Overbrook grantee The Story of Stuff project released its newest video yesterday, The Story of Cosmetics (storyofcosmetics.org).
Read the promo from The Story of Stuff web site here:
Check out storyofcosmetics.org on July 21 to see our latest film about how major loopholes in U.S. federal law allow the $50 billion beauty industry to put unlimited amounts of chemicals into personal care products with no required testing, no monitoring of health effects and inadequate labeling requirements—making cosmetics among the least-regulated consumer products on the market. Think twice before putting on that lipstick, you might be putting on lead!
Congratulations to Annie Leonard and her team! Click here for a recent profile on Leonard in the LA Times.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Next Class of Progressive Women’s Voices
Good news for some great progressive women!
The Women’s Media Center (WMC) is pleased to announce the second class of its Progressive Women’s Voices (PWC) program for 2010. Now in its third y ear, Progressive Women’s Voices is an intense media training and outreach program that involves in-person intensive training, weekly interview practice, and ongoing WMC strategy and support.
In 2010, the WMC will host three Progressive Women’s Voices training classes. Each class will include ten women from around the country trained over two separate weekends in New York City. Travel, accommodation, and training expenses are paid for completely by the WMC.
Progressive Women’s Voices is the premier media and leadership training program serving women in our country. In two years, the Women’s Media Center has intensively trained 60+ women who reflect diversity visibly absent from the mainstream media within important conversations around national security, health care, immigration, workplace policy, reproductive rights, climate change, and other issues that fill the headlines every day.
With training from The Women’s Media Center, PWV experts have been featured in the Washington Post, The New York Times, Elle, New York magazine, USA Today, Forbes, Variety, Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal, Slate, Salon, The New Republic, the Los Angeles Times; by the Associated Press and Reuters; on Good Morning America, CNN, MSNBC, CBS Nightly News, Fox News, ABC News, CNBC, Bill Moyers, numerous NPR shows; and within hundreds of other top-tier media outlets.
To see the great women chosen for the program this year, click here. Interested in participating for a future program? Click here to get information on when you can apply to join a future class.
The Women’s Media Center (WMC) is pleased to announce the second class of its Progressive Women’s Voices (PWC) program for 2010. Now in its third y ear, Progressive Women’s Voices is an intense media training and outreach program that involves in-person intensive training, weekly interview practice, and ongoing WMC strategy and support.
In 2010, the WMC will host three Progressive Women’s Voices training classes. Each class will include ten women from around the country trained over two separate weekends in New York City. Travel, accommodation, and training expenses are paid for completely by the WMC.
Progressive Women’s Voices is the premier media and leadership training program serving women in our country. In two years, the Women’s Media Center has intensively trained 60+ women who reflect diversity visibly absent from the mainstream media within important conversations around national security, health care, immigration, workplace policy, reproductive rights, climate change, and other issues that fill the headlines every day.
With training from The Women’s Media Center, PWV experts have been featured in the Washington Post, The New York Times, Elle, New York magazine, USA Today, Forbes, Variety, Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal, Slate, Salon, The New Republic, the Los Angeles Times; by the Associated Press and Reuters; on Good Morning America, CNN, MSNBC, CBS Nightly News, Fox News, ABC News, CNBC, Bill Moyers, numerous NPR shows; and within hundreds of other top-tier media outlets.
To see the great women chosen for the program this year, click here. Interested in participating for a future program? Click here to get information on when you can apply to join a future class.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Ray of Hope in New Ocean Policy
The Obama administration announced the final recommendations of its ocean policy task force yesterday, the culmination of a year of research and negotiation between science, recreation, economic activity and military operations in the nation's oceans, coastlines and Great Lakes. The task force recommends the creation of a National Ocean Council, marking the first time ever a comprehensive federal body will govern ocean policy.
Perhaps the most groundbreaking detail of this news is not the Council itself, but the integrative approach it will take. Under the National Ocean Council, nine regional groups comprised of state, federal and tribal leaders will make recommendations based on marine spatial planning, a way of "zoning" waterways and coastlines. This ecosystem-based evaluation method will monitor activities including offshore drilling and military exercises in the interest of marine conservation, for the first time creating a comprehensive legal framework for ocean, coastal and Great Lakes conservation that prioritizes marine life.
For example, after considering scientific and economic recommendations, a group might allocate a certain coastal area for wind farms, certain areas or seasons for naval exercises, certain areas for offshore drilling, etc. Areas that are not specifically allocated would be off limits to those activities. In a breath of fresh air for conservationists and marine scientists, a bulleted objective of the Ocean Council (from the Council on Environmental Quality's initial press release) promises the new plan "Ensures science-based information is at the heart of decision-making." Read the full press release here.
Perhaps the most groundbreaking detail of this news is not the Council itself, but the integrative approach it will take. Under the National Ocean Council, nine regional groups comprised of state, federal and tribal leaders will make recommendations based on marine spatial planning, a way of "zoning" waterways and coastlines. This ecosystem-based evaluation method will monitor activities including offshore drilling and military exercises in the interest of marine conservation, for the first time creating a comprehensive legal framework for ocean, coastal and Great Lakes conservation that prioritizes marine life.
For example, after considering scientific and economic recommendations, a group might allocate a certain coastal area for wind farms, certain areas or seasons for naval exercises, certain areas for offshore drilling, etc. Areas that are not specifically allocated would be off limits to those activities. In a breath of fresh air for conservationists and marine scientists, a bulleted objective of the Ocean Council (from the Council on Environmental Quality's initial press release) promises the new plan "Ensures science-based information is at the heart of decision-making." Read the full press release here.
Monday, July 12, 2010
BP Attempts "Final" Cap; Residents Hope for the Best
After a seemingly endless series of bad news, BP is installing what could be the final sealant cap to plug the estimated 60,000 barrels of oil gushing each day into the Gulf of Mexico. The previous cap stopped about 15-16,000 barrels a day, which flowed unfettered over the weekend after BP removed the old cap to make way for the new one.
A blog post today on the New York Times web site addresses a growing conflict between local officials on the Gulf Coast and the Army Corps of Engineers. Local officials, led by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, claim the Army Corps is shutting down their plans to mitigate the effects of the spill without offering any solutions. The Army Corps, yet to regain the trust of New Orleanians after Hurricane Katrina, rejected a plan to dump 100,000-plus tons of limestone into Barataria Bay, an estuary leading from the Gulf to New Orleans through a web of inlets. The Army Corps claims this plan will ultimately be more destructive than the spill, since it will exacerbate already-occurring erosion. But local government officials feel frustrated and hamstrung, unable to act.
In the meantime, as BP promises to cap the leak and local officials struggle to find common ground with the federal government, people living in all the Gulf Coast states are feeling grave repercussions, economically and emotionally. A heart-wrenching story in the St. Petersburg Times details the immediate lifestyle changes being felt by residents of Pensacola, Florida. In one particularly poignant analogy, Times writer Craig Pittman quotes coastal geologist and Florida resident James "Rip" Kirby III: "When your entire way of life is built around seeing how the seasons change here, the things you do here, the things you eat, that's the reason you live here -- and all of that is dying slowly before your eyes. It's like checking an elderly relative into a rest home and knowing they're not going to come out."
