"It Was Twenty Years Ago Today..." The Green Skeptic at 20

Today, twenty years ago, I typed out my first blog post with a mix of uncertainty and conviction. “Why Blog? and Why The Green Skeptic?” the title asked—questions that would shape my next decade and a half of writing about environmental pragmatism, clean energy, and social innovation.

As The Green Skeptic, I carved out a unique space between environmental advocacy and market-based pragmatism. Working at The Nature Conservancy then, I saw firsthand the need for voices that could bridge ideology with practical solutions. One of my most effective early posts, “Caring, or A New Conservation Ethic,” first posted in 2005, challenged traditional environmental messaging and advocated for a more inclusive approach to conservation that acknowledged economic realities and people’s concerns. 

A 2008 post, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Protecting and Saving,” argued that everything we thought about saving or protecting ecosystems and habitats was wrong and we needed to unleash human creativity to find new technological solutions as well as new ways of living with nature.

The blog evolved to tackle emerging challenges and opportunities. My piece, “The Coming Disruption—Lead It or Follow It,” from 2011, argued that partisan ideology on both sides was getting in the way of facing the systemic problems of our way of life. (Still true today!) Another 2011 post, “A Tale of Two Cleantech Companies” offered a critical analysis of what worked—and what didn’t—in the emerging green economy, a deep dive I explored in a case study format at the IMPACT investor conference that year. Exploring the intersection of faith and environmentalism in a two-part post on “The Evangelical Environmental Movement” sparked important conversations about building broader coalitions for climate action.

Some of my proudest moments came from highlighting changemakers like Kalyan Paul and his work with Grassroots International, showing how social entrepreneurship could drive sustainable development. The post “What Keeps You Up at Night?” resonated deeply with readers, examining the personal stakes of environmental challenges. My analysis of “Philanthropy & Environmental Change” pushed for more effective deployment of charitable resources to support environmental causes. (It also led to my being introduced to the woman who is now my wife.)

As clean technology and social entrepreneurship emerged as critical areas of interest for me—I moved from the Conservancy to the social venture capital organization Ashoka, and then into my own consulting practice, VerdeStrategy, before landing with EY’s cleantech and power and utilities practices—expanding the blog’s focus into these areas. This evolution led to unexpected opportunities, including a three-year run as a commentator on Fox Business with Varney & Co., where I brought these nuanced perspectives to a broader audience.

The Green Skeptic on Fox Business in 2010

For ten years, I maintained a steady dialogue with readers about everything from microfinance innovation to personal environmental choices, as captured in posts like “Falling Up, Or The Choices We Make May Be Our Own,” part of which led me to write a short memoir called Falling Up, several years later. The blog became a space not just for commentary, but for imagining better futures, exemplified in pieces like “IMAGINE The Man Who Cared,” my reflection on John Lennon’s inspiring legacy of activism. Another post explored the impact of one of my boyhood heroes, Roberto Clemente, who died tragically trying to deliver aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. 

While The Green Skeptic’s final post came in September 2019, its spirit of questioning assumptions and seeking practical solutions lives on in my current writing—from regional features and profiles in Berkshire Magazine to exploring new frontiers in psychedelic-assisted therapy for Terrain.org and Lucid News. I still have another, occasional blog, Scott Edward Anderson’s Poetry Blog, where I post mostly about poetry, and my essays are regularly published in various publications.

The media landscape has transformed dramatically since 2004, with Substack and Medium newsletters replacing individual blogs. But that early blogging experience taught me something invaluable: the power of putting thoughtful perspectives into the world without perfectionism getting in the way.

Twenty years later, we need independent voices willing to challenge assumptions and bridge divides more than ever. So, here’s to The Green Skeptic—not just for what it was, but for how it helped shape the conversations we’re still having today about building a more sustainable future.

10 Favs; 10 Years: Philanthropy & Environmental Change -- Should Social Capital Markets Take Over?

Back in October 2007, I had an exchange with my friend Lucy Bernholz about philanthropy as an agent of change in the environmental sphere (I was still working for The Nature Conservany). Lucy, as it happened, introduced me to my (then future) wife, Samantha, via LinkedIn a few days after this post with the immortal words, "You two should know each other." Thank God for social media...

Here is my post on "Philanthropy & Environmental Change -- Should Capital Markets Take Over?"


I'm taking up a friendly challenge here.

Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, and I started a blogalog (Did I just coin that term?) between our blogs about the state of philanthropy and environmental change.

The author, Samantha, and Lucy in New York, 2012.

It began in response to Lucy's listing of green blogs in the wake of Blog Action Day last Monday, and her noting the lack of discussion of philanthropy on the sites listed (including mine).

My defense stemmed from a concern about philanthropy and its effectiveness as an agent of change in the environmental sphere, which actually was the origin of this blog. I have grown increasingly concerned about the ability of traditional philanthropy to effect lasting change at a pace commensurate with the global challenges we face.

