Want to Make a Difference? Don't Work For Non-Profits

Last year I gave a talk on the importance of building a culture of stewardship within our communities, and the imperative in maximizing the effective use of community resources before looking elsewhere.  I received positive feedback from what I would consider a largely, although not entirely, accepting crowd.  Many attendees approached me after to discuses their ideas for improving community, and other raised concerns about how a focus on community would distract from other, more needed changes that only corporations or large state and federal governments could accomplish.  Among all of those with whom I met, one individual sticks out in my mind.  A bright, eager mechanical engineering undergraduate, primed for graduation, approached me and said,

"I loved your talk, and I already recycle, operate my apartment in a way to minimize energy use, and buy local whenever I can.  What else can I do?"

I learned long ago that people who approach me in this way want one of two things: to hear that something really cool is coming down the road so that they can be one of the first to get it, or to hear that they are doing everything they can.

I asked him what he planned to do after graduation, to which he responded,

"I am going to work for a gas drilling company in the upper Plains."

"Do you really want to make a difference?" I asked.

"Yes."

"Then don't do that."

After letting the expected silence linger for an extra couple of moments, I continued.

"Engineers are charged to protect public health.  You obviously already know the dangers to public health from the way that we extract energy sources, burn them, then release all the stored energy into the atmosphere in the form of heat and particulate matter.  Because of that, you have an obligation to use your skills and knowledge to make life better for everyone, not better for some and worse for others.  The goal is not just to be a little better in how we live our life, but to keep taking strides forward in what we do with our lives."

After receiving the resigned, polite "Thank you" of a person who did not get the answer they sought, I realized something:

The deck is stacked against change for the better.

For the better part of the past forty years, those hoping to "make a difference" had one of three paths available to them:  work for a non-profit or non-governmental organization, work for the government, or work for a business and hope to make a change from within that company.  None of these usually leads to a lucrative career (this young man's chosen profession is one of the top earning opportunities for engineers just out of school), reducing the incentive for the truly exceptional to pursue them.  As I thought on this dilemma more, I realized that none of these options offers the maximum potential to make a difference.  Large businesses are beholden to shareholder profit, and environmentalists are usually relegated to support functions.  Government employment in functions that do not fulfill a specific service (e.g. police, fire, garbage) have little power and come and go with political whim.  In the non-profit sphere, the market is saturated with people and organizations looking to make a difference, but the effort required to make even the smallest impact can be demoralizing.  There exists only one real shot at attempting and succeeding to create significant change while pursuing potential compensation that can lure the best and brightest to the field:  entrepreneurship.

Want to eliminate styrofoam waste from the planet?  Don't picket at styrofoam plants, or try to get legislation passed.  Set about trying to create a product - or further one into the marketplace that already exists - that replaces the function of styrofoam without the environmental damage.

Do you have a passion for healthy foods and making them available to people of all economic classes?  Let others do the studies, the lobbying, the education programs targeted at eliminating obesity and food deserts.  Get a team together and open a fast food place that serves foods made from healthy ingredients and price your product in a range that any family can afford.  Put those restaurants that choose to serve unhealthy food out of business with your competitive pricing and better options.

Tired of people telling you they do not have the time to worry about energy efficiency in their homes?  Create a company that aggregates residential customers and pays their utility bills for them, but then invests in energy efficiency and reaps the benefit of the cost savings through reduced usage.

Pick the issue or idea that most inspires you.  Then research the business practices that promote or sustain the destructive practice, investigate the useful service provided by the product or practice, then turn the issue on its head and come up with business models that provide the same (or better) service but without the damage.  If you think that CEOs receive compensation well beyond their worth to an organization, or that good labor is undervalued in the marketplace, then have your business operate differently.  You will need to build a good network of professionals within the field you want to change, become experienced at getting rejected and picking yourself up off the mat, and constantly tweak your ideas until they have the combination of possibility and impact you desire.  All of these take time and initiative, but the potential rewards can outweigh equal effort in a more traditional career path.

