Fellowships in Sustainability Science at Harvard

Fellowships in Sustainability Science

Harvard University's Center for International Development

Due date for applications: December 1, 2010

The Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University's Center for International Development invites applications for resident fellowships in sustainability science for the University's academic year beginning in September 2011. The fellowship competition is open to advanced doctoral and post-doctoral students, and to mid-career professionals engaged in research or practice to facilitate the design, implementation, and evaluation of effective interventions that promote sustainable development. Applicants should describe how their work would contribute to "sustainability science," the emerging field of use-inspired research seeking understanding of the interactions between human and environmental systems as well as the application of such knowledge to sustainability challenges relating to advancing development of agriculture, habitation, energy and materials, health and water while conserving the earth's life support systems. This year we will give some preference to applicants whose work addresses challenges of innovation for sustainable development, with special attention to innovation in the energy, health and agricultural sectors. In addition to general funds available to support this fellowship offering, special funding for the Giorgio Ruffolo Fellowships in Sustainability Science is available to support citizens of Italy or developing countries who are therefore especially encouraged to apply.

The Sustainability Science Program is directed by Professors William Clark and Michael Kremer, and Nancy Dickson.

For more information on the fellowships application process see http://www.cid.harvard.edu/sustsci/fellowship. Applications are due December 1, 2010.

The Need for Well-Rounded, Holistic Thinking

Above, a typical sight in Indian (or other developing country) toilets. The lack of running water and improper drainage means the toilets clog and don't work. Would you use this toilet?? Below, a woman sweeps raw sewage that is blocking a drain. Right next to it, runs a water pipeline. Both are cases of irresponsible design and engineering.

The "Aid World" (i.e. all the organizations/companies involved with the collection, distribution, and disbursement of international aid) desperately needs more holistic thinking. Without it, little sustainable change will happen.

Recently I was approached by a group of people looking to fund "sanitation schemes' in India. I sat them down to get a better idea of what exactly they were looking for. They wanted to "build toilets in Indian schools that educated the poor," they said. Besides that, I could "let my imagination go." I asked them what budget they had in mind. "Well, I've heard that you are a good person. So just write something that makes sense." (This was my mistake...I should have nailed down a number before moving on...a lesson I've learned since!!) But I was inspired. Finally someone who trusted my judgement!!

So I sat down and wrote something up. I thought about all the problems I had encountered in the field over the years -- random water pipes that either connected to nothing or a a dried up well, toilets that failed because they had no water access, and horrible sewage overflows from badly designed systems. These had taught me the importance of thinking holistically. If I ever got a chance, I had promised myself that I would design differently, more holistically.

The first thing I did was assume that the prototype school had to be in a village with good water access. Regardless of what people say, unless you've been brought up with them, dry or waterless toilets remain unused, particularly when you are dealing with uneducated people.

Then I designed the toilet. And I tripled the number to be built. What people don't realize is that few things in poor areas work. And when something works, the whole village or slum or community starts to rely on it. So even if the toilets were designed for the school, chances are that the whole village will start using them at some point. Better to design with that in mind, rather than have a war break out between the school authorities and the villagers (I have heard about these cases!), atleast until there is money to build toilets in the village proper. Besides, its not such a bad thing to give adults a reason to come to the school!!

The sewage had to go somewhere in a safe way. So I designed a very basic treatment system, that let grey water irrigate the prototypical kitchen garden that the school would have.

Then I designed the water system. A simple one that would incorporate a water filtration mechanism for drinking water (this involved electricity...but i would downsize to something more appropriate depending on local electricity and water conditions).

Thus, I had a good holistic system in place. I did a basic set of calculations and proudly marched over to hand the proposal into the folks I had spoken to. They took one look and turned me down flat.

"What is all this nonsense??" they snarled, "We just wanted to build some toilets. Why are you putting all this unnecessary stuff in?? I know how much building a toilet costs!! And this is too much." I tried explaining where I was coming from and why I had put in the extras. I even offered to cut my fees down. But they refused.

This isn't something new. Even as I speak, several thousands of "aid" toilets are being built around the world without a care to the local geographical conditions, or socio-economic conditions. It is enormously frustrating to be called up later, during a cholera outbreak or some other public health disaster and know why it was happening in the first place.

If we are to build better systems, build more holistically. Its more expensive in the short term, but will pay huge dividends in the future.

The stupidity of short-term thinking

photo courtesy: Innaminnafly

I'm flying to Europe for six weeks in August (and I won't be blogging much during that time as I know you are all dying for a break! :-) ). And, I'm VERY VERY annoyed at the airline industry right now.