I expressed this concern in my essay for GreenBiz, "Confessions of a Green Skeptic," several years ago about the Earth Charter.

Back then (March 2003), I wrote, "we need to demonstrate how profitable being green can be, and how essential it is to a truly global sustainability. If we can turn the greed motivation to green motivation, effectively turning it on itself, does the means justify the end? Hard to say. But if greed isn't going away anytime soon, we are left with trying to redirect the motivation any way we can. Guilt has worked, but only gets us so far. 'Envy trumps guilt' every time."

This sentiment was influenced by Thomas Friedman's thoughts on the subject expressed in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, that "if conservationists are going to get ahead of the greedy we need to move faster. 'For now, the only way to run as fast as the herd is by riding the herd itself and trying to redirect it,' Friedman writes. 'We need to demonstrate to the herd that being green, being global, and being greedy can go hand in hand.'"

And it was echoed by Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison in their book, The New Economy of Nature, from which I quoted, "the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest."

Things have changed quite a bit since I wrote that essay -- the world has gotten flatter, green has become the new black, Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, and the herd has started to move to greener pastures.

But a lot hasn't changed. In Philanthropy, as Susan Raymond points out in a two-part piece called "Does Philanthropy Scale?," the "vast majority of American nonprofits are small; 60 percent or more...have less than $100,000 in annual revenue." And, Raymond notes, "the average foundation grant to nonprofits is on the order of $25,000."

Raymond also points out that "the number of nonprofits with $10 million or more in revenue has increased by 73 percent in the last decade," and asks, "when $25,000 is the average grant, is philanthropy the answer to organizational growth? Indeed, is it even relevant as a source of capital?"

I'm going to quote one more thing from Raymond's essay: "The evolution of microfinance teaches that, when what had been a philanthropic initiative matures and proves its worth, alternative capital sources step in and redefine the opportunity. Is achieving scale, then, the clue for philanthropy to either evolve or exit? And, if so, do we need to rethink what we mean by 'philanthropy' for large organizations or proven initiatives in social markets?"

I quote Raymond's piece at length because it corroborates some of my own thinking on this subject. She rightly points out that the biggest advantage of philanthropic capital is its "ability to take significant risk, to seed a promising idea and recognize that all promising ideas can be failures."

So risk tolerance or tolerance for failure, playing on the field of ideas and at at the edge of problems "where the probabilities of success are unknown, is the key playing field for philanthropy."

For many ideas, perhaps chief among them those addressing environmental issues, it may be time for other types of capital to be brought to bear. I'm particularly interested in what Raymond describes as "a multiplicity of approaches to organizational finance in the nonprofit sector...for self-reliance, sustainability, and (yes) profit" to come to the stage.

This is not far from what Lucy refers to as "tri-sector solutions," such as the B Corporation she has described or the bond purchase strategy Raymond describes in her piece. (In the latter, Raymond explains, "'Donors' took on the role of guarantor rather than funder, and the resources flowed at levels that donations would never have been able to sustain.")

Elsewhere in the web pages of onPhilanthropy, John Bloom of RSF Social Finance, posits that "social finance holds that the purpose of money and finance is to support human initiative and to foster the evolution of new community."

And, Bloom suggests, social finance recognizes "the human and environmental consequences of economic activities...[and] presents a picture of a healthier sustainable future -- and one that leaves behind the industrialist model of philanthropy..."

I will continue this dialogue here on The Green Skeptic, because I think it is an important one, and part of an ongoing, evolving thought process for me that started over four years ago and which led to this blog. Thanks to Lucy for calling me out about it and fostering this dialogue.

From The Green Skeptic Archives: Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Should Social Capital Markets Take Over?

Deep SEA. Photo by Mickey Rosenau

[Note: While on hiatus this week, I'm posting selections from The Green Skeptic Archives. This one was originally posted on 23 October 2007.--SEA]

I'm taking up a friendly challenge here.

Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, and I started a blogalog (Did I just coin that term?) between our blogs about the state of philanthropy and environmental change.

It began in response to Lucy's listing of green blogs in the wake of Blog Action Day last Monday, and her noting the lack of discussion of philanthropy on the sites listed (including mine).

My defense stemmed from a concern about philanthropy and its effectiveness as an agent of change in the environmental sphere, which actually was the origin of this blog. I have grown increasingly concerned about the ability of traditional philanthropy to effect lasting change at a pace commensurate with the global challenges we face.

I expressed this concern in my essay for GreenBiz, "Confessions of a Green Skeptic," several years ago about the Earth Charter.

Back then (March 2003), I wrote, "we need to demonstrate how profitable being green can be, and how essential it is to a truly global sustainability. If we can turn the greed motivation to green motivation, effectively turning it on itself, does the means justify the end? Hard to say. But if greed isn't going away anytime soon, we are left with trying to redirect the motivation any way we can. Guilt has worked, but only gets us so far. 'Envy trumps guilt' every time."