Click here for a series of blog posts on various aspects of the oil spill from ProPublica.
A blog post today on the New York Times web site addresses a growing conflict between local officials on the Gulf Coast and the Army Corps of Engineers. Local officials, led by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, claim the Army Corps is shutting down their plans to mitigate the effects of the spill without offering any solutions. The Army Corps, yet to regain the trust of New Orleanians after Hurricane Katrina, rejected a plan to dump 100,000-plus tons of limestone into Barataria Bay, an estuary leading from the Gulf to New Orleans through a web of inlets. The Army Corps claims this plan will ultimately be more destructive than the spill, since it will exacerbate already-occurring erosion. But local government officials feel frustrated and hamstrung, unable to act.
In the meantime, as BP promises to cap the leak and local officials struggle to find common ground with the federal government, people living in all the Gulf Coast states are feeling grave repercussions, economically and emotionally. A heart-wrenching story in the St. Petersburg Times details the immediate lifestyle changes being felt by residents of Pensacola, Florida. In one particularly poignant analogy, Times writer Craig Pittman quotes coastal geologist and Florida resident James "Rip" Kirby III: "When your entire way of life is built around seeing how the seasons change here, the things you do here, the things you eat, that's the reason you live here -- and all of that is dying slowly before your eyes. It's like checking an elderly relative into a rest home and knowing they're not going to come out."
Click here for a series of blog posts on various aspects of the oil spill from ProPublica.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
National Public Radio Covers the Gulf Oil Spill
As we move into month three of the Gulf oil spill, the Foundation continues to watch the continuing and intensive coverage of this serious crisis. The Foundation has been particularly attuned to National Public Radio’s environmental coverage over the past few months.
NPR has been on the story 24/7, with two reporters and one producer in the Gulf at all times, and additional reporters, editors, producers and digital media staff rotating into the Gulf or working from other locations. Its coverage comes out of NPR’s National desk, as well as from its science, economics and investigative units, and it has reported well over 300 stories on social, economic, political and environmental issues related to the spill, most on Morning Edition and All Things Considered, with 13 and 12 million weekly listeners respectively. In sum, they are bringing the full force of NPR’s broadcast and digital power to bring the American public this story.
NPR’s science correspondent Richard Harris was the first to cast serious doubts on BP’s characterization of how bad the spill was. Harris not only broke the news that the oil is leaking at rates ten times greater than official estimates, but his story has also made a difference in the tone and substance of the federal response, and has contributed to the establishment a government-appointed task force of scientists whose job is to come up with a more definitive figure of the amount of oil that has spilled. Here is Richard Harris with a recent update on the rate of the spill.
Yuki Noguchi, one of NPR’s business correspondents, brought home the complexity of the situation with this moving piece about the owners of a franchise gas station, who are paying the price for BP affiliation. And here’s more of Noguchi’s coverage of small businesses with a link to her story this morning on Morning Edition how business is melting away for
You can also take a look at this story by NPR’s veteran science correspondent Elizabeth Shogren on how the spill is affecting sea turtles in the Gulf. Or this in-depth discussion on Talk of the Nation on how to put a price on BP’s responsibility for reparations. There is so much exceptional coverage, and it can all be accessed on npr.org.
At NPR, they are reaching beyond its current dedicated resources to bring the public the depth and breadth of this story.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Climate Experts Talk Tipping Points
A recent survey published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal asked 14 of the world's top climate scientists what they think the next 200 years have in store for planet Earth. Complete agreement on future scenarios was neither reached nor expected, but the group agreed on one point: at current "business as usual" rates of greenhouse gas emissions, the globe will exceed the worst-case-scenario proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its last Assessment Report. Work is currently underway on the IPCC's fifth report, due out in the fall of 2014.
The PNAS survey measures the level of consensus within the climate science community, which has weathered a tough year. (Both Climategate and increasing numbers of skeptics have undermined public response to the threats of climate change.) Science, by nature, is never 100 percent certain about anything, but the survey shows a clear trend among the top researchers working on climate. All agreed the Earth is approaching a tipping point at which significant shifts in the way our climate system functions will be both inevitable and irreversible. Within the next 100 years, the scientists agreed, the globe's average temperature will reach levels we have not seen in the past 10,000 years, around the time human culture became agrarian.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has now reached about 380 parts per million -- that's about 100 ppm higher than before the Industrial Revolution. According to Dr. Myles Allen, a climate researcher who participated in the survey, our current emissions trajectory will take us to an inevitable height of 1,000 ppm by 2200. Although sobering, there is at least some hope to be found in this dire prediction:
"The emissions that commit you to 1000 ppm in the year 2200 actually occur mostly over the next 50 years," Allen said. "The emissions decisions we make over the next 50 years commit us to the climate we're going to have to deal with (in) 150 years time -- that's the point."
Scientists agree that even if we stopped all global emissions today, the planet would still continue to warm since emissions and temperature, while linked, do not rise simultaneously. (One of the best analogies I've heard was in a lecture by James White, Director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and professor at the University of Colorado. White compared greenhouse gas emissions and temperature to two prisoners handcuffed together. Ghgs run forward, and yank lagging temperature ahead.)
The good news in Allen's statement is that it is not yet too late to make some positive change. While future warming is inevitable, a 1,000 ppm future is simply unacceptable. It can be prevented, but only if nations work together -- now -- to intelligently and deliberately craft climate policy.
The PNAS survey measures the level of consensus within the climate science community, which has weathered a tough year. (Both Climategate and increasing numbers of skeptics have undermined public response to the threats of climate change.) Science, by nature, is never 100 percent certain about anything, but the survey shows a clear trend among the top researchers working on climate. All agreed the Earth is approaching a tipping point at which significant shifts in the way our climate system functions will be both inevitable and irreversible. Within the next 100 years, the scientists agreed, the globe's average temperature will reach levels we have not seen in the past 10,000 years, around the time human culture became agrarian.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has now reached about 380 parts per million -- that's about 100 ppm higher than before the Industrial Revolution. According to Dr. Myles Allen, a climate researcher who participated in the survey, our current emissions trajectory will take us to an inevitable height of 1,000 ppm by 2200. Although sobering, there is at least some hope to be found in this dire prediction:
"The emissions that commit you to 1000 ppm in the year 2200 actually occur mostly over the next 50 years," Allen said. "The emissions decisions we make over the next 50 years commit us to the climate we're going to have to deal with (in) 150 years time -- that's the point."
Scientists agree that even if we stopped all global emissions today, the planet would still continue to warm since emissions and temperature, while linked, do not rise simultaneously. (One of the best analogies I've heard was in a lecture by James White, Director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and professor at the University of Colorado. White compared greenhouse gas emissions and temperature to two prisoners handcuffed together. Ghgs run forward, and yank lagging temperature ahead.)
The good news in Allen's statement is that it is not yet too late to make some positive change. While future warming is inevitable, a 1,000 ppm future is simply unacceptable. It can be prevented, but only if nations work together -- now -- to intelligently and deliberately craft climate policy.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Environment Grants Awarded in June 2010
At its June 2010 Board Meeting last week, The Overbrook Foundation's Environment Program awarded $745,000 in grants to 15 organizations in the categories of Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Production and Consumption, and Public TV, Radio and Other Media. Eleven are either renewals or from organizations previously funded, and four are from organizations new to Overbrook. See Elizabeth's last post for a description of the Human Rights Program's grantmaking at the June meeting.