One might argue that a person just out of school does not have the requisite skills and experience needed to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities, and that moving along in a traditional career path will give them the background more suited to success.  Although this has a bit of common sense to it, recent grads also have higher tolerance for failure and fewer constraints on their thinking than those with greater experience.  Waiting three to five years may put the young person in a position where they have family responsibilities that will reduce their risk tolerance.  As we all move along in a field, we like to think that we maintain an innovative objectivity toward ideas, but the more we learn and experience, the more closed to new ideas we become…even if that constraint is small, we risk less often because we usually have more to lose from change than we have to gain.  Add to this, new provisions in health insurance law that allow young people to remain on parental insurance policies into their mid-twenties, and we have a perfect storm of opportunity.

Entrepreneurship is not for everyone, however anyone can be an entrepreneur.  The collaboration, communication, and thinking skills required can be developed growing up in a big family, playing on a sports team, or volunteering for a local community organization.  College graduates and high-school dropouts alike can have worthwhile ideas that if pursued can improve the quality of life.  If the time comes where you want to pursue a more traditional career path - not better or more common, just more traditional - then the experiences gained and skills honed through the opportunities will provide better resume material.  In addition, an entrepreneur is less likely to try the scatter-shot-your-resume-and-hope-for-an-interview approach to job hunting, preferring to use networking and face-to-face contact which has greater success.

The work of non-profits, and the champions in government and industry can do amazing work.  They work insane hours for low pay and must accept incremental improvement as their reward.  The competition to join the ranks of the truly capable in these fields has an intensity not justified by the reward.  If, like that eager mechanical engineer, you want to know what else you can do to really make a difference, look to George Bernard Shaw (oft quoted by Robert F. Kennedy), "Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not."  Come up with an idea, then take matters into your own hands.  Become an entrepreneur. You will not regret it.

Friday Five: June 14, 2013

Our market economy fails to place value on the benefits of our environment, and some of the most necessary of our basic needs - healthcare - cannot be governed by the "rational consumer" economic model.  We need a new way to do business that focuses on the end goal of an economy - improved quality of life - and not on a tangential measure that may or may not actually directly measure quality of life - the amassing and deployment of capital.  I applaud the work of these innovators and entrepreneurs and cannot wait to be a part of whatever comes of it.
Richard Branson and Jochen Zeitz Reveal The B Team Leaders and Kick-start a Plan B for Business
"'Business is integral to society, but it has also created most of the negative environmental challenges of this century,' co-founder Jochen Zeitz said today, 'The B Team will help to catalyse a shift away from the existing short-term, unsustainable mindset, towards the long-term interest of people, the planet and the wider economy. Tackling these three challenges is a starting point for a 'Plan B' to form.'"

We are already starting to see a change in the energy industry, where cleaner, safer, and better sources of energy have finally started to spur major job growth and lower harmful emissions.  The time is close at hand when these industries will have matured to compete with the entrenched inertia of the fossil fuel industry.
Report: More than 12,000 clean energy, clean transportation jobs announced in first quarter 2013
"'The fact that nine out of the top 10 states in the report have renewable portfolio standards is no accident,' Albert said. 'These policies are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do: Create jobs and create clean, renewable energy that helps both our economy and our environment.'"

Further trends in the industry show that even for "clean" energy like nuclear, the forces of the market now trend toward those forms that improve quality of life for all without damaging the quality of life for some.  This trend will continue if those who invest demand it, and if those who consume demand it...if there is demand, there will be supply.

News on energy alternatives—Wind, efficiency are in, small nukes are out
"These are important deals, as they demonstrate what choices we have for getting off fossil fuels for electric power. Iowa has championed large-scale windfarms since 1983, creating a model for renewable electricity standards. Iowa has demonstrated how to ramp up renewables, and already uses wind for 25 percent of the electricity supply. The new announcement will put the state at about 30percent windpower. MidAmerican apparently doesn’t see a problem with that level of wind, and has no plans to raise consumer rates as it increases its own supply of windpower."