This sentiment was influenced by Thomas Friedman's thoughts on the subject expressed in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, that "if conservationists are going to get ahead of the greedy we need to move faster. 'For now, the only way to run as fast as the herd is by riding the herd itself and trying to redirect it,' Friedman writes. 'We need to demonstrate to the herd that being green, being global, and being greedy can go hand in hand.'"

And it was echoed by Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison in their book, The New Economy of Nature, from which I quoted, "the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest."

Things have changed quite a bit since I wrote that essay -- the world has gotten flatter, green has become the new black, Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, and the herd has started to move to greener pastures.

But a lot hasn't changed. In Philanthropy, as Susan Raymond points out in a two-part piece called "Does Philanthropy Scale?," the "vast majority of American nonprofits are small; 60 percent or more...have less than $100,000 in annual revenue." And, Raymond notes, "the average foundation grant to nonprofits is on the order of $25,000."

Raymond also points out that "the number of nonprofits with $10 million or more in revenue has increased by 73 percent in the last decade," and asks, "when $25,000 is the average grant, is philanthropy the answer to organizational growth? Indeed, is it even relevant as a source of capital?"

I'm going to quote one more thing from Raymond's essay: "The evolution of microfinance teaches that, when what had been a philanthropic initiative matures and proves its worth, alternative capital sources step in and redefine the opportunity. Is achieving scale, then, the clue for philanthropy to either evolve or exit? And, if so, do we need to rethink what we mean by 'philanthropy' for large organizations or proven initiatives in social markets?"

I quote Raymond's piece at length because it corroborates some of my own thinking on this subject. She rightly points out that the biggest advantage of philanthropic capital is its "ability to take significant risk, to seed a promising idea and recognize that all promising ideas can be failures."

So risk tolerance or tolerance for failure, playing on the field of ideas and at the edge of problems "where the probabilities of success are unknown, is the key playing field for philanthropy."

For many ideas, perhaps chief among them those addressing environmental issues, it may be time for other types of capital to be brought to bear. I'm particularly interested in what Raymond describes as "a multiplicity of approaches to organizational finance in the nonprofit sector...for self-reliance, sustainability, and (yes) profit" to come to the stage.

This is not far from what Lucy refers to as "tri-sector solutions," such as the B Corporation she has described or the bond purchase strategy Raymond describes in her piece. (In the latter, Raymond explains, "'Donors' took on the role of guarantor rather than funder, and the resources flowed at levels that donations would never have been able to sustain.")

Elsewhere in the web pages of onPhilanthropy, John Bloom of RSF Social Finance, posits that "social finance holds that the purpose of money and finance is to support human initiative and to foster the evolution of new community."

And, Bloom suggests, social finance recognizes "the human and environmental consequences of economic activities...[and] presents a picture of a healthier sustainable future -- and one that leaves behind the industrialist model of philanthropy..."

I will continue this dialogue here on The Green Skeptic, because I think it is an important one, and part of an ongoing, evolving thought process for me that started over four years ago and which led to this blog. Thanks to Lucy for calling me out about it and fostering this dialogue.

From The Green Skeptic Archives: Roberto Clemente: A Howitzer for an Arm, An Ocean for a Heart

[While I'm on hiatus this week, I thought I'd post some gems from the Green Skeptic Archives. This post originally appeared in December 2005.--SEA]

In an earlier post on John Lennon, I said that he was one of three people who taught me about caring. The other two were my Aunt Gladys Taylor and Roberto Clemente.

It seems appropriate to write about him on this, the 33rd Anniversary of Clemente's tragic death, when he and four others crashed into the Atlantic Ocean while flying relief supplies to Nicaraguan earthquake victims.

"Some right fielders have rifles for arms," said Tim McCarver. Clemente "had a howitzer." He also had an ocean for a heart.

Roberto Clemente was born on 18 August 1934, in Barrio San Anton in Carolina, Puerto Rico. He played baseball in the major leagues from 1955 until 1972, the year of his death, all with the Pittsburgh Pirates.

The first Latino Hall of Famer, Clemente finished his career with a .317 batting average, 440 doubles, 166 triples, 240 home runs, and 1,305 RBI in 2,433 games. He hit exactly 3,000 hits, knocking a double in his very last at-bat. I have a framed photograph of this hit in my house.

I was born in Providence, Rhode Island, and grew up between there and Boston, along the Route 1 Corridor, 45 minutes from anywhere. I am a lifelong Red Sox fan, followed them religiously throughout my life, which encompassed three World Series losses before the 2004 season.

So how did I become a fan of Roberto Clemente, who played his entire career in the National League on a team in a city nearly 600 miles from my hometown?

I'm not sure what it was that first attracted me to number 21. I started reading about him in the peak of his career, maybe it was the writers' adjectives. Late at night, I could pick up a Pittsburgh station on the radio and listen to his feats in the "green fields of the mind."

