Important Bird Areas

I went to an interesting fund raiser for the Massachusetts Audubon Society last evening. It was held to highlight the important bird area program (in Massachusetts and globally). The important bird area program, or IBA -- even birders aren't immune to the three-letter anagram disease -- puts forth a simple proposistion: there are certain places more critical to the survival of birds than others and those should be prioritized for conservation.

What I liked most about this event was that there was no glitz, no society photograhers, no air kisses. The people there wanted to be there, cared about birds and the environment, and were having a good time. There were many generous donations of items for the silent auction and raffle prizes (thanks to Blackstone's of Beacon Hill for organizing the evening).

Ray Brown, host of Ray Brown's Talkin' Birds on WATD-FM (and streaming on-line) hosted a panel Q&A session but that was about as serious as the content got. But there was plenty of talk of osprey and finches and even robins.

I like, too, the idea of designating areas as important. Development deals trade open space parcels as if all land has equal value as habitat (or with no concern about its value as habitat). Towns preserve land the land that is available (and lots of preservation is at this micro level). Our ecosystems are vast and complex, and we've only scratched the surface in understanding the interdependencies. Migratory species like birds cross continents, time zones, and political boundaries without a second thought -- their survival depends upon it.

A recent NY Times Op-Ed pointed out that many of our everyday shopping choices can have an impact on the health of migratory bird species.

We need to look at habitat and species preservation at the scale and scope at which they function. The designation of important bird areas will help different counties, states, and countries coordinate efforts and focus on the most critical projects. They may also help raise the awareness that we are but one part of the web of life and that we, too, require healthy, vibrant, varied habitat for our own survival.

Taking Advantage of Green?

If you've been watching TV at all recently you've probably seen the Hertz ads promoting their green fleet. Yes, you can request a hybrid when you rent a car and I decided to do just that today when putting the final touches on my preparations to head to northern California next week.

Until I discovered that a Prius (or similar) is more than $900 for the week. That's double the cost for a comparable non-hybrid. It makes me question whether Hertz cares about the envirinomental benefits of hybrids or just senses a chance to charge ultra-premium prices for a high demand vehicle.

This rental will be part business/part pleasure so I have to look at the costs. Even with gas at $4.00+ a gallon, I can't justify the Prius.

Perhaps this is just the free market. And perhaps that's the problem with free markets where cash can always trump conscience.

Too Soon to Turn Out the Lights?

Congress is mandating the elimination of incandescent light bulbs by 2014. I think that we shouldn't write off incandescence quite yet. First, compact flourescents contain mercury and thus environmental problems with disposal.

Second, flourescents can't be dimmed nor are they always bright enough. I've tried one in my desk lamp and it is just too dim. I'd miss being able to adjust the level of light to set the right mood or create the right environment for dining, watching a movie, or reading. About half the bulbs in our house are compact flourescents but in the other half of the fixtures they would be an inferior choice.

Third, "incandescence" is such a wonderful world. It rolls around the tongue and slips out like an early morning whisper. It speaks of warmth, of a special glow, of an ethereal quality.

GE claims that it has an incandescent bulb that will be as efficient as flourescent by 2010. We ought to allow -- and encourage -- multiple paths toward the goal of greater energy efficiency. The government should not mandate technologies; they are too susceptable to the pressure of lobbyists and the deliberative legislative process is a mismatch with the fast changing world of technology.

If incandescents are to go the way of the buggy whip, I'd rather it be because consumers choose an alternative rather than having no choice at all.

The High Cost of Meat

There was a pretty amazing piece in Sunday's New York Times on the incredible amount of pollution that results from meat production and consumption. I'm a confirmed omnivore but I certainly vowed to eat less meat when I read that "if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius."

For the meat that one still consumes, grass fed results in far less collateral damage than grain fed.

I'm not ready to completely give up meat or ask others to do that. But a 20% reduction is relatively easy to accomplish.

Factory farming is at the center of this waste and pollution. It is unfortunate that we are so disconnected from our food production because I think that seeing the process that gives us abundant food at low prices would make more people willing to pay a bit more for humanely raised food.

So take away that cheeseburger and give me a plate of grilled vegetables.

Green Shelter

This may not qualilfy as social enterprise but it was still nice to read about a green shelter for the homeless opening in Oakland. It is a marriage of social missions that deserves more attention.

"Most homeless shelters opened in the 1980s in churches, synagogues and abandoned warehouses, said Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington. Mr. Stoops, who has worked in the field for 35 years, said he believed Crossroads was the first green homeless shelter and should be 'a model for others around the country.'"

As we look for new ways to move forward, this project can be a model.

Backlash on Entrepreneurship?

