If you don't know already, Earth Hour this year is tonight, March 29 from 20:00 - 21:00 local time. I'm, of course, going to participate and turn off all our lights. What's most interesting to me are two things:
1. The metrics of how many participated ( much CO2 and energy was saved) and how they'll compare it across time zones.
2. how many babies will be born 10 months from tonight because of this.
If you haven't heard, or want to know what's up, check it out here: http://www9.earthhourus.org/
On another interesting note, is something I read from Google's EarthHour homepage today.
I had believed (or wanted to believe) blog post months about how if you just chance the color of the screen background from white to black (they used Google w/ black background -- Blackle-- as the example) that the monitor would use slightly less energy and therefore be less energy taxing/environmentally friendlier. Well, on Google's Earth Hour page explains it doesn't matter what color the screen background is. That's good for visual design since I have Accessibility questions about the contrast being high enough.
Grab a drink, turn off the lights. There's plenty of ways to entertain yourself for an hour in the "dark."
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
being pregnant and true sustainability
I wrote this in a notebook February7 before I knew for certain that I was about 4 weeks pregnant. Even though my life has changed in this short amount of time, I still think it holds true and so I'm putting this out there. Basically, if we all took as good care of each other and the planet as many of us care for ourselves, things would be better.
Deep breath. Here goes...
The more I think about being pregnant, the more I believe there is a direct analogy for understanding sustainability. Sustainability is, in business, the means/way by which you are able to produce your product/service/whatever without negatively impacting the environment, others environment, the welfare of the people who work for you, the welfare of those who buy from you, who supply you. Ideally, not creating any waste and still creating a financial -- if not also ecological and social -- profit. Yes, I believe this is the Triple Bottom Line.
Sustainability is NOT the same as simply environmentally-friendly, -responsible, eco-friendly, "green" or social responsibility. It is all of these things and more. It is the full life cycle. More sucinctly: "Sustainability is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This definition was created in 1987 at the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission).
So, let's just say that if you're in business and are sustainable, then you expect your business to sustain for 500 years in the future. You make plans and take actions to support that 500 year vision.
So how does this relate to pregnancy?
In a way it does. Whether intentionally or unintentionally pregnant -- and assuming the woman plans to take the pregnancy to full term (so no "planned" termination) -- her actions directly affect her life and the building life of another.
What she eats, drinks, does, breathes, consumes, puts on, etc. The vitamins she takes, creams she puts on, clothes she wears, garbage and waste she creates... it all affects the budding life's health and then afterwards.
Sometimes Nature steps in and the baby never arrives. But that wasn't planned. It was an uncontrollable effect. Similarly, sustainability in business, even the best intentions can be thwarted by Nature. However, in both cases direct action in an unsustainable way will guarantee long lasting negative effects. If not delayed negative effects in the case of plastic degrading in a landfill or, worse, in the oceans and re-entering the food supply as "food" for fish. For the pregnancy it will invariably result in the health of the baby that becomes a child and then adult. There is a consequence.
For example on the pregnancy argument, if a woman spends her entire pregnancy drinking beers and eating Twinkies or, say, doing some H -- as her main source of energy -- it is likely, although not guaranteed, her infant will be ill or have developmental problems. Now, given the plenitude of genes and natural development of a fetus, the same could happen to a woman who only eats healthily and exercises regularly. Like I wrote earlier, sometimes Nature intervenes in the development and the development stops.
Of course, this is where my analogy breaks down and I get close to insulting someone who has suffered a miscarriage or has opted for in vitro or other methods. But that's certainly not my point.
Comparing Nature, society, and finances to the natural process of pregnancy... well, there are genetic and business connections that I could make if I stretch this out really thinly. So I won't.
I guess what this comes down to is being a bit afraid and a lot aware of my daily choices now having a direct and visible affect on another person's existence. Where before, I believed this but I'll be able to see the effect on another person and before it was just measuring my "carbon footprint" and seeing how much trash I throw out.
Deep breath. Here goes...
The more I think about being pregnant, the more I believe there is a direct analogy for understanding sustainability. Sustainability is, in business, the means/way by which you are able to produce your product/service/whatever without negatively impacting the environment, others environment, the welfare of the people who work for you, the welfare of those who buy from you, who supply you. Ideally, not creating any waste and still creating a financial -- if not also ecological and social -- profit. Yes, I believe this is the Triple Bottom Line.
Sustainability is NOT the same as simply environmentally-friendly, -responsible, eco-friendly, "green" or social responsibility. It is all of these things and more. It is the full life cycle. More sucinctly: "Sustainability is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This definition was created in 1987 at the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission).