The old television series "This Week in Baseball," showed me Clemente's "howitzer arm." He easily threw runners out as they tried to stretch a double into a triple, which was always a mistake against Roberto. Curt Gowdy on NBC brought me the All-Star Game and the 1971 World Series against Earl Weaver's Orioles. Clemente batted .414 in that World Series.

However, something else drew me to Clemente. I am part Portuguese on my mother's side, and in southern New England at the time, probably still, this came with a certain sense of insecurity. "Pork'n'cheese," my Scotch-Irish father used to joke; I had the dark olive skin, black hair and dark eyes of a "Portagee" kid.

The ribbing and insults caused me to be ashamed of my Portuguese heritage for a long time. Yet the more I learned about Roberto Clemente's difficulties on and off the field dealing with prejudices against Hispanics and African Americans, the more I felt a kinship with the right fielder.

For one entire summer, I wore only a t-shirt someone (an Aunt or Uncle?) had given me from a trip to Puerto Rico. It bore one of those economic maps displaying what products came from which area, where the big hotels were, and baseball fields. I knew Clemente had played for the Santurce Crabbers, so I circled the city with a pen.

My mother finally had to throw out the t-shirt I had worn it out. I stormed off to my room and wouldn't speak to her for days.

On New Year's Eve 1972, Roberto Clemente boarded a small DC-7 to deliver food, clothing and medicine to victims of a devastating earthquake in Nicaragua. Clemente, who led the Puerto Rican relief effort, and four others died when the four-engine plane, with a questionable past and an overload of cargo, crashed into the Atlantic. This was a major league baseball player, mind you, putting his life on the line to help others. He cared.

I wanted to name my second son Roberto, after my boyhood hero. Their mother didn't think "Roberto Anderson" worked too well, so we went with her suggestion, Walker, after the Walkers Percy and Evans.

One day, after our son Walker was born, I showed him the framed photograph of Roberto's 3,000th hit, which is mounted with two Clemente baseball cards from my childhood and a postcard of his plaque from the Hall.

"I wanted to name you after this guy, one of my heroes," I told him. It was then I looked at the plaque saw that my hero's mother's maiden name was Walker.

An astounding coincidence? My Walker and his twin sister were born on 18 August 2003, which would have been Roberto's 69th birthday.

Roberto Clemente Walker was 38 when he launched his ill-advised relief mission in that DC-7. No one could persuade him not to go. He cared that much.

Make Loans. Tell Stories. Change the World: Vote for Epic Change on Ideablob

Epic Change is terrific social enterprise started by social entrepreneurs Stacey Monk and Sanjay Patel. I've been watching and supporting Epic Change in various ways over the past year and a half and am exceedingly impressed with their results-oriented, innovative approach.

Readers of the green skeptic know that stories are important to me; in fact, I've written extensively about the power of stories to change the world and have developed and led workshops to help organizations learn how to tell their stories more effectively.

Epic Change helps hopeful people in need share their stories to acquire resources that will improve their lives. They believe that people's stories are assets that can be used as pathways out of poverty. They help people in need share their "epic," true stories in innovative, creative, and profitable ways to help them acquire the financial resources they need to create positive "change" in their communities.

Stacey and Sanjay's story has been told very well in a variety of places such as here and here. And they are leaders in using social media to spread the word about social change.

Now Epic Change has an opportunity to win USD$10,000 through the IdeaBlob competition currently up at idealblob.com.

But this isn't just about winning the money. As with everything I've seen from Epic Change, it's about OUTCOMES.

Epic Change plans to build a technology lab at a locally led primary school in Tanzania so that children, teachers, and parents in the community can access a whole new world of information and enter global conversations by using social media to share their stories online.

Already, the school's founder, Mama Lucy, is blogging on the Epic Change site (Updates from Mama), and even has a Facebook page where she's already posted a note asking folks to begin voting tomorrow.

According to Stacey, they've had "20 great laptops donated and have procured basic software through TechSoup - now we just need to get the computers to Tanzania, build a facility that will also serve as the school's first library, and imaginatively get this remote classroom access to the web."

So, what are you waiting for, got to IdeaBlob.com and vote for Epic Change.



This blog post is part of Zemanta's "Blogging For a Cause" campaign to raise awareness and funds for worthy causes that bloggers care about.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Vote for an Epic Idea at IdeaBlob (digitalphilanthropy.blogspot.com)
• Zemanta's Blog for a Cause, Group Write Project - FAQ (luke.gedeon.name)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Global Philanthropy Forum: Live Blogging Continues

Day Two of Global Philanthropy Forum started with stirring, impassioned, and inspirational speech on Human Rights and its many abuses by Kerry Kennedy.

She was kicking off a plenary on the issue with Kenneth Roth from Human Rights Watch, Paul van Zyl, who founded a transitional government consultancy, Sidney Harman of Harman International, and Keith Leisinger from Novartis.

Van Zyl practically put the current administration on notice when he suggested the potential need for a review of the human rights abuses of the past eight years.