For its work supporting Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, the Foundation awarded $325,000 in grants. Organizations awarded were: Earthworks, for its campaign to clean up destructive mining practices; Ecosystem Sciences Foundation, for its Payment for Watershed Services program in Mexico, Environmental Investigation Agency for its continued work in forest governance; Fundacion Cordillera Tropical for its community conservation work in Ecuador; Pronatura Noroeste A.C. for its campaign to stop an environmentally destructive tourist development in Mexico; Rainforest Action Network for its continued work protecting tropical forests and acting as watchdog of large corporations.
For its Sustainable Production and Consumption work, the Foundation awarded $330,000. Organizations awarded were: Borealis Centre for Environment and Trade Research, for its work conducting research and providing strategy for environmental organizations waging corporate campaigns; Clean Production Action for its work providing safer options to the electronics industry; Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, for its work building a Zero-Waste city; Product Stewardhsip Institute, Inc., for its campaign to help consumers opt-out of phone book deliveries; Root Capital, for its work providing loans to small businesses promoting conservation in Ecuador and Mexico; the Tides Center for the Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption; Urban Green, the New York chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council.
The Environment Program also supported Grist.org, frequently referenced in this blog for its wry and incisive reporting on environmental issues, and NPR for its environmental content, a joint grant with the Human Rights Program.
Of course all descriptions above are extremely brief and hardly do these great organizations and projects justice! Follow the links to learn more about them, or click here to be directed to The Overbrook Foundation web site.
For its work supporting Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, the Foundation awarded $325,000 in grants. Organizations awarded were: Earthworks, for its campaign to clean up destructive mining practices; Ecosystem Sciences Foundation, for its Payment for Watershed Services program in Mexico, Environmental Investigation Agency for its continued work in forest governance; Fundacion Cordillera Tropical for its community conservation work in Ecuador; Pronatura Noroeste A.C. for its campaign to stop an environmentally destructive tourist development in Mexico; Rainforest Action Network for its continued work protecting tropical forests and acting as watchdog of large corporations.
For its Sustainable Production and Consumption work, the Foundation awarded $330,000. Organizations awarded were: Borealis Centre for Environment and Trade Research, for its work conducting research and providing strategy for environmental organizations waging corporate campaigns; Clean Production Action for its work providing safer options to the electronics industry; Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, for its work building a Zero-Waste city; Product Stewardhsip Institute, Inc., for its campaign to help consumers opt-out of phone book deliveries; Root Capital, for its work providing loans to small businesses promoting conservation in Ecuador and Mexico; the Tides Center for the Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption; Urban Green, the New York chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council.
The Environment Program also supported Grist.org, frequently referenced in this blog for its wry and incisive reporting on environmental issues, and NPR for its environmental content, a joint grant with the Human Rights Program.
Of course all descriptions above are extremely brief and hardly do these great organizations and projects justice! Follow the links to learn more about them, or click here to be directed to The Overbrook Foundation web site.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Reactions to President Obama's Speech
Updates on Environment Program June 2010 grants are to come!
But for the day after President Obama's speech on the oil spill in the Gulf, I thought it best to post a short listing of reactions in the media. In the address, the President linked the spill to the two wars we are fighting overseas, referred to a nation-wide "addiction to fossil fuels," and called for more investment in renewable energy. Some critics thought he was too reserved, others felt he used the spill as an excuse to promote his new energy policy. The only consistency among the reactions was that no one seemed completely pleased.
David Roberts of Grist, an Overbrook grantee, agreed with many environmentalists that Obama was not specific enough in his plans for clean-up and future energy solutions. But one triumph that many overlooked, Roberts said, was Obama's omission of nuclear, domestic drilling and "clean" coal as part of the energy-mix coneversation. In past speeches, the President has included these as part of our energy future. This time, he emphasized renewables and energy efficiency, perhaps hinting toward a sharper shift in the way we define "clean" and "independent" energy. Read Roberts' post here, along with responses from Grist readers.
The Huffington Post was less positive. Look here for their take, along with links to other opinions, media outlets, and a full transcript and video of the speech.
Look here for an LA Times conglomeration of Senators' Twitter comments during the speech.
Click here to access the New Orleans Times-Picayune, with updates on the spill from their own backyards.
But for the day after President Obama's speech on the oil spill in the Gulf, I thought it best to post a short listing of reactions in the media. In the address, the President linked the spill to the two wars we are fighting overseas, referred to a nation-wide "addiction to fossil fuels," and called for more investment in renewable energy. Some critics thought he was too reserved, others felt he used the spill as an excuse to promote his new energy policy. The only consistency among the reactions was that no one seemed completely pleased.
David Roberts of Grist, an Overbrook grantee, agreed with many environmentalists that Obama was not specific enough in his plans for clean-up and future energy solutions. But one triumph that many overlooked, Roberts said, was Obama's omission of nuclear, domestic drilling and "clean" coal as part of the energy-mix coneversation. In past speeches, the President has included these as part of our energy future. This time, he emphasized renewables and energy efficiency, perhaps hinting toward a sharper shift in the way we define "clean" and "independent" energy. Read Roberts' post here, along with responses from Grist readers.
The Huffington Post was less positive. Look here for their take, along with links to other opinions, media outlets, and a full transcript and video of the speech.
Look here for an LA Times conglomeration of Senators' Twitter comments during the speech.
Click here to access the New Orleans Times-Picayune, with updates on the spill from their own backyards.
Human Rights Grants Awarded In June 2010
Last week on Wednesday, the Overbrook Foundation held its June 2010 Board Meeting and approved approximately $1.4 million in its Environment and Human Rights Program. I’m going to blog today about some of the organizations that the Foundation looks forwarded to partnering with in next year from its Human Rights Program.
In support of its Human Rights work, the Board approved 15 grants under the categories of domestic human rights, international human rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights and movement building. Eleven of the proposals were for continued support of existing organizations or projects previously supported by the Foundation.
In its International Human Rights work, the Foundation awarded grants to four organizations: WITNESS for promoting video advocacy in the Americas, Human Rights Center for its International Human Rights Fellows Programs, Human Rights First for protecting human rights defenders in Latin America, and Conectas, for enhancing access to justice for vulnerable groups in Brazil. The total amount awarded was $175,000.
Under its Gender Rights Program, the Foundation also awarded a total of $165,000 in grants to International Planned Parenthood, Freedom to Marry, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a first time grant to Search for Common Ground.
In the Domestic Human Rights category, the Board awarded a total of $240,000 in grants. Recipients include The Innocence Project, Breakthrough, a first time grant to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and The Public Interest Projects for the US Human Rights Fund.
In its Movement Building category, Overbrook awarded three grants totaling $100,000; grants were awarded to the American Constitution for Law and Policy, a first time grant for the nonprofit news organization Mother Jones for reporting on domestic human rights and a renewal grant to The Women’s Media Center.