Banning large, sugary drinks (imperfectly), banning styrofoam, and putting a price tag on the cost to deal with the damage caused by a fossil fuel energy economy?  Add to that local laws 84 and 87 regarding building energy auditing, retrocommissioning, and benchmarking, and Bloomberg might be the most environmentally-friendly politician since Teddy Roosevelt.
Bloomberg storm plan praised, but faces obstacles
"The 438-page proposal released by Mr. Bloomberg on Tuesday has some 250 recommendations. They include the installation of levees, flood walls and bulkheads, as well as the creation of sand dunes and wetlands. The mayor would also like the city to renovate public housing, adjust flood insurance prices and establish an elevated neighborhood in Lower Manhattan called Seaport City.
Utility companies would upgrade their systems, and the city would develop a fuel supply system for use during severe weather disruptions. The sweeping plan includes provisions for coastal defenses, buildings, utilities, fuel and food supplies, health care, transportation and telecommunications."

The consequence of the status quo...fossil fuel based energy and chemically-driven farming practices...will be too harsh to survive.  The ironic thing is, from the point of view of risk, doing nothing and being wrong will cost us so much more than making the necessary changes and being right.  We see this year already the impact on beef prices, and corn, soy, and wheat will follow.  We have the ability to make a change, we have the knowledge to make it happen, and we have to do it now.
Say bye-bye to cheap food
"'[W]ith energy prices high and rising and production growth declining across the board, strong demand for food, feed, fibre and industrial uses of agricultural products is leading to structurally higher prices and with significant upside price risks,' states the 10-year agricultural outlook [PDF] published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization."

Happy Friday!

What you see...

Today, I was lucky to get a chance to have lunch with my wife.  Having only a short window of time to make this happen, we decided to grab something quick, and given where we were in the loop, the two options that came to mind were Pret a Manger and Native Foods.

This got me thinking as to why those two options were foremost in my mind, and the first thought that came to me was that they gave me the best opportunity to take responsibility for my choices.  The price, ingredients, and health impacts are clear.  I do not have to think too much about what the ingredients are, I can just worry about what I can afford and what I have a taste for.

That leaves only one last piece of information I want: where and how the ingredients were grown and transported.  (Okay, that's four pieces of information.). In a consumer-driven economy, which since we have more people than we can employ in manufacturing and agriculture we have to be, the value of information is immeasurable.  Perhaps that is my biggest issue with companies that are against GMO-labeling, and manufacturing and energy companies in general....that I do not have a right to know what they are doing and make the choice myself.  

If the decisions of a rational consumer are the engine for market economics, then transparency and information must be the fuel.  

Flashes: June 12, 2013

• Cattle ranchers have noted that due to last year's drought, there is not enough feed and their herds have been reduced to near historic lows, meaning prices for meat will go up, encouraging ranchers to liquidate their herds to take advantage of the high prices....so the economic signal sent by scarcity is to deplete as much of your stock as possible.  I don't think that I am concerned any longer that life-sustaining systems do not meet this "economic model".

• So Walgreen's has opened a "net-zero energy" store in Evanston that it hopes can serve as a prototype for other stores.  They predict that the store may generate more electricity than it uses, meaning it may actually make electricity available to the grid around it.  So now, I can not only get those plastic circle things that keep your socks together in the wash, almost every flavor of Mike and Ike's, and those towels that are pre-shaped like turbans, but I can get electricity?!?!?  Mind. Blown.

• The Mayor just closed almost fifty school buildings for low enrollment, and we now know that the city has fifty schools that are operating and near or over twice their capacity.  There are between 62,000 and 80,000 foreclosed and/or vacant properties in Chicago, and approximately 120,000 homeless in the city.  Many of both are happening in the same neighborhoods.  I am not sure what we lack to make these work, but it certainly is not space or resources.