Roth spoke mostly about Human Rights successes, until he was challenged by two audience members: one from northeastern India, where the indigenous people are "legal targets," based upon a 1958 law, and the second who asked whether governments should boycott the Beijing Olympics. His answer: they should not go to opening ceremony, but not boycott the games.

But Sid Harman was the most engaging, telling stories about his own journey of ensuring the rights of his employees at Harman's various industries.

Harman's story of the Oliver, TN, autoparts plant and its transformation is worth hearing again. And they've been proactive in addressing domestic violence issues in their company.

Great to have an example of an enlightened leader among captains of industry -- and among more policy oriented activists.

Global Philanthropy Forum: You Call This Live Blogging?

I'm at the Global Philanthropy Forum this week, in Redwood City, and thought I'd try my hand at "Live Blogging," which is a buzz word I keep hearing.

First impressions:

Most international gathering I've seen. Usually, the ratio of Americans to Other Countries is pretty out of whack. Not here.

Also, plenty of representation from developing countries, which is a refreshing sign.

And a great showing of next generation reps, which explains why I am writing this now.

I wanted to be in the session on "Web-based, purpose-driven social networking." It was packed to the rafters. (Obviously a trend worth watching.)

Finally, there are the "Celebractivists" like Desmond Tutu, Peter Gabriel, and Annie Lennox.

Okay, more later.

Philanthropy 2.0: America's Giving Challenge

The Case Foundation and Parade Magazine has launched America’s Giving Challenge and will award $500,000 to nonprofits whose supporters attract the most unique donors to their cause using new and innovative online tools.

To "champion a cause" you must be a legal U.S. resident aged 13 years or older, using a valid credit card or other form of payment accepted by donation processing partners Network for Good and GlobalGiving.

There are two ways to participate:

Champion a Cause and have the chance to get $50,000 for the charity of your choice. The eight individuals whose charity badges attract the most unique donors through the America’s Giving Challenge will get $50,000 for their cause.

Give to a Cause and help the charity you care about get $1,000. The 100 nonprofits with the greatest number of unique donations made to them through America’s Giving Challenge will each get $1,000.

The Challenge will close January 31 at 3pm EST.

Check out the video one of GlobalGiving's staffers posted on YouTube:



Very cool stuff. And just in time for the holiday season you last minute shoppers!

(Disclosure: My longtime pal, Lee Kravitz, was editor of Parade when this partnership was begun. He has since left the magazine.)

Philanthropy 2.0: DonorsChoose on Wallstrip!

What happens when two of my favorite web gems come together?

Take a look as the lovely Lindsay Campbell of Wallstrip sits down with heartthrob handsome Charles Best of DonorsChoose.org. Charles does a fantastic job telling the story of how DonorsChoose came about and why it's successful. His enthusiasm is infectious and Lindsay, as only the best talk show hosts do, does a great job letting him shine.

I was so moved, I was the first to click the donate button on the Wallstrip Challenge. And partially funded a project in Brooklyn called "iPod as a Prize for Investing Guru," where 8th graders are learning how the stock market works by receiving a hypothetical $100,000 to "invest" over the course of the next six months.



Read more about my own recent experience with DonorsChoose: Green Skeptic Gives

You can watch Wallstrip daily from my sidebar below, right.

(Disclosure: Charles Best is an Ashoka Fellow; I currently work for Ashoka. Further disclosure: long on Wallstrip; long on DonorsChoose.)

(Updated with embedding fixed - thanks, Adam!)

Philanthropy: DonorsChoose.org, a gift that keeps giving

Philanthropy can be a thing of beauty when it goes well. The donor is pleased to make a contribution to a worthy cause, those in need are helped directly, and an efficient market is created around an exchange of values.

I recently had such an experience with an innovative new approach to philanthropy called DonorsChoose.org. (In the interest of full disclosure, DonorsChoose founder Charles Best is an Ashoka Fellow and, while I recently went to work for Ashoka, I did not have any role in selecting Charles as a Fellow.)

My story goes like this: Charles came up with a new way to reach a potential new audience on line, blog readers. He approached some of the top bloggers in the U.S. and asked that they post a challenge to their readers during the month of October.

The challenge also had a competitive aspect, as the top bloggers were competing with one another to reach more readers and get them to take action. Support your favorite blogger by donating to a project on their list, thereby contributing to the cause, but also helping the blogger beat the other guy.

I'm a regular reader and fan of fellow blogger Fred Wilson, the Union Square Ventures VC, whose blog A VC is on my Google Reader feed. Of course I wanted to help him beat the competition, and I have been curious about DonorsChoose for some time.

So, when his challenge was posted, I followed the link to Fred's DonorsChoose Challenge page and found a project I could get behind, "An Invite to Write." A teacher in a rural North Carolina school, located between Hickory and Boone, wrote the proposal:

"I teach 21 3rd graders at Sawmills Elementary School. Forty percent of my third graders are considered at-risk students in reading/writing," she wrote. "I am currently attending ASU to earn a Master's Degree in Reading Education. I would like to make writing more enjoyable for my students as well as myself! In my graduate classes, I am learning new and exciting ways to integrate writing into all areas of the curriculum."