Lastly, there was also a shared grant between the Environment and Human Rights Program to National Public Radio for their continued coverage of environmental and human rights issues on NPR News.
In total, the Human Rights Program awarded $710,000 in grants in June. If you’re interested in seeing a complete list of grants awarded by the Foundation in 2010 (as well amount awarded), please click here, which will take you to our website.
In the next few days Samantha will blog about some of the grants awarded from the Foundation’s Environment program, so stay tuned!
In support of its Human Rights work, the Board approved 15 grants under the categories of domestic human rights, international human rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights and movement building. Eleven of the proposals were for continued support of existing organizations or projects previously supported by the Foundation.
In its International Human Rights work, the Foundation awarded grants to four organizations: WITNESS for promoting video advocacy in the Americas, Human Rights Center for its International Human Rights Fellows Programs, Human Rights First for protecting human rights defenders in Latin America, and Conectas, for enhancing access to justice for vulnerable groups in Brazil. The total amount awarded was $175,000.
Under its Gender Rights Program, the Foundation also awarded a total of $165,000 in grants to International Planned Parenthood, Freedom to Marry, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a first time grant to Search for Common Ground.
In the Domestic Human Rights category, the Board awarded a total of $240,000 in grants. Recipients include The Innocence Project, Breakthrough, a first time grant to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and The Public Interest Projects for the US Human Rights Fund.
In its Movement Building category, Overbrook awarded three grants totaling $100,000; grants were awarded to the American Constitution for Law and Policy, a first time grant for the nonprofit news organization Mother Jones for reporting on domestic human rights and a renewal grant to The Women’s Media Center.
Lastly, there was also a shared grant between the Environment and Human Rights Program to National Public Radio for their continued coverage of environmental and human rights issues on NPR News.
In total, the Human Rights Program awarded $710,000 in grants in June. If you’re interested in seeing a complete list of grants awarded by the Foundation in 2010 (as well amount awarded), please click here, which will take you to our website.
In the next few days Samantha will blog about some of the grants awarded from the Foundation’s Environment program, so stay tuned!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
WITNESS Video on Elder Abuse on Link TV - Tonight!
WITNESS’ recent video, “An Age of Justice: Confronting Elder Abuse in
The film is a joint effort of WITNESS and its partner the National Council on Aging (NCOA) to empower older Americans and others who care about them to speak out against elder abuse in the
It is estimated that as many as five million Americans aged 65 or older have suffered abuse of some sort, including physical, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse. Elder abuse cuts across gender, social, racial, ethnic, economic and geographic lines but, unlike with child abuse and domestic violence, there has been no Federal legislation to protect our oldest citizens until passage of the EJA.
“An Age of Justice” features moving stories of elder abuse recorded by video advocates across the
Make sure to watch (or set your DVR)!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Making Philanthropy More Participatory
Note: This is a cross posting. The original post was written for the Communications Network and can be found here.
Last week I attended the 2010 Personal Democracy Forum. The event, which is held every year in New York City, is one of the leading conferences dedicated to exploring technology’s impact on politics, government, and society. Individual presentations, conversations, and panel discussions focus on different ways technology is (or should be) opening government, electoral politics -- and even the nonprofit world -- to provide more opportunities for citizen participation.
A Friday afternoon session, “Philanthropy 2.0: How Foundations are Opening Up and Innovating,” explored how some foundations, especially newer ones, are making efforts to engage more of the public, as well as their grantees, in their work. The panel featured Ellen Miller, co-founder and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, (full disclosure, she’s my mother) Kari Saratovsky, vice president of Social Innovation at The Case Foundation and Stacy Donohue, director of investments at Omidyar Network (ON). It was also moderated by Chris Gates, executive director of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement.
Because it's such a new term, Philanthropy 2.0 may not be that well understood (yet) by many in the philanthropic community, so this panel provided a great opportunity to begin introducing it to a wider audience. For those who haven’t he
Each of the presenters talked about some of the ways their organizations were implementing elements of Philanthropy 2.0. For example, Sunlight publishes all its grant awards and provides information about organizations it receives funding from on the foundation's website. The Case Foundation's Saratovsky discussed how foundations can democratize philanthropy through challenges, competitions, and what also might be called "crowd sourcing." ON's Donohue told the audience that Omidyar regards the organizations its supports more as “partners" than grantees. As a result, along with its grantmaking, the foundation focuses on the sustainability, value and scale of these partner organizations.
After the panel, it hit me: Philanthropy 2.0 is all about communication. Whether it's how foundations can be more open with the public, or with the organizations they support, communication is key to doing those things well. It also became obvious to me that you cannot have Philanthropy 2.0 unless your communications are clear, effective, and honest. Thus, as foundation communicators, we have a central role to play in ensuring the Philanthropy 2.0 becomes the norm in our organizations. We can also play an important role helping implement new communications technologies that make it easier for foundations to operate more openly and to invite more people to participate in their work. And while we might find it easy to use these tools, we have to be sensitive that some of our non-communications colleagues may need a little more time to get used to them and figure out how they can best apply them to their work.
None of this is will be accomplished fast or easily. As one audience member asked during the question and answer session: "How do established foundations see Philanthropy 2.0, and how likely are they to begin adopting this new way of thinking and acting?" The ultimate answer to that question depends to some degree on what we, as communicators, do to help keep the spotlight on the benefits of working in these new ways and encouraging more discussion about this topic within our organizations.
After the panel, it hit me: Philanthropy 2.0 is all about communication. Whether it's how foundations can be more open with the public, or with the organizations they support, communication is key to doing those things well. It also became obvious to me that you cannot have Philanthropy 2.0 unless your communications are clear, effective, and honest. Thus, as foundation communicators, we have a central role to play in ensuring the Philanthropy 2.0 becomes the norm in our organizations. We can also play an important role helping implement new communications technologies that make it easier for foundations to operate more openly and to invite more people to participate in their work. And while we might find it easy to use these tools, we have to be sensitive that some of our non-communications colleagues may need a little more time to get used to them and figure out how they can best apply them to their work.
None of this is will be accomplished fast or easily. As one audience member asked during the question and answer session: "How do established foundations see Philanthropy 2.0, and how likely are they to begin adopting this new way of thinking and acting?" The ultimate answer to that question depends to some degree on what we, as communicators, do to help keep the spotlight on the benefits of working in these new ways and encouraging more discussion about this topic within our organizations.
I'm ready for Philanthropy 2.0. How about you?
Monday, June 7, 2010
New York to Mandate E-Waste Recycling
Governor Paterson has signed legislation requiring producers of electronic waste to collect and recycle their products, making New York the 23rd state to pass an e-waste recycling law. The new law, effective April 1st 2011, will require manufacturers to recycle amounts proportional to what they produce, based on a three-year sales average. Producers will also be required to report on their progress annually to the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Although New York has been slow to adopt an e-waste law, the new legislation was built on successes of the 22 other states already on board. Kate Sindig of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a current Overbrook grantee the Environment Program has supported for work on e-waste legislation, called the new law "arguably the most progressive electronics recycling law in the country." Read Kate's post on the NRDC staff blog here.