• The average family of four in 2013 spends $9,144 on the employee portion of healthcare expenses (a total cost of $22,000 overall), and $8,388 on groceries.  Federal poverty line for a family of four is $23,550.  The rest of "life" on $6,018.

Enjoy the journey!

Time for CPS Action on Better School Buildings is Now

Yesterday, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, CEO of Chicago Public Schools, outlined the districts action plan for the Chicago Public Schools, The Next Generation: Chicago's Children.  I welcome the forethought to provide a clear statement of expectations from which all stakeholders can begin discussions about improving the quality of education for all students, and how the health of students plays a big role in that improvement.

As I read through the pillars of the plan - and the previously released Healthy CPS Action Plan, especially pillars two and five, one thought occurs to me:  if the action plan does not include establishing and delivering on a healthy learning environment, including a baseline of thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort, and basic indoor air quality in every school over the next five years (which the Healthy CPS plan does not), the plan is just window dressing. 

Over the past ten years, the Board of Education has openedover twenty-five new schools that meet modern standards for adequate ventilation, lighting, heating, and acoustics.  Studies have shown that these types of learning environments improve test scores, reduce absenteeism, and improve student health.  Much of the current public school building stock does not meet these standards, and subject students and teachers to varying levels of stress in their learning environments.  Add to this, students who may receive inadequate nutrition (which CPS has begun to address through a Healthy Snack and Beverage policy), and we can no longer talk about equality of opportunity.  If the focus of school improvement is going to rest almost solely on how student test scores improve, an administration that does not provide an equal foundation for student health while in their care cannot justify a system that expects equal performance.

The beauty of committing to a focus on the learning environment is that CPS already has most of what they need to accomplish it.  Through training of building management staff and increased attention to operational procedures, most of the issues can be identified and remediated.  Those that require some level of capital investment can be prioritized and addressed over a reasonable timeframe within the currently available capital funding.  Although the plan suggests ten years, prioritizing healthy learning environments could - and should - achieve this basic equality within five.

Implementing quality school learning environments  fits completely within the plan announced yesterday, and will complement the existing metrics proposed.  Within the "high quality facility ratings" noted in pillar 5 above, CPS needs to measure and report the following:

1.  Building's compliance with ASHRAE* 62.1 ventilation standard.

2.  Building's compliance with ASHRAE* 55 thermal comfort standard.

3.  Building's compliance with IESNA* lighting and daylighting comfort standards.

4.  ANSI* standards for acoustic comfort.

Each of these standards has national acceptance and recognition, and provides a clear and easily communicated framework for both evaluation and reporting.  I look forward to the district adding these common-sense provisions to its commitment to improving student health so that, in the words of David Vitale, "we can shift the culture of CPS to one that has high expectations for students, staff and families that is grounded in continuous improvement."  I hope the district administration holds itself to an equally high standard.

*ASHRAE is the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

   IESNA is the Illuminating Engineers Society of North America

   ANSI is the American National Standards Institute

Missed Opportunity: Chicago Lags in Recycling

How many of you saw your grandmother clean up after a meal by pouring the leftover cooking grease into a coffee can and storing it in the refrigerator for use at the next meal? How about watching one of the infamous "bottle guys" pull their metal cart down the alley searching for any of the glass bottles to return for deposit. It could just be that this generation grew up in an era when people had to act frugally to survive, or it could be that they had the right idea all along. Humans are the only animal that looks at its resources in one direction: from extraction to burial. Every other system in nature sees the leftovers from one process as the feedstock for another, and so we should see the opportunity in our lives to put more of our resources to good use. No community would bury intentionally over a million dollars in cash every year, but that is what most neighborhoods do. We can stop this, and need look no further than what other cities have done to successfully turn their trash into treasure.

