Steve Michel’s Journal of Lateral Modernism************************ Vol. VI• No.7•August. 2006
Monetizing Conservancy and Re-newable Energy
By Steve Michel
Monetizing civil society projects to increase their social and economic relevance? There exsit many many NGO development projects aimed at conservancy project to protect eco-systems and promote responsible use of natural resources. These projects are marginalized by their isolated applications. A-forestation projects in Brazil (ANDA) or another in Arizona or Nepal or Africa are run mostly by different NGOs and these exist along side local practises instead of being embedded in the social fabric. And a successful project in Tanzania never sets foot in Kenya- and vice versa. Often a rural project in a village that might benefit a whole country never becomes fully mainstream on a national level. Governments do not take small projects seriously or know they exist. Often these ventures are funded by external NGO and are tenuous at best in the shadow of a market driven economy. Thus far only The Green Belt Movement(GBM) has embeded environmentalism into a social fabric by combining feminism with pro-active environmentalism; without monetizing the activities? No! the women are paid for their work. So monetizing may work to make valuable activities a means rather than an end.
What is being discussed here is focused on conservation projects that need support. It is not intended as some insiduous rhetoric aimed at endorsing free market ideology at the expense of democratic principles and the role governments in administering the public good. The fact is, conservancy has long been the domain of NGOs, individual efforts, and govermental legislations simply because the free market has little use for conservancy. It is high time conservancy made its way into the mainstream and economic framework of local, national and international levels. The role of governements, with its more objective approach, is ideal to carry out research and establish standards. But ,additionally, the work of conservancy needs to be rewarding and profitable for those who do the work and/or implement the solutions.
For example solar parabolic mirror cookers are a case in point: these simple metal solar reflectors can boil water in minutes to provide communities with clean boiled water and cooking heat while saving forests from decimation into firewood. These solar collectors are made and used in India, Ethiopia, and other countries not to generate electricity, but to simply cook food (a necessity to any living human on this planet). They evidently are very effective but have yet to become widespread where solar energy is abundant.
I remember when I was six, I lived in Haiti for two years on my uncle's experimental farm. He was pioneering polyculture techniques and I remember how lush plants were there. That was then- and this is now: funding for his research had long vanished and the trees there too have vanished due to economic pressure and few alternatives for the poor. There are few choices for them but cooking with wood.
But do not be fooled: the problem of deforestation is not caused solely by the demand for firewood. Instead, slash and burn farming for world markets and economic pressures are forcing the 'poor' to cut forests for any that comes to them with a wad of cash. Like many, they want to make money and large land owners in the Amazon basin are no different in wanting to turn their acres into cash. Even if the Brasilian governement has legislated conservancy and conservation, these laws benefit little if ignoring them is more profitable.
Parabolic solar collectors were not introduced there then or now even if they represent an ideal solution. Their distribution is sporadic if at all. In rural regions the local store can sell cigarettes and coca-cola but why not solar collectors? The poor have to be twice as resourceful than the rich and the practical solution for them is to use firewood-easily obtained were it grows. They cannot be accused of the shortsightedness that rich corporations have been guilty of committing for years. If alternative fuel items were sold the local supplier would then have to compete with wood as fuel. Of course wood is free so how could the local distributor compete?
That is the crux of the problem: if corporations have barely begun to understand the value sustainability how could the poor be blamed? After all, their lifestyles are so frugal and of extreme fiscal austerity by necessity that one can hardly ask them to do with less. Many are caught in cycles of poverty that encourage clear cutting and offer no reward for a-forestation. The Green Belt movement changed all that by showing a way out with tree planting and proactive conservancy. But the daunting challenge is how do these solutions become widespread if their users find no reward or lack the funds to implement them. Donations through NGOs are always localised and limited from becoming mainstream through insufficient funding.
But if consevancy were monetized, ie. embedded into the economic framework, then choices might open up. For example, if local distributors were to make solar collectors or wind generators available for trade or on micro-loans. Potential users realize the value of the item and later purchase it in full. Rural communities cooking with free solar energy would find value in saving time not collecting firewood. Other communities would demand these items and the distributors would find profitable to stock them. Rural catalogues might offer wind generator kits for sale or trade to run water pumps. Local jua-kali artisans would find it in their advantage to make them with greater skill. Also tree planting might become carbon offset investments that could be sold for greenhouse gas reduction credits. All that is needed are choices. Monetizing valid activities and choices may represent the next challenge not only in developing countries but in rich countries as well." Steve Michel 2006. .
Net neutrality or Net censorship?
Dick Armey's recent column on CNET News.com is long on criticism of the Christian Coalition but woefully short of facts about the Net neutrality debate.
In "Net ignorance of the Christian Coalition," Armey conveniently fails to mention that Net neutrality was the law on the Internet until 2005. The dramatic expansion and innovation that he lauds existed and was made possible because the law prior to 2005 prohibited Internet service providers and other providers from erecting toll booths on the information superhighway.
The Federal Communications Commission and the Supreme Court effectively abolished the Net neutrality requirement just last year. Instead of dramatically expanding federal regulation of the Internet, a Net neutrality requirement would be restoring regulation that has existed for most of the life of the Internet.
Armey's argument that secure private-property rights and consumer choice will preserve free speech on the Internet similarly ignores inconvenient facts. Most consumers have few, if any, real choices regarding their broadband Internet providers. As these companies consolidate and move to secure their own "private property rights," consumers will have even fewer choices.
The result is that fewer and fewer companies will have more and more control over what consumers see and do on the Internet. If the consumer does not like the services provided by his ISP, he or she will essentially have two choices: Take it or leave it. In a nutshell, this is Congressman Armey's philosophy of the free market.
Finally, Armey asks why the Christian Coalition would support a federal law forcing ISPs to treat pornography the same as family-friendly content. Protection of free speech includes speech with which we disagree. If ISPs are allowed to become the gatekeepers of the Internet, everyone's speech is at risk. Regardless of whether the ISP disagrees with the speech or merely finds that some speech is not as profitable as others, the end result is that the marketplace of ideas will be radically diminished.
We are already seeing ISPs controlling speech with which they disagree. For example, Time Warner's AOL blocked all e-mails that mentioned "www.dearaol.com", an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. BellSouth recently blocked its customers' access to MySpace.com in Tennessee and Florida. Net discrimination is real, it is occurring now, and is only going to get worse. READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
About The Author:
Caroline Fredrickson is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office.
......................................................................
Dalani News, is a monthly E-zine of environmental advocacy, science and technology articles, and afro-futurism. Dalani treads the fine line between the actual and a better world just around the corner..
Back issues 12/03,01/04, 02/04,03/04, 04 /04, 05/04, 06/04, 07/04, 08/04,09/04, 12/04,01/05, 02/05,03/05, 12/05,01/06 ,02/06,03/06 ,05/06, ,06/06, ,07/06,
The Green Belt Movement: Sharing the Approach and the Experience
.. get your copy..today
Disclaimer: The opinions and information presented and expressed are intended for discussion purposes. Pirates of the Carrabean news. is not featured on this site. Copyrights of externally referenced web pages belong to their respective owner(s).� Some sites may become inactive or modified. Please notify editor of any malfunctioning or missing pages .
© smichel design co. 2006 all rights reserved **********************contact:webmaster@dalani.com