Products covered under the law include TVs, computers, keyboards, cables, mice and printers. Taxpayers and municipalities will not only be relieved of the financial burden of collecting and recycling electronics, but amounts of toxic chemicals and metals that leach into waterways when electronics are trashed will also be reduced. Putting the end-of-life responsibility back on producers is also expected to clean up the materials they use to make the electronics in the first place. And starting January 1, 2015, it will be illegal for consumers in New York to throw electronics in landfills.
Many manufacturers would like to see a federal law as opposed to a patchwork of rules governing e-waste in different states. But as more states sign on, momentum will surely build toward more comprehensive legislation. With 23 states in, we're almost halfway there!
Although New York has been slow to adopt an e-waste law, the new legislation was built on successes of the 22 other states already on board. Kate Sindig of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a current Overbrook grantee the Environment Program has supported for work on e-waste legislation, called the new law "arguably the most progressive electronics recycling law in the country." Read Kate's post on the NRDC staff blog here.
Products covered under the law include TVs, computers, keyboards, cables, mice and printers. Taxpayers and municipalities will not only be relieved of the financial burden of collecting and recycling electronics, but amounts of toxic chemicals and metals that leach into waterways when electronics are trashed will also be reduced. Putting the end-of-life responsibility back on producers is also expected to clean up the materials they use to make the electronics in the first place. And starting January 1, 2015, it will be illegal for consumers in New York to throw electronics in landfills.
Many manufacturers would like to see a federal law as opposed to a patchwork of rules governing e-waste in different states. But as more states sign on, momentum will surely build toward more comprehensive legislation. With 23 states in, we're almost halfway there!
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Culture or Science to Prevent Disaster?
As we enter the sixth week of oil gushing unfettered into the Gulf of Mexico, some scientists and sociologists are asking how we (BP executives and Minerals Management Services employees who ignored safety warnings and consumers of petroleum alike) allowed this disaster to happen in the first place. Surely all of us, some more explicitly than others, anticipated the dangers of drilling at such unprecedented depths. And because of our addiction to gas-powered vehicles and petroleum-based products, all of us have contributed in our own ways to the series of events leading to the now unstoppable plume of oil. If we have the technological capability to drill 32,000 feet into the ocean floor, why are we not directing that capability full force toward the development of cleaner, less risky energy sources?
Research out of the University of Alberta attempts to answer this question. In his "System Failure: Oil, Futurity and the Anticipation of Disaster," author Imre Szeman found that consumption behaviors and views toward oil exploration generally do not change, even when people are confronted with sound scientific evidence linking disastrous environmental affects to fossil fuels.
Szeman breaks this disconnect down to three common rationalizations: 1) the idea that oil exploration equals economic security, and therefore is worth the risk; 2) the "eco-apocalypse" idea that freezes people's actions with its enormity; and 3) the phenomenon of what Szeman calls "technical utopianism," a blind faith that no matter what happens, improved future technologies will sweep in to clean up any messes we make.
Szeman concludes that shifts in behaviors concerning the health of the planet must be addressed anew, and not by piling on more science. Environmental stewardship is now a cultural and sociological issue, Szeman believes, and will not be improved on a large scale until it is addressed as such.
An article in last Sunday's New York Times touches on the third point of Szeman's triangle of environmental disconnect: technical utopianism. Elisabeth Rosenthal's "Our Fix-It Faith and the Oil Spill" addresses this problem, and ends with a quote from the physicist/philosopher Richard Feynman: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Research out of the University of Alberta attempts to answer this question. In his "System Failure: Oil, Futurity and the Anticipation of Disaster," author Imre Szeman found that consumption behaviors and views toward oil exploration generally do not change, even when people are confronted with sound scientific evidence linking disastrous environmental affects to fossil fuels.
Szeman breaks this disconnect down to three common rationalizations: 1) the idea that oil exploration equals economic security, and therefore is worth the risk; 2) the "eco-apocalypse" idea that freezes people's actions with its enormity; and 3) the phenomenon of what Szeman calls "technical utopianism," a blind faith that no matter what happens, improved future technologies will sweep in to clean up any messes we make.
Szeman concludes that shifts in behaviors concerning the health of the planet must be addressed anew, and not by piling on more science. Environmental stewardship is now a cultural and sociological issue, Szeman believes, and will not be improved on a large scale until it is addressed as such.
An article in last Sunday's New York Times touches on the third point of Szeman's triangle of environmental disconnect: technical utopianism. Elisabeth Rosenthal's "Our Fix-It Faith and the Oil Spill" addresses this problem, and ends with a quote from the physicist/philosopher Richard Feynman: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Share This! How You Will Change the World with Social Networking
You know when you read something that is so great you want to just run down the street and tell everyone that they need to read it, like right now? Yeah, well that’s happened to me this weekend when I started (and finished) reading Share This!: How You Will Change the World with Social Networking, by Deanna Zandt.
Zandt is a media technologist as well as a consultant to key progressive media organizations including AlterNet and Jim Hightower's Hightower Lowdown, and hosts TechGrrl Tips on GRITtv with Laura Flanders. She specializes in social media, and is a leading expert in women and technology, which clearly gives her a unique background to write this book.
Some of the key ideas that Zandt explores in the book is looking at how social networks are places where we share stories and connect with others. I love that she recognizes that these are not necessarily new phenomena, but that she takes the time to help readers understand how the technology changes the spaces in which we do this as a society. She does this by discussing in depth the issues of trust, authenticity and privacy. At the heart of the book is examining how building empathetic relations really can change the world and she provides clear-cut examples of how this is possible.
This book is funny, engaging, and true to life. You’ll find yourself agreeing with Zandt at so many turns and understanding yourself in relationship to social media infinitely better after reading the book. And no matter what you background level in social media is I guarantee that you will find this book entertaining and useful. Also, I rarely ever read the “Resources” section of a book, but I think that this section may be one of the book’s greatest strengths. It answers the “so what do I do know” questions you may have, and has really great questions/answers related to some of the key themes, tips for individuals, and insights on how to manage information overload.
I really encourage other foundations as well as non-profit organizations to pick this book up, you'll benefit from Zandt's insight both personally and professionally, as you try to navigate the world of social media.
Next up on my reading list will be The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change, by Allison Fine and Beth Kanter. I was lucky enough to get a sneak preview of the book at the 2010 Nonprofit Technology Conference in
Monday, May 17, 2010
Public Poilcy Communicators of NYC
*note: This is a duplicate post. It was originally featured on the Knight Foundation blog last week. It is about an event attended on Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 at the Ford Foundation.
Yesterday I attended the most recent of a lunch series organized by the Public Policy Communicators of NYC (PPC-NYC). The luncheon was focused on “Navigating the Shifting Media Landscape” and its aim was to discuss several major recent developments that are contributing to the fractured media landscape and how media policy affects these issues. The group of approximately 30 or so experts discussed several topics including the importance of preserving network neutrality, how major media corporations are attempting to dominate public discourse, and how to best focus the efforts of all our organizations in light of current and future media policy.