Travel is a luxury item, and with the economy struggling as it is, only crazy people (like me) who are footing their own bills or business people who have someone else footing their bills are doing the traveling. The once high-flying (pun-intended) airline industry is struggling to pay their own bills, and is consequently trying to punish anyone who is trying to help them out.

Normally, with packed flights through most days of the year, airlines keep peak season rates relatively low. But with such low demand, airlines are trying to make their profits entirely in the peak season...so poor, unfortunate idiots like myself are stuck with abnormally high rates. (I try my best to avoid peak traveling seasons in general, because I dislike crowds intensely. But this time, I had no choice.)

This is what I call stupid short-term thinking. While they make money in the short-term (really??), in the long-run, they are "shooting themselves in the foot." And here's why:

• They are losing on the majority of people sitting on the fence about traveling. I know plenty of people who suddenly have a lot of time on their hands and have been contemplating traveling, but have given it up because of the exhorbitant rates. Airlines are betting on the few who HAVE to fly, not on the potential of people who might fly if their deals were better.

• They are losing out on customer loyalty. What few airlines realize is that a lot of frequent travelers are loyal, and are powerful word-of-mouth marketers. I am loyal to Virgin Airlines for example (amazing customer service and in-flight service!!), and Southwest Airlines, and I used to be to JetBlue before their customer service started sucking. When you bully people into doing things they don't want to do or don't think is fair, they will hold it against you. In this case forcing us to pay unfair fees and putting up with awful customer service while it will get us this time, will lose us in the long run (this is why I will NEVER fly Northwest/KLM again!)
  

• Allowing poor business practices to continue, even flourish: The larger US Airlines have the absolute worst service in the world, and they have no excuse. For years, the US government notoriously protected their airline industry, allowing awful business practices to endure. When the markets finally opened and protectionism was terminated, these "institutional airlines" (US Airways, Delta, American Airlines, United, etc) struggled. Their burgeoning bureaucracy made them inefficient against innovative, nimble, emerging airlines like Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, Frontier, and others. The older airlines have only survived by capitalizing on their monopoly routes, their loyal customers, and building alliances with better airlines around the world.

Still struggling, the institutional airlines turned to stupid short-term thinking, taking their ire out on the customers. Fly one of them and you'll find yourself paying for everything. None of the institutional airlines have on-demand entertainment, a common availability amongst every first-world airline. If you want it, you pay for it. Many of these airlines are locked into lengthy and heavy contracts with labor unions; so their staff are often old, cranky, angry people who have seen a once glorious job go sour. Naturally their customer service is terrible. Further, they've cut down on seat spacing, have aging fleets, ancient in-flight entertainment, and make you pay for everything, including your water and your luggage (in addition to your already sizable airline ticket).

Its ridiculous to me that these airlines are thriving in this economy. And why?? Because the now cost-conscious consumer is forced to go with the cheapest deal, not the best airline. While hunting around today, for example, Delta Airlines was charging $1121 for a round-trip ticket to Paris; Lufthansa, a relatively superior airline, was charging $1600 (which is currently average for all non-American carriers). Normally, I would pay the extra $100 or $15o over Delta just to get better service. But this time, I can't even afford the $1121. But its my only choice, so I take it. So here we have it...the market is working against us and them.

Yes, airlines have investors and shareholders. But shareholders are reasonable people. Everyone knows that the economy is doing terribly. It would be ridiculous to expect that Delta would churn out record profits at this time...

My point is this...short-term thinking, without considering the bigger picture is very stupid and dangerous. While the ailing US institutional airlines continue to get through another year, its only a matter of time before they will have to bow out. After all, GM just did...only a matter of time with the rest...

Links I liked

1. What's really good and green in food... a GREAT guide that I've started using for food.

2. A refreshing look at the new MBAs, who actually have a conscience and believe in changing the world in the right way.

3. Is venture funding really the best way to get funding for your startup?? Maybe there's a better system.

4. Recycling bins from around the world.

5. How two friends built a $100M company for household cleaning products.

Getting Kids Involved in the Poverty Dialogue

Get kids involved in the dialogue early! (photo courtesy: Josh Hough)

BOPreneur blogger, Paul Hudnut has written an excellent blog entry about getting kids engaged in the poverty dialogue. He provides 6 ideas for moving forward:

It is that time of year... students are coming back on campus, faculty are scrambling to finalize syllabi. Sustainable design, social entrepreneurship, and and international development are hot topics on campus. If you are a teacher planning coursework in these areas (or at their "intersection"), or if you are a student that wants to do a project in one of your classes, check out these resources [...]