The need? To create a writing station "in our classroom which will hopefully "invite my students to write." I would like for the students to be able to write letters, compose poems, or go to the station to write freely in their journals. In the writing station, the students would have access to construction paper, envelopes, stationary, colored pencils, pens, pencils, erasers, etc."

Her idea was to prepare these students for the statewide reading test they must pass in 4th grade. "More importantly," she wrote, "it is my goal to help my students become better writers, and to instill a love for writing.

As a writer, this appealed to me right away. It's also a place I'm familiar with because my mother-in-law lives about an hour from there.

The request? The cost of an easel on wheels, a tabletop writing center and a classroom mailbox is $391, including shipping and fulfillment. My $100 contribution would help them get towards their goal, clearly having an impact. (The goal was met six days later.)

My gift had an immediate impact. I felt good and Fred was on his way to meeting his challenge and winning lunch with Jerry Yang of Yahoo. (You can read more about that story, and what Fred did with that lunch, here.)

I received a prompt receipt and thanks for my contribution; very efficiently handled by DonorsChoose.

This would have been a nice story if it stopped there. But it didn't.

A few days ago, I received an email in response to my donation. One of the DonorsChoose sponsors of the Blogger Challenge had provided a gift certificate worth $100 for me to apply to another project.

This time, we searched for a project closer to home, in Philadelphia. We found one called "Making Science Come to Life," a subject my son loves. The school is in North Philly and the request came from an 8th Grade science teacher who wanted to equip her new science lab with materials: 8 dissection instrument sets, sorting trays, a periodic table poster, and 7 rocks and minerals sets. Very cool.

But that’s not all, when we went to make the donation last night, we found the project was 85% of the way toward its goal, meaning our $100 gift certificate could complete the funding!

In other words, my original contribution was leveraged three times: 1.) funding the first project; 2.) helping (however modestly) Fred rise to the Challenge and get the Jerry Yang lunch (and you have to read about what he did with it -- awesome; and 3.) funding this science project in North Philly. Wow.

I can't express how this makes me feel. My gift was leveraged, the projects are funded, the teachers will inspire their students, and students in two classrooms will have a better educational experience this year. Who knows? Some of the students may become writers or scientists, as a result.

An efficient market for philanthropy recognizes that donor-to-recipient exchanges are not just about cash contributions or transactions; they are an exchange of value and values. Kudos to DonorsChoose for making this possible -- and to Fred for rising to the challenge.

DonorsChoose is now supporting public schools in all 50 states. You can even create a Gift Registry, as I've done to encourage family and friends to give a gift that keeps giving.

This holiday season, consider donating through DonorsChoose.org. You won't regret it.

Innovation: 13 Days Left to Give One, Get One XO Laptop Per Child

Only 13 days left to give an XO laptop to a child somewhere in the world and get one for your child -- or to give away to someone needy in your neighborhood. This is a great idea I've blogged about before.

One learning child. One connected child. One laptop at a time.

The mission of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) is to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child. In order to accomplish our goal, we need people who believe in what we’re doing and want to help make education for the world’s children a priority, not a privilege. Between November 12 and November 26, OLPC is offering a Give One Get One program in the United States and Canada. During this time, you can donate the revolutionary XO laptop to a child in a developing nation, and also receive one for the child in your life in recognition of your contribution.

Find out more: One Laptop

Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Should Social Capital Markets Take Over?

I'm taking up a friendly challenge here.

Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, and I started a blogalog (Did I just coin that term?) between our blogs about the state of philanthropy and environmental change.

It began in response to Lucy's listing of green blogs in the wake of Blog Action Day last Monday, and her noting the lack of discussion of philanthropy on the sites listed (including mine).

My defense stemmed from a concern about philanthropy and its effectiveness as an agent of change in the environmental sphere, which actually was the origin of this blog. I have grown increasingly concerned about the ability of traditional philanthropy to effect lasting change at a pace commensurate with the global challenges we face.

I expressed this concern in my essay for GreenBiz, "Confessions of a Green Skeptic," several years ago about the Earth Charter.

Back then (March 2003), I wrote, "we need to demonstrate how profitable being green can be, and how essential it is to a truly global sustainability. If we can turn the greed motivation to green motivation, effectively turning it on itself, does the means justify the end? Hard to say. But if greed isn't going away anytime soon, we are left with trying to redirect the motivation any way we can. Guilt has worked, but only gets us so far. 'Envy trumps guilt' every time."

This sentiment was influenced by Thomas Friedman's thoughts on the subject expressed in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, that "if conservationists are going to get ahead of the greedy we need to move faster. 'For now, the only way to run as fast as the herd is by riding the herd itself and trying to redirect it,' Friedman writes. 'We need to demonstrate to the herd that being green, being global, and being greedy can go hand in hand.'"