Yesterday I attended the most recent of a lunch series organized by the Public Policy Communicators of NYC (PPC-NYC). The luncheon was focused on “Navigating the Shifting Media Landscape” and its aim was to discuss several major recent developments that are contributing to the fractured media landscape and how media policy affects these issues. The group of approximately 30 or so experts discussed several topics including the importance of preserving network neutrality, how major media corporations are attempting to dominate public discourse, and how to best focus the efforts of all our organizations in light of current and future media policy.
The discussion started off with Knight Foundation consultant Vince Stehle highlighting some of the key elements from the Knight Commission report “Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age.” He talked briefly about the specific recommendations to maximize the availability of relevant and credible information to all Americans and their communities, the importance of strengthening the capacity of individuals to engage with information, and the necessity to promote individual engagement with information and the public life of the community.
Because PPC-NYC’s members consist primarily of foundation communication professionals and leaders from progressive non-profit organizations, there is an inherent understanding about the importance of having free and open information in a society. And as Knight Foundation President Alberto Ibargüen remarked earlier this week to a group at the 2010 Free Press Summit in Washington DC, "Information is at the heart of democracy."
Because of that inherent understanding, it was hardly surprising that the recommendations of the Knight Commission seemed to strongly resonate with the goals and efforts of this group. In fact, the group proved to be natural audience for this kind of thinking. Furthermore, there was also understanding and appreciation that without sound media policies that speak to the need for a clear and open flow of information, the basic tenets of not just the Internet are at risk, but so are the tenets of a democracy.
What I found most encouraging is that there seemed to be an agreement that no matter what area foundations and non-profit organizations are engaged in, whether it is health, environment, or other social justice issues, that the importance of sound media policy resonates with everyone. Without access to a free and open Internet, there are invariable restrictions on the capacity of individuals to engage with information. Without an open Internet, the ability to promote individual engagement with information becomes limited, threatening the work that is the heart of all of what we do. The need for an open Internet and access to technology is an issue that people can engage with, coalesce around and begin to integrate it into their everyday thinking and work. The importance of having information and strengthening the capacity of people to engage with information cuts across sectors.
We know the challenges we face, the digital divide, a lack of media literacy in certain communities, and an uphill battle against corporate interests. But more importantly we know what is as stake. Together we can figure out how to best implement the recommendations of the Knight Commission. It is up to each of us to do what we can in our own ways to make these tenets a reality.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Free Press Summit: Ideas to Action
Yesterday I attended the 2010 Free Press Summit: Ideas to Action in Washington DC. The purpose of the event was to try to answer some tough questions about the future of journalism, public media and the Internet. It brought together about 400 people and combined speeches from
The day started off with a welcome and kick off from Alberto Ibargüen, President of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation as well as a keynote speech from Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission in which she talked about the importance of network neutrality and closing the digital divide. You can read her entire speech here.
Following Clyburn, the morning panel included titled “Social Media, Social Justice and the Future of the Internet” featured Jose Antonio Vargas, Huffington Post; James Rucker from ColorofChange.org; Andrew Noyes of Facebook, and author Deanna Zandt to talk about everything from what social media really means in the digital age, to privacy rights and how media policy affects these issues.
In the afternoon I attended a breakout session titled “Measuring Informed Communities” which was lead by Josh Stearns, Program Manager of Free Press. The session recognized that communities (however they be defined) are facing a growing information divide, and that if we are going to develop concrete strategies, solutions and policies to meet this challenge, we must first know what the unmet needs are. Of course, not every community is the same, and it’s up to each of us to understand and explore how we even measure whether a community is “informed.” The two other breakout sessions which I didn’t get a chance to attend focused on creating public interest policies around the future of media and journalism, and mobilizing communities for better media.
Lastly, the day finished off with a closing session, including a talk by Jehmu Greene, President of the Women’s Media Center.
If you missed the event but are interested in checking out any of the sessions, video recordings of the event will be posted shortly here. They will also be posting transcripts of the talks when they become available. You can also check out the great speakers and their bios. A special thanks to the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation who sponsored the event, and the hardworking staff of Free Press who made it all possible.
Also at the event yesterday, Free Press also released a new paper at the summit, titled “New Public Media: A Plan for Action” authored by Josh Silver, Candance Clement, Craig Aaron and S. Derek Turner. In this paper the case is made for why we need public media (examining both the crisis that exists and where there may be opportunity), how it’s possible to fund a public media trust, a section about leadership, diversity and expansion, and lastly, some great conclusions about how to take these ideas and spur action.
Lastly, if you’re interested in these issues, mark your calendar. Free Press will be holding its next National Conference for Media Reform in
Monday, May 10, 2010
BlueGreen Alliance Hosts Green Jobs Conference
Last week the BlueGreen Alliance, a collaboration begun in 2006 by the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers, convened in Washington, D.C. for its annual Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference. The conference, although packed with hopeful discussions and plenaries on greening up America's power grid, proceeded under the looming (and surprisingly undiscussed) reality of the unstoppable geyser of oil billowing into the Gulf of Mexico. And although a series of inspiring speakers from both environmentalist and Union perspectives talked about joining forces to bring clean energy jobs back to a new America, it was hard to believe the change they spoke of was anything close to what will be necessary to wean our culture from its greenhouse gas addiction.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke early on the first morning of the conference, kicking off the three days with crowd-pleasing lines. Met with cheers, Pelosi likened our current "Green Revolution" to the Technological Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. We have, Pelosi said, a "moral responsibility to protect God's planet."
But in a smaller talk later in the day, Dick Williams of Shell said in his thirty-year career with the company, he's never once been asked to do anything "immoral, unsafe or unethical" for the company. Obviously there is some difference of opinion on the morality of drilling for oil, and just what constitutes "protecting God's planet."
Williams has recently been appointed President of Shell Wind, but seemed to view it as a fledgling crutch designed solely to offset the carbon footprint of the rest of the company. And with only about 50 people on the payroll of Shell Wind, many of the Union workers in the audience were left frustrated, feeling that Green jobs in renewable industries remain somewhat elusive. A woman in the audience complained the industry has yet to welcome Union members. Others corroborated, saying the renewable industry too often hires contract workers and won't offer benefits or steady work. It still behooves workers to go to oil and gas jobs over green jobs.
But in part, the conference was designed precisely to bring attention to those hurdles. In a plenary session, Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers, spoke of the need to make Green Jobs more accessible and easier to get in the U.S. "What's the difference between having to rely on Chinese wind turbines versus Mideast oil?" Gerard asked.
The difference, of course, from an environmentalist's perspective, is that at least wind turbines are "clean" once they're working, no matter where they were manufactured. This distinction emphasized an interesting split between the environmental contingent and the Steelworker contingent. One side is motivated more by helping the planet, another by helping workers. During a smaller session, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers said, "Historically, our biggest concern has been, what is this going to cost us?"
But perhaps motivations don't matter so much, when two factions share an end result.
Although the overall feeling of the conference was proactive and positive, the kinds of major shifts necessary -- and still possible, if industry and political leaders act quickly -- were not alluded to. Natural gas, nuclear, and even "clean coal" were included at different points in the conference with the rest of the "green" energies.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke early on the first morning of the conference, kicking off the three days with crowd-pleasing lines. Met with cheers, Pelosi likened our current "Green Revolution" to the Technological Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. We have, Pelosi said, a "moral responsibility to protect God's planet."