So, let's just say that if you're in business and are sustainable, then you expect your business to sustain for 500 years in the future. You make plans and take actions to support that 500 year vision.
So how does this relate to pregnancy?
In a way it does. Whether intentionally or unintentionally pregnant -- and assuming the woman plans to take the pregnancy to full term (so no "planned" termination) -- her actions directly affect her life and the building life of another.
What she eats, drinks, does, breathes, consumes, puts on, etc. The vitamins she takes, creams she puts on, clothes she wears, garbage and waste she creates... it all affects the budding life's health and then afterwards.
Sometimes Nature steps in and the baby never arrives. But that wasn't planned. It was an uncontrollable effect. Similarly, sustainability in business, even the best intentions can be thwarted by Nature. However, in both cases direct action in an unsustainable way will guarantee long lasting negative effects. If not delayed negative effects in the case of plastic degrading in a landfill or, worse, in the oceans and re-entering the food supply as "food" for fish. For the pregnancy it will invariably result in the health of the baby that becomes a child and then adult. There is a consequence.
For example on the pregnancy argument, if a woman spends her entire pregnancy drinking beers and eating Twinkies or, say, doing some H -- as her main source of energy -- it is likely, although not guaranteed, her infant will be ill or have developmental problems. Now, given the plenitude of genes and natural development of a fetus, the same could happen to a woman who only eats healthily and exercises regularly. Like I wrote earlier, sometimes Nature intervenes in the development and the development stops.
Of course, this is where my analogy breaks down and I get close to insulting someone who has suffered a miscarriage or has opted for in vitro or other methods. But that's certainly not my point.
Comparing Nature, society, and finances to the natural process of pregnancy... well, there are genetic and business connections that I could make if I stretch this out really thinly. So I won't.
I guess what this comes down to is being a bit afraid and a lot aware of my daily choices now having a direct and visible affect on another person's existence. Where before, I believed this but I'll be able to see the effect on another person and before it was just measuring my "carbon footprint" and seeing how much trash I throw out.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Negative Ions, a well-designed solution to feeling better at home?
Around mid-September 2007, I posted an entry on my blog about how you can do your home up with clay plaster. That the ions that clay has are the same as what humans are accustomed to when living in nature.
Since I posted this blog entry I haven't tried the clay plaster; I haven't left my studio apartment in New York. So there hasn't been a home for me to try this on.
I more recently read in the Science Times section of the New York Times that mentioned humans like being in environments that have negative ions. So you feel better with clay plaster than others because of this fact. I also realized from the New York Times article that negative ions are why I prefer to leave the windows open instead of using the air conditioner (except when it's insanely hot) and put on more clothes than use the heat. I always would get, what I called as a kid, air conditioner headaches. Maybe it was just the lack of negative ions.
Perhaps all a well-designed home needs is to make more use of what humans have evolved from, the natural world. We're all star stuff after all ;)
Here's the section of the article from "Seasonal Affective Disorder" and the link to the article from Dec 18, 2007:
"It may sound suspiciously close to snake oil, but the newest promising therapy for SAD is negative air ionization. Dr. Terman found it serendipitously when he used a negative ion generator as a placebo control for bright light, only to discover that high-flow negative ions had positive effects on mood.
Heated and air-conditioned environments are low in negative ion content. Humid places, forests and the shore are loaded with them. It makes you wonder whether there is something, after all, to those tales about the mistral and all those hot dry winds, full of bad positive ions, that supposedly drive people mad."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/health/18mind.html
Since I posted this blog entry I haven't tried the clay plaster; I haven't left my studio apartment in New York. So there hasn't been a home for me to try this on.
I more recently read in the Science Times section of the New York Times that mentioned humans like being in environments that have negative ions. So you feel better with clay plaster than others because of this fact. I also realized from the New York Times article that negative ions are why I prefer to leave the windows open instead of using the air conditioner (except when it's insanely hot) and put on more clothes than use the heat. I always would get, what I called as a kid, air conditioner headaches. Maybe it was just the lack of negative ions.
Perhaps all a well-designed home needs is to make more use of what humans have evolved from, the natural world. We're all star stuff after all ;)
Here's the section of the article from "Seasonal Affective Disorder" and the link to the article from Dec 18, 2007:
"It may sound suspiciously close to snake oil, but the newest promising therapy for SAD is negative air ionization. Dr. Terman found it serendipitously when he used a negative ion generator as a placebo control for bright light, only to discover that high-flow negative ions had positive effects on mood.