And it was echoed by Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison in their book, The New Economy of Nature, from which I quoted, "the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest."

Things have changed quite a bit since I wrote that essay -- the world has gotten flatter, green has become the new black, Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, and the herd has started to move to greener pastures.

But a lot hasn't changed. In Philanthropy, as Susan Raymond points out in a two-part piece called "Does Philanthropy Scale?," the "vast majority of American nonprofits are small; 60 percent or more...have less than $100,000 in annual revenue." And, Raymond notes, "the average foundation grant to nonprofits is on the order of $25,000."

Raymond also points out that "the number of nonprofits with $10 million or more in revenue has increased by 73 percent in the last decade," and asks, "when $25,000 is the average grant, is philanthropy the answer to organizational growth? Indeed, is it even relevant as a source of capital?"

I'm going to quote one more thing from Raymond's essay: "The evolution of microfinance teaches that, when what had been a philanthropic initiative matures and proves its worth, alternative capital sources step in and redefine the opportunity. Is achieving scale, then, the clue for philanthropy to either evolve or exit? And, if so, do we need to rethink what we mean by 'philanthropy' for large organizations or proven initiatives in social markets?"

I quote Raymond's piece at length because it corroborates some of my own thinking on this subject. She rightly points out that the biggest advantage of philanthropic capital is its "ability to take significant risk, to seed a promising idea and recognize that all promising ideas can be failures."

So risk tolerance or tolerance for failure, playing on the field of ideas and at at the edge of problems "where the probabilities of success are unknown, is the key playing field for philanthropy."

For many ideas, perhaps chief among them those addressing environmental issues, it may be time for other types of capital to be brought to bear. I'm particularly interested in what Raymond describes as "a multiplicity of approaches to organizational finance in the nonprofit sector...for self-reliance, sustainability, and (yes) profit" to come to the stage.

This is not far from what Lucy refers to as "tri-sector solutions," such as the B Corporation she has described or the bond purchase strategy Raymond describes in her piece. (In the latter, Raymond explains, "'Donors' took on the role of guarantor rather than funder, and the resources flowed at levels that donations would never have been able to sustain.")

Elsewhere in the web pages of onPhilanthropy, John Bloom of RSF Social Finance, posits that "social finance holds that the purpose of money and finance is to support human initiative and to foster the evolution of new community."

And, Bloom suggests, social finance recognizes "the human and environmental consequences of economic activities...[and] presents a picture of a healthier sustainable future -- and one that leaves behind the industrialist model of philanthropy..."

I will continue this dialogue here on The Green Skeptic, because I think it is an important one, and part of an ongoing, evolving thought process for me that started over four years ago and which led to this blog. Thanks to Lucy for calling me out about it and fostering this dialogue.

Innovation: Hacking Philanthropy Sessions, Hosted by Union Square Ventures

Imagine a room packed with a ton of brain power, knowledge, and expertise from the world of venture capital, technology, social change, and philanthropy and you've some idea what I walked into yesterday up at Columbia's Casa Italiana.

Brad Burnham, Fred Wilson, and Andrew Parker of Union Square Ventures -- the Three Tenors of New York's Silicon Alley -- brought together an illustrious gang for a day to talk about "Hacking Philanthropy," or how to bring philanthropic pursuits into the 21st century.

The participant roster was an all-star cast, including Charles Best from DonorsChoose.org, Premal Shah from Kiva.org, nattily attired Craig Newmark from Craig's List, Graham Hill of Treehugger.com, Red Hat and Lulu founder Bob Young, Dick Costolo, co-founder of Feed Burner, Victoria Vrana from Venture Philanthropy Partners, Tom Watson of Changing Our World, my new colleagues from Ashoka, Sushmita Ghosh and Leslie Crutchfield (whose new book, Forces for Good should do for non-profits what Jim Collins' Good to Great did for the private sector), Meetup.com Founder Scott Heiferman, Tom Reis from the estimable Kellogg Foundation (the only old guard institution represented), Jason Paez from the youth-centric start-up Party 4 A Purpose, Ashoka Fellow and Idealist founder Ami Dar, and even newly anointed MacArthur genius Saul Griffith of SQUID Labs. Quite a powerful group. (Not to mention we were joined at lunch by Maya Lin, who gave us an early look at her latest work in progress.)

The collective power of the group was exemplified by the conversation, which ranged from the potential for lightweight web services to increase the efficiency, reach, and effectiveness of philanthropy to wrestling with real-life business process issues. For eaxample, how to help Kiva close the gap between the numbers of on-line lenders versus certified microlending institutions in the field or why DonorsChoose, which currently focuses on putting school teachers in need with donors, could extend its reach to include other projects and pursuits.

For me, this event was timely. I have long been concerned about the state of philanthropy, among them: 1.) big institutions are so wedded to process and priority setting that they forget it's not about what we're selling to donor-investors but about what they are buying, 2.) that traditional philanthropy is still perceived as old fashioned, inefficient and stodgy, 3.) that, in fact, perception is reality, and 4.) that we risk losing the potential for catalyzing the network effect because we're focused on the wrong things. I could go on, and so could have this group.

