projects.” Only recently, and in large part because the work of the late C.K. Prahalad and Stu Hart, have entrepreneurs look at the billions of people at the bottom of the pyramid as consumers and entrepreneurs and not charity cases. Technologies like solar power and LED lights are also relatively new.

Of course, Energy in Common is a very small group; so far, it has funded fewer than two dozen entrepreneurs.  Whalan says his goal is to deliver clean energy to 15 million people in the next five years. Even if Energy in Common succeeds, it will put only a small dent in the energy divide between rich and poor.

Fortunately, there are lots of other businesses and nonprofits working to bring clean energy or to the poor. Among them are Kiva, Global Giving, Kopernik (which I wrote about here) and Dissigno (which I blogged about last month). There’s plenty of room for all of them, and many more,

{ 6 comments }

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. [click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

The upside of the meltdown

November 27, 2008

While there’s little to like right now about what’s happening to the global economy, or about the government’s never-ending rescue efforts—did you really want to become an owner of Citigroup?—there is this: The possibility that Americans will at long last rethink our habitual consumption. I stopped by my local mall (for a haircut) the other day, and it sure looked busy, but the statistics tell a different story. Consumer spending fell by 1 percent in October, the largest drop since the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to the Commerce Department. November is likely to be worse.

This is welcome news. While I’m mindful that a pullback on consumption will claim some victims—shop clerks, fashion designers, Chinese laborers who make toys or electronics for the global market, maybe even a U.S. automaker or two—and while people losing their jobs is always regrettable, the rate at which we Americans have been spending money is unsustainable both in economic and environmental terms. To put it simply, we’ve been living off cheap credit and cheap energy, neither of which can last.

U.S. financial markets collapsed for many reasons–the recklessness and greed of lenders and mortgage brokers, the willingness of investment banks to repackage and sell junk, the breakdown of the bond ratings agencies which are supposed to investigate the value of securities, the ineffectiveness or indifference of government regulators and the blind faith that markets will take care of everything. But one more very big reason that we are in such trouble now is that is that Americans have borrowed a lot more money than they could afford to repay to buy bigger homes and cars, and more stuff of all kinds. As a government and as individuals, we’re borrowing more each year just to stay even. This massive intergenerational transfer of wealth—from our children and grandchildren to ourselves—is not only unjustified but certain to end badly.

Environmentally, we quite literally cannot fuel our current levels of consumption without destroying the planet, until we radically transform the way we use energy and materials, a process that will take decades. “Sustainable consumption” is, for now, pretty much an oxymoron—just think about how much gasoline, coal-fired electricity and plastic you use every week. Deforestation, the depletion of the ocean’s fisheries, loss of biodiversity and, of course, climate change are all driven by the fact that we are living beyond our collective means.

OK, enough of a rant. Now I want to pose a question, and humbly make a suggestion as the holiday shopping season kicks off. (Friday, November 28, is Buy Nothing Day and Black Friday.) The question is, why don’t the U.S. environmental groups talk more about consumption?

I don’t know the answer (and I will try to ask Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense Fund or Frances Beinecke of NRDC, next time I run into them) but I think it’s in part because they are focused on policy and they don’t want to place too much of the blame for our environmental crisis on consumers. They also don’t want to come across as scolds (Unlike me!) because that hasn’t been an effective message for environmentalists. I can’t help but wonder if it is also because they depend on the kindness of rich people to stay afloat. Their boards and major donors come from Wall Street, corporate law firms and big companies. (Check out the EDF board and the NRDC board.) This leaves the consumption issue to much smaller groups like the Center for the New American Dream, which has found creative ways to get people to think about their buying habits. The economist Juliet Schor, who is co-chair of the New Dream board, has an article on the group’s website calling for “a local, frugal, just, and fun holiday season” filled with more music and less wrapping paper!

I’d like to suggest that you substitute a gift to charity for your next trip to the mall. This is a win-win-win-win because you can help out a nonprofit (and many are feeling squeezed right now), avoid purchases that deplete our natural resources, save on gas and lower your personal carbon footprint. There are many websites that can help with this, but you can start with Redefine Christmas. They have this eye-popping statistic on their website:

the amount of money spent on candy alone during the holiday season is greater than the annual budgets of the American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association and Habitat for Humanity combined.

Stunning, isn’t it. Another site, Just Give, includes a database of 1,000 charities, grouped by category, that have met stringent reporting requirements, and makes it easy to send gift cards, collect tax receipts, etc. Still another nonprofit that does good work makes holiday giving easy with gift cards is Global Giving (disclosure: I’m friendly with its founder, Dennis Whittle), which enables you to directly support small NGOS all around the world. Imagine sending blankets and clothes to needy families in India or contributing to a school for AIDS orphans in South Africa instead of buying a new sweater or tie for a family member or friend.

Whatever you choose to do, I hope your holidays are filled with peace and love–which, incidentally, are infinitely renewable resources.

{ 7 comments }