Heated and air-conditioned environments are low in negative ion content. Humid places, forests and the shore are loaded with them. It makes you wonder whether there is something, after all, to those tales about the mistral and all those hot dry winds, full of bad positive ions, that supposedly drive people mad."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/health/18mind.html
Monday, December 10, 2007
Design is the Cause of and Solution to all the world's problems
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ff2d7118-a39f-11dc-b229-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Recently there was a small news piece in the Financial Times that mentioned how Netflix has earned the ire of the USPS's auditor because the return envelopes' closing/sticky edge is too soft. So it means that the USPS has to hand-sort all of those Netflix envelopes that are used to return the discs to Netflix. The original envelope that gets the disc to the customer has a stiff enough "leading edge" but not the return envelope. Apparently the "leading edge" is not using a good design. Plus it'll cost Netflix an additional 17 cents per envelope to get DVDs back from customers. This increase would negate 2/3rds of Netflix's profit.
Netflix designers, hopefully, are working on a way to stiffen the edges. So with better-informed parameters and good design strategy, Netflix is going to remedy the problem that bad design created.
Gooooooooooooo Design!
Recently there was a small news piece in the Financial Times that mentioned how Netflix has earned the ire of the USPS's auditor because the return envelopes' closing/sticky edge is too soft. So it means that the USPS has to hand-sort all of those Netflix envelopes that are used to return the discs to Netflix. The original envelope that gets the disc to the customer has a stiff enough "leading edge" but not the return envelope. Apparently the "leading edge" is not using a good design. Plus it'll cost Netflix an additional 17 cents per envelope to get DVDs back from customers. This increase would negate 2/3rds of Netflix's profit.
Netflix designers, hopefully, are working on a way to stiffen the edges. So with better-informed parameters and good design strategy, Netflix is going to remedy the problem that bad design created.
Gooooooooooooo Design!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
California to sue US Government over emissions
Another interesting article from the FT, "California vows to sue over emissions" from a story in April 2007 that outlined how Gov. Schwarzenegger was going to proceed, and then a new statement by California's governor -- reported on 22nd of October "California set to sue over emissions".
Apparently back in April 2007, Gov. Schwarzenegger told the US government that he was going to sue them if they didn't let the EPA grant a waiver over greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially the state of California wants to take more strident action against greenhouse gas emissions and do it faster than the US federal government is ready to set standards up to California's. Apparently the request for this EPA waiver was originally sent to the US government two years ago, so in 2005.
During 2006, California passed legislation that commits the state to a 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
I'm usually against lawsuits. By and large, so many of them that make it to the press seem to be frivolous or at the very least selfish. This is something I can get behind.
Apparently back in April 2007, Gov. Schwarzenegger told the US government that he was going to sue them if they didn't let the EPA grant a waiver over greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially the state of California wants to take more strident action against greenhouse gas emissions and do it faster than the US federal government is ready to set standards up to California's. Apparently the request for this EPA waiver was originally sent to the US government two years ago, so in 2005.
During 2006, California passed legislation that commits the state to a 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
I'm usually against lawsuits. By and large, so many of them that make it to the press seem to be frivolous or at the very least selfish. This is something I can get behind.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Recycling is not THE answer if you look at the problem holistically
"Recycling is not the answer" by Martin Gibson from Envirowise. If there was ever someone who was talking about the virtues of Design Management and just didn't call it by its name, is Mr. Gibson here. I spent the time reading this article, and feeling very inspired that someone outside of the circles I know about really gets DM and doesn't even (maybe) know what it's called!
Here are some of my favorite parts:
"...so-called 'triple bottom line' -- profit, planet and people -- is needed for businesses to survive and thrive in the longer term."
"...addressing the 'planet' or environmental side of sustainability is good for the profit line -- the economics are obvious: reducing resource use, water consumption or energy use will reduce expenditure..."
"Envirowise found that 52 per cent of SMEs surveyed reported evidence of growing environmental awareness amongst their clients over the past year...Some ten per cent are anticipating an increased demand for information... while 11 per cent have altered their business strategy as a result."
"The greenwash backlash is almost upon us. The gap between rhetoric and action on climate change..."
"Prevention is after all better than cure...looking at the processes and inputs rather than fixing the output."
"Looking at the design of a product: looking at the supply chain that provides the components of that product; looking at the packaging of a product' these all may seem obvious areas to investigate, but are often overlooked, or explored in isolation and not holistically."
"Key to this whole life cycle approach is changing behaviour and the way people approach problems. People in business should ask themselves" 'How can I use the least material and energy to give the customer what they want?'"