Chicagoans remember the failed Blue Bag program that the city ran up until the late 2000s. Although well intended, the concept - putting two different bags into the same can and hoping that the contents did not get mixed up in the process of collecting, transporting, and sorting - proved difficult to make work. The program resulted in an, at best, eight percent (8%) recycling rate (weight of total recycled material divided by the weight of all disposed material). Five years ago, the City of Chicago launched a pilot program to improve recycling in seven neighborhoods by introducing separate blue carts to go along with the black carts for landfill trash. The program's success has been mixed across the seven neighborhoods, but the top areas - including the 19th Ward - recycle between eighteen and twenty-two percent (18-22%) depending on the year. This looks like a great improvement, and one that would inspire expansion across the city. However, that has not occurred until just this summer with more wards now getting blue cans.

So when the program finally expands across the city, will that put Chicago on par with other cities? The short answer is no. The current national average for recycling in municipal solid waste is about twenty-five percent (25%). Of the twenty-five (25) largest cities in the United States, Chicago now ranks twenty-first (21st), tied with Columbus and ahead of only Nashville, Indianapolis, and Detroit. Assuming no city ahead of Chicago made improvements (and all have plans to improve significantly over the next three years), if all city residents recycled at the same rate as the top wards in Chicago, we would move up to fourteenth (14th) on the list.

Although many of the top cities (San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle) are mid-sized cities, and one could argue that they have an advantage over a large urban area like Chicago, Cities like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Diego - each with well over one million people - double and even triple even the neighborhoods with the best rates in Chicago. Even with its size, San Francisco recycles an astounding seventy-seven percent (77%) of what goes into its municipal waste, and expects to clear eighty percent (80%) in the coming years.

Why do these cities have such success with recycling while Chicago lags? What can we learn from their success to help move the needle in Chicago? The successful programs contain one or more of the following three characteristics:

1. Financial incentive
In San Francisco, residents pay a monthly fee for their trash pickups, but pay nothing for either the pickup of organic waste/composting or material recycling (plastic/paper/glass/metal). If they reduce their trash below a certain point, they get a smaller trash can and their rate drops to two-thirds of the typical rate. In Philadelphia, residents who use their recycling program receive rewards that they can spend at businesses in the city. These types of immediate financial incentives provide immediate feedback to the resident that their actions have value. The cost of pickup and trucking of recyclable material does not differ from landfill waste, but whereas the landfill waste requires payment to the operator of the disposal, the recyclable material at worst goes to a new process at little or no cost. When residents participate in this savings, they have more incentive to participate.

2. A "stick" to accompany the "carrot"
In order for recycling programs to have the market scale for success, residents must have a consequence for not participating. San Francisco and other cities levy fines on residents who do not recycle. Before we bristle too much at this, how many neighborhoods have "grass cutting" fines for unkept yards, loitering fines, soliciting fines, or towing fines for inoperable vehicles. We regularly fine behavior that we think leads to lower property values in our communities, and recycling should be no different. Especially in areas where waste removal charges appear on our property tax bills, we lower costs for all when we maximize participation.

3. Good regulation and market incentives
When first established, the reason blue carts could only go to seven wards was not the cost of new carts, but the ability for the market to process the recyclable material from all Chicago homes should participation increase significantly. We need processors who can cost effectively move material from truck to factory, and composting operations that return nutrients to soil efficiently. Up until a couple of years ago, the State of Illinois treated recyclers and composters with the same health regulations as landfills and trash transfer yards, even though the materials and processes did not justify the additional associated costs. Thankfully, the new regulations changed these requirements, and improved the business model for processors and composters. There is no surprise that California has four of the top five states in recycling rate as their regulations promote recycling and reward it.