But in a smaller talk later in the day, Dick Williams of Shell said in his thirty-year career with the company, he's never once been asked to do anything "immoral, unsafe or unethical" for the company. Obviously there is some difference of opinion on the morality of drilling for oil, and just what constitutes "protecting God's planet."
Williams has recently been appointed President of Shell Wind, but seemed to view it as a fledgling crutch designed solely to offset the carbon footprint of the rest of the company. And with only about 50 people on the payroll of Shell Wind, many of the Union workers in the audience were left frustrated, feeling that Green jobs in renewable industries remain somewhat elusive. A woman in the audience complained the industry has yet to welcome Union members. Others corroborated, saying the renewable industry too often hires contract workers and won't offer benefits or steady work. It still behooves workers to go to oil and gas jobs over green jobs.
But in part, the conference was designed precisely to bring attention to those hurdles. In a plenary session, Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers, spoke of the need to make Green Jobs more accessible and easier to get in the U.S. "What's the difference between having to rely on Chinese wind turbines versus Mideast oil?" Gerard asked.
The difference, of course, from an environmentalist's perspective, is that at least wind turbines are "clean" once they're working, no matter where they were manufactured. This distinction emphasized an interesting split between the environmental contingent and the Steelworker contingent. One side is motivated more by helping the planet, another by helping workers. During a smaller session, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers said, "Historically, our biggest concern has been, what is this going to cost us?"
But perhaps motivations don't matter so much, when two factions share an end result.
Although the overall feeling of the conference was proactive and positive, the kinds of major shifts necessary -- and still possible, if industry and political leaders act quickly -- were not alluded to. Natural gas, nuclear, and even "clean coal" were included at different points in the conference with the rest of the "green" energies.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Experts Talk Climate at the Met
The PEN World Voices Festival of International Literature hosted a star-studded panel discussion last night at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, investigating the question that's on everyone's mind these days: what can we do about global warming? The program, titled "The Weather Report: What Can We Do?" featured leading scientists and writers such as James Hansen, Andrew Revkin and Bill McKibben. The discussion barreled past its posted 9:30 pm deadline and, judging by the excitement of the panelists, could have continued on into the night.
Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's World and co-founder of the environmental Sophie Prize, began the evening. Gaarder posed a brilliant metaphor, comparing carbon in our atmosphere to a genie that has escaped from a lamp. Before the Industrial Revolution, Gaarder imagined, this "genie" screamed from inside the lamp, "Let me out!" Now the genie has escaped, and we are desperately trying to push him back inside.
James Hansen spoke next, with the dispassionate certainty of a scientist who has been looking at the causes and implications of global warming for over thirty years. Hansen, who recently published the book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity," advocates a tax on oil, gas and coal that would require the industry to pay for its own damages. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, he says, people will use them, a practice that unequivocally must be stopped.
Bill McKibben agreed with Hansen that a new way of thinking about energy production and use is long overdue. The global warming ship has sailed, he said, and since stopping its progress completely is impossible, we need to find ways to mitigate and adapt. We have made the earth "a different place already," McKibben said, "and it will get much different still."
Even so, McKibben is far from disillusioned. The interest and excitement generated from his international campaign 350.org ("350" being the parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere scientists say is a tipping point against stabilizing global warming) has reinforced his belief that the will exists to put the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions.
Andrew Revkin, drawing from a long career as an environmental reporter, introduced some sobering statistics toward the end of the evening. People living in the United States, Revkin said, have a higher per capita carbon footprint than any other population in the world. Each U.S. citizen is responsible for about 20 tons of carbon annually, compared with 10 tons per person in Europe, and about 6 tons in India and China. Even if all countries agreed to either shrink or cap per capita carbon output at 6 tons, 2050's projected population of 9 billion people would still be spewing 54 billion tons of CO2 each year into the atmosphere. Although green technologies and political treaties are steps in the right direction, Revkin's math communicated the inevitable message that globally, we are facing this challenge together, and no one solution alone will do the trick.
Early in the evening, Bill McKibben called climate change the "greatest problem humans have ever faced by far." Sitting in the auditorium at the Met last night, it seemed possible that we are up to the challenge, and we will commit to real changes and solutions. But waking up this morning to news of oil gushing toward the coast off the Gulf of Mexico, and commuting through NYC's overstuffed shopping district in bumper-to-bumper traffic, those solutions seemed less possible, and the gravity of the task ahead more clear.
Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's World and co-founder of the environmental Sophie Prize, began the evening. Gaarder posed a brilliant metaphor, comparing carbon in our atmosphere to a genie that has escaped from a lamp. Before the Industrial Revolution, Gaarder imagined, this "genie" screamed from inside the lamp, "Let me out!" Now the genie has escaped, and we are desperately trying to push him back inside.
James Hansen spoke next, with the dispassionate certainty of a scientist who has been looking at the causes and implications of global warming for over thirty years. Hansen, who recently published the book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity," advocates a tax on oil, gas and coal that would require the industry to pay for its own damages. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, he says, people will use them, a practice that unequivocally must be stopped.
Bill McKibben agreed with Hansen that a new way of thinking about energy production and use is long overdue. The global warming ship has sailed, he said, and since stopping its progress completely is impossible, we need to find ways to mitigate and adapt. We have made the earth "a different place already," McKibben said, "and it will get much different still."
Even so, McKibben is far from disillusioned. The interest and excitement generated from his international campaign 350.org ("350" being the parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere scientists say is a tipping point against stabilizing global warming) has reinforced his belief that the will exists to put the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions.
Andrew Revkin, drawing from a long career as an environmental reporter, introduced some sobering statistics toward the end of the evening. People living in the United States, Revkin said, have a higher per capita carbon footprint than any other population in the world. Each U.S. citizen is responsible for about 20 tons of carbon annually, compared with 10 tons per person in Europe, and about 6 tons in India and China. Even if all countries agreed to either shrink or cap per capita carbon output at 6 tons, 2050's projected population of 9 billion people would still be spewing 54 billion tons of CO2 each year into the atmosphere. Although green technologies and political treaties are steps in the right direction, Revkin's math communicated the inevitable message that globally, we are facing this challenge together, and no one solution alone will do the trick.
Early in the evening, Bill McKibben called climate change the "greatest problem humans have ever faced by far." Sitting in the auditorium at the Met last night, it seemed possible that we are up to the challenge, and we will commit to real changes and solutions. But waking up this morning to news of oil gushing toward the coast off the Gulf of Mexico, and commuting through NYC's overstuffed shopping district in bumper-to-bumper traffic, those solutions seemed less possible, and the gravity of the task ahead more clear.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Good News for the Green Economy
Two government studies tracking the progress of the nation's green economy show that, while still small, it is poised for growth.
Although the studies found green products and services only comprise one to two percent of the nation's overall private business economy, the Executive Summary of the report (out of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration) begins with an auspicious statement: "The Administration is committed to fostering the development of a clean and energy-efficient economy; that is, a "green economy." Check out the full report here.
As we grapple with a climate bill and face increasingly clear signals that fossil fuels can no longer be burned with impunity, an official commitment to green the economy is long overdue. It is, perhaps, the magic feather industry needs to forge ahead with green products, a clear signal that "green" is a sound investment and the inevitable way of the future.