Jeff Wexler of Uncivilsociety.org has an interesting post about shared space and its lessons for social enterprise:

"What we are seeing today with the backlash against entrepreneurial rhetoric reflects a failure of social enterprise to respect the design logic of nonprofit form. We could view what's happened as shared space in reverse, eradicating cues in context to rely primarily on nominal signs. The problem: when the only thing visibly distinguishing nonprofit from for-profit is the word itself, the distinction becomes incoherent.

The core question, in short, is not whether nonprofits should adopt the values of the market. Such values have been their all along. Rather, we need to focus on how we can transform market relations into an identity beyond exchange. Then, and only then, will nonprofit social enterprise be sustainable."

Social enterprise embraces the ideals of market relationships and makes concerted efforts to curb the excesses and correct the flaws in imperfect markets (news flash: all markets are imperfect). Mainstream capitalism has become an extractive exercise -- stripmining the market and the enterprise to put value created into the pocket of a relatively few shareholders. Social enterprise, by striving for sustainability and mitigation of negative impacts on ecosystem in which it operates, both defines value differently and distributes it more broadly. It is not just entrepreneurship with a benevolent face.

NYU to Establish Social Entrepreneurship Center

NYU sees a future in social entrepreneurship. The Stern School is advertising positions for a new social entrepreneurship program. If I was ready to move back to NY, I'd apply. If you are, give it a shot.

Is Sustainability Sustainable?

Here's an excerpt from interesting letter from the FT:
"Sir, Let us all hope that Stefan Stern’s prediction of “sustainability” as the Next Big Thing in management comes to pass in 2008 (“Goodbye to corporate social responsibility?”, Comment & Analysis, December 31). The prospects for sustainable enterprise will be bleak indeed if the world is not able to tackle successfully issues such as climate change, collapsing ecosystems and endemic poverty and the social, political and economic consequences these imply."

While the need is clear and general public acceptance of the concept is coming, we still live in a society where the economy is driven by over-consumption. We've just finished the holiday season with its paper, ribbon, and bows wrapping so many gifts that will soon sit unused on closet shelves. Stores opening at 4 a.m. or, in the case of Macy's in New York staying open for four days around the clock, are just the latest in the drive to keep us all spending and acquiring.

We have to figure out how to slow this consumption down without sending the economy into a downward spiral. In the U.S. we are so dependent on consumer spending that it's hard to do -- especially when we are already on (or over) the precipice to a recession thanks to the excesses of the financial whiz kids and their zeal to peddle sub-prime mortgages and the related financial instruments.

The true test of the sustainability of sustainability will be whether it can last through a recession. I'm afraid we're about to find out if it can.

Tough Talk About Social Enterprise

John Bird, founder of Big Issue magazine, had some tough talk for social entrepreneurs reported in The Telegraph.

"I have lots of people coming to me with ideas for new cars, trains, types of soap, and I always say look at the bottom line. Where is the revenue stream? I am a person that has started things with dodgy revenue streams and you learn from getting a good kick in the head," he said.

Toughness should be welcomed by social entrepreneurs -- if their efforts are dependent on foundations and others being "charitable," they aren't really enterprises, are they? But there must be fair ground rules for arriving at the expectations for the return, the timeline for achieving it, etc. Many ventures today are started with the idea of harvesting value through an IPO or sale of the business yet many social enterprises are started to be run for the long haul.

Many also are disruptive innovations -- new approaches serving new markets. These are opportunities that are hard to quantify and forecasts are guesswork at best. Yes, the business plan should represent a reasonable approach to the enterprise -- but there may be a leap of faith involved. The trick is to ensure that the plan allows for fast failure and adaptation when the original assumptions prove less than 100% correct.

It's not that it isn't about return but it is about return over the long term rather than the short.

Six Earths is All it Takes

Great story on Marketplace on NPR tonight: it looked at how much capacity the world would need if everyone consumed as much as does the average American. It turns out that it is equivalent of six Earths. Count 'em, six.

It's part of a special report, Consumed, that examines whether current consumption patterns are sustainable. (D'oh, they're not). This story was followed by another on "overshoot" -- the consumption of natural resources faster than they can be reproduced. It was equally frightening: right now we are overshooting on trees, fish, and fossil fuels by 30%.

In the interview, UCLA geography professor Jared Diamond predicts that a first world lifestyle will not be possible anywhere on Earth in 30 - 50 years unless things change.

This is a clarion call for a conversion of traditional grow-at-any-cost capitalism to social enterprise. Unless we trade our short term focus on quarterly earnings for a longer view that values sustainabilty and social responsibility, we are going to grow ourselves into oblivion.

The current system provided a materially great life for many people (especially the few at the top) but it is like having a diet of all candy and ice cream -- eventually you get sick and the body stops functioning. We have to acknoledge that we are part of a larger ecosystem and are, in part, responsible for its survival if we are to survive ourselves.

What do you think? Can we reverse our patterns of overconsumption?