For a community the size of the 19th Ward, we average somewhere between one million and one-and -a-half million dollar per year in landfill costs that we could avoid by increasing our rate from about twenty percent (20%) to fifty percent (50%). That money could be put to use employing people in the neighborhood, making the ward a hub for clean material. Working with neighboring communities, we can develop a clean composting facility to turn our food and yard waste into compost that we use every year to keep our landscapes beautiful. Instead of driving outside the neighborhood to purchase material from some other part of the state or country, we can beautify our blocks with products made right here in our community. There are a couple of immediate things we can do to make this happen:

• Rebuild the block captain program locally.  One or two homeowners on each block can share ideas, spread the word, and report back on ways to improve the program.
• Bring back yard waste collection.  Add to this food waste collection year round, and explore establishing a composting operation in the ward or a neighboring community to keep the capital in the area.
• Get better data from our haulers.  With more information on what we are throwing out, as well as when and where, we can make better decisions and find new opportunities.
• Establish a challenge and prize for the first ward to fifty percent (50%).  The City of Chicago has
  
  a sustainability plan that looks for improvement across the city.  We can challenge the rest of the city to beat us to doubling our rate, and reap the benefits at the same time.

All of us who lived through blue bags know that recycling did not work in that way. That does not mean that it does not work at all. If you find a chain of restaurants that has bad food, you do not stop going out to eat, you just do not go back to that business. We have the same opportunity with recycling. We can throw off the failures of the past and create a better future, and one where we turn trash sent out of state into a financial opportunity for the community.

Friday Five: June 7, 2013

We have reached a point where we MUST no longer accept ANY level of pollution in new development.  We need a timetable to remedy the ills we have already imposed on a segment of our population, but allowing any amount of pollution in the name of progress can no longer be tolerated.  Progress that reduces the quality of life of anyone in the name of rewarding another is not progress, that's injustice.  We are smart enough now to know better and do better.
Permit hearing for Delaware City refinery draws vocal opponents and supporters
"'No community should be subject to pollution levels that hinder their ability to lead full, healthy lives,' the critics said in a May 31 letter to Delaware’s environment secretary Collin O’Mara and Shawn Garvin, the U.S. EPA’s regional administrator. 'Neighbors of the Delaware City Refinery have long been subjected to high levels of toxic pollutants, resulting in the area being identified as a census tract of high cancer risk.'"

When we consider the negative health effects of our choices in pursuit of higher quality of life, we cannot dismiss potential hazards as beyond risk (or beyond consideration as mostly happens).
Leak found in steel tank for water at Fukishima
"Recently, Tepco has struggled to deal with tens of millions of gallons of contaminated, toxic water at the plant, which must be stored in the large steel tanks that now occupy virtually every available bit of space there. The amount of radioactive water has continued to grow as groundwater has flowed at a rate of 100,000 gallons per day into the basements of the damaged reactor buildings. This contaminated water must be drawn off every day to prevent it from overwhelming makeshift systems that cool the melted reactors."

Thankfully, we saw some considered decision making on the part of Illinois regulators when a company sought to acquire coal plants with outdated technology and get a variance to keep pumping pollution into the atmosphere at unhealthy rates. Hopefully we can continue this pattern, although I personally do not hold out much hope.
Illinois regulators: Amren pollution variance can't be Itransferred to Dynegy
"The Illinois Pollution Control Board on Thursday unanimously denied a motion to transfer variances on pollutant standards for five coal-generated power plants from Ameren Energy Resources to Illinois Power Holdings LLC, which has agreed to purchase the plants."

It's hysterical to see a community/environmental issue like bike sharing getting the "Daily Show treatment", so regardless of the factuality of the piece, I find it cool for green to become a bit more mainstream.
Full pedal racket: Part I
Full pedal racket: Part II
"We used to say the same thing about the Irish, and look at 'em now! They're runnin' the joint!"

And this is just way too cool for words....
MIT's magic bag of sand
Right now, Daniela Rus' lab is working in two dimensions only, and they are only beginning to figure out how to downsize their cubes into sand grains. How long will that take? I figured something like 100 years — that's my normal guess for ideas that seem totally out there — but, in an interview on the Flexible Elements podcast series Kyle Gilpin said he could imagine having a smart sand model in less than 10 years."

Happy Friday!