However, as a nation at the precipice of an industrial makeover, a long journey remains. For instance, the report "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Intensities Over Time" measures emissions per dollar of economic output. While this measure, called "carbon intensity," has decreased over time, our total carbon output has actually increased. So while industry efficiency has gone up, production has grown even faster. Production per unit may be producing fewer emissions, but more production leads to more emissions. An overhaul of the current cycle of production, consumption and disposal will certainly play a large role in any national environmental improvement.
The reports also identified a shift in the sector producing the most emissions. While industry has gone greener, domestic emissions have grown. Weatherizing homes and buying efficient appliances are becoming mainstream activities, but many people remain bewildered by what exactly they can do to have the greatest positive effect. And inconsistent messages are no help -- a recent report out of the Government Accountability Office revealed that Energy Star labels are not nearly as stringent as they once were believed to be. The GAO easily got certification for fabricated and inappropriate products, and also found that once certified, manufacturers could download and print the Energy Star label with no further oversight. New rules and regulations for the Energy Star label were quickly promised, but there will no doubt be a backlash of consumer malaise and apathy stemming from the findings. Read another take on the findings on The Consumerist.
Overall, the Commerce Department's reports are good news, if for no other reason than they highlight investment in the green economy. It is also important -- and heartening-- to note that the findings were compiled using data from 2007. They do not measure improvements since the Obama Administration's commitment to green jobs.
Although the studies found green products and services only comprise one to two percent of the nation's overall private business economy, the Executive Summary of the report (out of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration) begins with an auspicious statement: "The Administration is committed to fostering the development of a clean and energy-efficient economy; that is, a "green economy." Check out the full report here.
As we grapple with a climate bill and face increasingly clear signals that fossil fuels can no longer be burned with impunity, an official commitment to green the economy is long overdue. It is, perhaps, the magic feather industry needs to forge ahead with green products, a clear signal that "green" is a sound investment and the inevitable way of the future.
However, as a nation at the precipice of an industrial makeover, a long journey remains. For instance, the report "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Intensities Over Time" measures emissions per dollar of economic output. While this measure, called "carbon intensity," has decreased over time, our total carbon output has actually increased. So while industry efficiency has gone up, production has grown even faster. Production per unit may be producing fewer emissions, but more production leads to more emissions. An overhaul of the current cycle of production, consumption and disposal will certainly play a large role in any national environmental improvement.
The reports also identified a shift in the sector producing the most emissions. While industry has gone greener, domestic emissions have grown. Weatherizing homes and buying efficient appliances are becoming mainstream activities, but many people remain bewildered by what exactly they can do to have the greatest positive effect. And inconsistent messages are no help -- a recent report out of the Government Accountability Office revealed that Energy Star labels are not nearly as stringent as they once were believed to be. The GAO easily got certification for fabricated and inappropriate products, and also found that once certified, manufacturers could download and print the Energy Star label with no further oversight. New rules and regulations for the Energy Star label were quickly promised, but there will no doubt be a backlash of consumer malaise and apathy stemming from the findings. Read another take on the findings on The Consumerist.
Overall, the Commerce Department's reports are good news, if for no other reason than they highlight investment in the green economy. It is also important -- and heartening-- to note that the findings were compiled using data from 2007. They do not measure improvements since the Obama Administration's commitment to green jobs.
Monday, April 26, 2010
EPIP: Day Three
Well things wrapped up very nicely in Denver. The last day of the conference featured Gara LaMarche, President and CEO, Atlantic Philanthropies, and Benjamin Todd
Jealous, President and CEO, NAACP. Because the three tracks throughout the conference were
Generational Change, Philanthropic Effectiveness and Social Justice Philanthropy, they were both really well poised to comment not only on these issues but also about the role of the emerging generation of philanthropists. In fact, LaMarche made a good observation that the word "emerging" may be a bit of a misconception, and that the field needs to look to young people as leaders not just in the future, but right now. I have been fortunate enough to hear Jealous twice in the past month (he spoke to our Board back in March, and I blogged about it here). But of course it was great to hear him again. One of the things that he mentioned that I found most relevant to the work of social justice philanthropy is that we are coming to a point where we are seeing the diminishing of a social class dominance, and eventually we will witness minorities becoming the majority. He pointed out that the Tea Party is a backlash against this kind of progress. Jealous also mentioned the importance of understanding who your allies are, and that they might not be who you think they are.
I really want to give a huge shout out to everyone who made the weekend possible, especially the folks at EPIP, Rusty Stahl and Rebecca Schumer in particular did so much hard work over the weekend. And thanks again to all the sponsors of the conference, the Marguerite Casey Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Levi Strauss Foundation, California Wellness Foundation and Council of Michigan Foundations. And a special thanks to the Knight Foundation, who sponsored the LiveFeed of the conference and DoGooder TV, which made it all possbile. Yesterday more than 2000 watched Benjamin Jealous from the NAACP!
And of course, I wasn't the only one who blogged about the conference and its participants. If you're interested in hearing what others thought about it, head on over the EPIP Blog, Epiphanies. Thanks again to all who participated, it was a great weekend.
If you want to follow the rest of the Council on Foundation's 2010 Conference via Twitter, the hashtag is #cof10 and they have a great list of live bloggers. I suggest checking out the Philanthropy411 blog for updates.
Jealous, President and CEO, NAACP. Because the three tracks throughout the conference were
Generational Change, Philanthropic Effectiveness and Social Justice Philanthropy, they were both really well poised to comment not only on these issues but also about the role of the emerging generation of philanthropists. In fact, LaMarche made a good observation that the word "emerging" may be a bit of a misconception, and that the field needs to look to young people as leaders not just in the future, but right now. I have been fortunate enough to hear Jealous twice in the past month (he spoke to our Board back in March, and I blogged about it here). But of course it was great to hear him again. One of the things that he mentioned that I found most relevant to the work of social justice philanthropy is that we are coming to a point where we are seeing the diminishing of a social class dominance, and eventually we will witness minorities becoming the majority. He pointed out that the Tea Party is a backlash against this kind of progress. Jealous also mentioned the importance of understanding who your allies are, and that they might not be who you think they are.
I really want to give a huge shout out to everyone who made the weekend possible, especially the folks at EPIP, Rusty Stahl and Rebecca Schumer in particular did so much hard work over the weekend. And thanks again to all the sponsors of the conference, the Marguerite Casey Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Levi Strauss Foundation, California Wellness Foundation and Council of Michigan Foundations. And a special thanks to the Knight Foundation, who sponsored the LiveFeed of the conference and DoGooder TV, which made it all possbile. Yesterday more than 2000 watched Benjamin Jealous from the NAACP!
And of course, I wasn't the only one who blogged about the conference and its participants. If you're interested in hearing what others thought about it, head on over the EPIP Blog, Epiphanies. Thanks again to all who participated, it was a great weekend.
If you want to follow the rest of the Council on Foundation's 2010 Conference via Twitter, the hashtag is #cof10 and they have a great list of live bloggers. I suggest checking out the Philanthropy411 blog for updates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