Here are some of my favorite parts:
"...so-called 'triple bottom line' -- profit, planet and people -- is needed for businesses to survive and thrive in the longer term."
"...addressing the 'planet' or environmental side of sustainability is good for the profit line -- the economics are obvious: reducing resource use, water consumption or energy use will reduce expenditure..."
"Envirowise found that 52 per cent of SMEs surveyed reported evidence of growing environmental awareness amongst their clients over the past year...Some ten per cent are anticipating an increased demand for information... while 11 per cent have altered their business strategy as a result."
"The greenwash backlash is almost upon us. The gap between rhetoric and action on climate change..."
"Prevention is after all better than cure...looking at the processes and inputs rather than fixing the output."
"Looking at the design of a product: looking at the supply chain that provides the components of that product; looking at the packaging of a product' these all may seem obvious areas to investigate, but are often overlooked, or explored in isolation and not holistically."
"Key to this whole life cycle approach is changing behaviour and the way people approach problems. People in business should ask themselves" 'How can I use the least material and energy to give the customer what they want?'"
Effective Communication is a key to Design Management
In fact it was two of our classes at Pratt: Communication.
How many people do you work with who write emails that are frustrating for their lack of clarity, especially when that person is in a senior position to you and is giving you direction on delivering something to him/her? Or a subordinate who you've asked a yes/no question to and gives you a 5 minute reply doesn't answer you at all, and in fact only confuses you as to what she/he is on about? How often do you read or hear someone say something that misses the point or is just an onslaught of words, and makes you wonder if there is a point at all?
It's bad design. What you say, how you say it and what you mean is part of a larger 'design'. Mostly I think that if you express yourself poorly you either don't have the verbal or written skills to execute on your idea or your ideas don' t have clarity. Either way, it's trouble -- even for sustainability reports.
"Climate change must feature in trading statements" by Sarah Murray (FT) makes some salient points about communication and how it's key to not only sustainability reports but communicating a vision and a mission -- especially when it comes to change.
"...at SustainAbility, a consultancy whose work includes brokering relations between internal corporate groups as well as between investors and companies."
"...one of the reasons companies have trouble convincing investors of the merits of their sustainability strategies is that their sustainability staff are not communicating effectively with the investor relations department... sustainability professionals often come into the corporate world from the non-profit sector... but no grasp of finance."
So it doesn't matter if you're talking about a sustainability mission, vision, change, report, or how your weekend was... "'Most people... say they don't understand each other -- and that's part of the reason why internally that hasn't been progressed quicker."
Always #1: Know your audience
PS How many of you wonder if I'm being paid by the Financial Times to quote and refer to their articles? It's just they're a brilliant paper. One day, and probably not too far in the future, I'm going to get a subscription to every paper I can, read them, and make my own selections. Until then I'm going to subscribe to "The Week".
How many people do you work with who write emails that are frustrating for their lack of clarity, especially when that person is in a senior position to you and is giving you direction on delivering something to him/her? Or a subordinate who you've asked a yes/no question to and gives you a 5 minute reply doesn't answer you at all, and in fact only confuses you as to what she/he is on about? How often do you read or hear someone say something that misses the point or is just an onslaught of words, and makes you wonder if there is a point at all?
It's bad design. What you say, how you say it and what you mean is part of a larger 'design'. Mostly I think that if you express yourself poorly you either don't have the verbal or written skills to execute on your idea or your ideas don' t have clarity. Either way, it's trouble -- even for sustainability reports.
"Climate change must feature in trading statements" by Sarah Murray (FT) makes some salient points about communication and how it's key to not only sustainability reports but communicating a vision and a mission -- especially when it comes to change.
"...at SustainAbility, a consultancy whose work includes brokering relations between internal corporate groups as well as between investors and companies."
"...one of the reasons companies have trouble convincing investors of the merits of their sustainability strategies is that their sustainability staff are not communicating effectively with the investor relations department... sustainability professionals often come into the corporate world from the non-profit sector... but no grasp of finance."
So it doesn't matter if you're talking about a sustainability mission, vision, change, report, or how your weekend was... "'Most people... say they don't understand each other -- and that's part of the reason why internally that hasn't been progressed quicker."
Always #1: Know your audience
PS How many of you wonder if I'm being paid by the Financial Times to quote and refer to their articles? It's just they're a brilliant paper. One day, and probably not too far in the future, I'm going to get a subscription to every paper I can, read them, and make my own selections. Until then I'm going to subscribe to "The Week".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