On that Food note again

Right, I'll be quiet after this one (I think). Here's a great site about sustainable food and cooking and all (this is all a result of watching King Corn!).

http://cookingupastory.com/index.php/category/food-news/

Here's one of their stories about a guy who envisioned a sustainable restaurant:

An opinion: Oprah's Big Give

the cast of Oprah's Big Give. (photo credit: www.oprah.com)

Oprah's Big Give was something I was excited truly excited about. First off, I love her talk show, and I truly respect and admire what she has made for herself. She's funny and fabulous. She walks her talk. Essentially, she's great. But her Big Give show sucks!

Why does the Big Give suck? Its ridiculously unrealistic and it teaches people/reinforces bad philanthropy habits! I guess the point of the show is to get us to realize that we, i.e. anyone, can do something. We should all care and help. And we can!! But the way of doing it is just bad. Done right, this could be powerful...but it isn't and its annoying. So here are my big issues with it:

1. It teaches people to throw money (sometimes in the form of stuff) at a problem: Philanthropy is NOT about money ONLY. Philanthropy is about caring, and caring for a while. I think the show is set around people caring for a short period of time and rallying around a cause (maybe because the camera is there). What happens after they leave?? I don't know about this case, but I do know about several other cases where the short-term momentum has killed a good project or killed someone's coping abilities. For example, the problems were often long-term, but they focused on short-term solutions...which is what money is. How about coping and money management?? What about their lack of skills??? And that takes me to my next point.

2. It doesn't force people to think long-term: This was obvious from the very beginning. Let's take the guys who "won" the first episode. Two guys went and helped a family who had just lost their father in a tragic shooting incident. The mother was worried about her mortgage. So the guys called around and got a bunch of money. They then took the kids on a Target shopping spree. They emerged with carts of stuff, most of which I wondered if they really needed and about how long it would serve their needs. And more than anything else, I wondered if they had lost their house, where the heck were they going to put all that stuff?? This is a continuous problem in the show (and with most donors). You can't just throw money or stuff at a problem. You can only solve it with a little more well-rounded thinking and more holistic solutions.

3. I don't get their definition of "person in need": Ummm...i'm sorry, but some of the people on the show who have been defined as "victims in need" are better off than myself and many of the people I know or have known in my life. For example, the "plastic surgeon from South Central LA" who needed people to help pay off his medical school loans. I know many professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) who have come from adverse circumstances, paid off their loans, and done a lot of community service...a couple of them called me up and scoffed. A plastic surgeon?? come on!! If he cares so much, he'd work for two years, pay off his loans and then spend the rest of his life doing service. Or in the second episode where a restaurant owner who had three cars gets another free one just for hosting a fundraiser at his place. (we won't go into the gas consumption of those vehicles either that they gave away...how is that helping a poor person get on their feet!!). I have more, but we'll leave that...and its been only two episodes!

Part of the problem is the judging itself as they set the tone. While the host and judges are nice people, I wonder how much they really understand the idea of need, philanthropy (granted they are involved in philanthropic efforts, but being involved can be at different levels!), or the particularly crucial need for sustainability in philanthropy.

My biggest pet peeve is the lack of long-term thinking in the philanthropic industry (and among donors). This is for various reasons which I will discuss later...particularly that they lack the understanding or economic incentive to do so. This NEEDS to change, and Oprah's Big Give is perpetuating a bad situation. Come on Oprah...your show needs a makeover!! (you can hire me and i'll help fix it).

Its sad that a show with so much potential is just not thinking big itself...

Good technology comes from good institutions

I spent a lot of time at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) until a few months ago. What makes me most proud about having been involved with that institution is that it is a true laboratory of genius - minds work together, not for the money or the fame, but for the beauty and purpose of technology itself, that it should help others. The university provides the space, the creative minds, facilities, and some funding to get students started up. From there, genius evolves. Its not surprising that some of the world's greatest minds and technologies are born there.

Recently, MIT has taken on a major energy and sustainability drive. The energy drive was first driven by student interest. They organized themselves and brought on board faculty and more students. Then the political climate became such that energy was the hot topic. Soon the university embarked on a major energy initiative. Now the whole University is working together to devise better technologies to address the incoming energy crisis. I have no doubt that they will succeed.

Similarly, when graduate students found that MIT's energy bill was a ridiculous 100 million dollars a week, they decided that something had to be done. They organized a sustainability drive, bringing together a group of undergraduate and graduate student projects that all addressed various sustainability issues across campus. Its now a movement to "green" MIT. Yesterday, NPR did a great piece on it. Check it out here.
http://www.here-now.org/shows/wed.asp

There are many universities that do projects like this, but there need to be more. And there needs to be more invested in projects like these. More universities nationally and internationally need to provide this type of environment for budding minds to flex their intellectual muscle for the good of mankind.