It was a lively dialogue and, hopefully, just the beginning of an ongoing conversation among the participants. For now, kudos to the USV gang for bringing this group together. I have the impression it could be the start of something remarkable. Perhaps the full impact of our conversation yesterday will surface down the road and we'll be able to point to this session as a catalyst.

Innovation: Lucy Bernholz & "B Corporations"

I've been following with interest Lucy Bernholz's discussion about the idea of a hybrid "B Corporation," that mixes the social values proposition of the non-profit sector with the results-oriented, business-like approach of the for-profit sector. The goal is to create "a new designation for commercial enterprises that actively seek to produce social and environmental benefits along with profits."

Working in the nonprofit sector for as long as I have, I can attest to the description Lucy provides in her post from Tuesday of this week. It's hard to move toward sustainability when you are relying on OPM and can only provide a values exchange as return on their investment. That's why so many nonprofits (or citizen sector, if you don't want to be defined by what you're not - ugh) organizations struggle, chase the money, or just can't muster the tools to meet the high standards of accounting and transparency that we've demanded of the for-profit sector.

"Why is it so important? Everyone who has ever worked in, volunteered for, or donated a nonprofit organization knows how hard it is for these entities to raise the money they need to do their work. By creating a new type of corporate designation, organizations that focus on social, environmental goods will gain access to new kinds of capital. Once there are a few successes, the capital markets will shift accordingly. New types of financial products, new access to capital for public benefit organizations, and, eventually, perhaps, a new norm for fiduciary responsibility."

This is an innovation worth exploring, and I hope more people will join the conversation about how to move in this direction.

Read the full post @ Philanthropy 2173

Microfinance: Silicon Valley Microfinance Network Hosts Kiva & Prosper

Check out these presentations by Premal Shah of Kiva.org and Chris Larsen of Prosper.com from the recent Silicon Valley Microfinance Network Meeting. Worth a look:

Kiva

Prosper

For more on Silicon Valley Microfinance Network

What Are Your "Right Questions"?

We all have questions we need to ask of ourselves, others, and our businesses. But what are the right questions?

Seth Godin, in his little book that tells you when to quit (and when to stick), asks you to ask:

"Is this a Dip, a Cliff, or a Cul-de-sac?"

"What chance does this project have to be the best in the world?"

"Are you avoiding the remarkable as a way of quitting without quitting?"

These are questions I wrestled with recently in thinking about my old job versus my new opportunity. When I could answer those questions, I made my decision.

Before I left TNC, I was trying to get answers to a few of questions that I (and donor-investors) need answered about our priorities:

1. What change has been affected by our actions and strategies?

2. What places are protected that may have been lost?

3. Whose lives are improved?

4. Why could the change not have happened without us?

I still think they are the right questions and, slightly tweaking the second one, are adaptable to any business.

Lucy Bernholz, in a post last week on her excellent blog Philanthropy 2173, suggests three questions for donors to ask themselves:

1. What do I care about enough to dedicate my time and money to?

2. Who can help me do it?

3. How do I know if they are doing a good job?

What are your "right questions"?

Social Entrepreneurs: Philanthropy and the Changing Business of Giving

Over on the Enterprising Ideas blog, part of the PBS NOW series on social entrepreneurs, they are talking about the latest report on giving in America. According to the report, charitable giving by Americans rose 4.2% to $295.02 billion in 2006, setting a record for the third-straight year.

Great news, of course. But what really got my attention in this blog post comes from blogger Lucy Bernholz, who writes the excellent blog about the "business of giving" called Philanthropy 2173. I track Lucy's blog and am always intrigued by her observations.

The blog post begins with commentary from the Enterprising Ideas staff, following up on a description of "product and service innovation" and the "commercialization of philanthropy."

"Not surprisingly, social entrepreneurs —- entrepreneurs with a humanitarian mission -— are also behind many of the new projects that facilitate donations and investments. Bernholz said social entrepreneurs are playing a major role in how the tools and mission of philanthropy are changing:

'There’s this whole industry of giving that social entrepreneurism is a part of largely because very smart businessmen have entered the field and are very excited about it.'

The post goes on to say, "Now that it's becoming 'more and more possible to make money by doing good,' as Bernholz puts it, there should be more willingness to invest in social entrepreneurs and their projects. After all, the social entrepreneurs are the people who are creating financial opportunities for doing good, says Bernholz. Like Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and South Shore Bank in the Midwestern United States."

“'We’ve entered a period of philanthropy like no other,' explains Bernholz, 'because the federal government has gotten out of the business of funding domestic programs.' Foundations and individuals are picking up the slack by providing resources to projects—and many social entrepreneurs. Even if the government increases its commitment to domestic programs, Bernholz believes social entrepreneurship and its hybrid approach—drawing on strategies from the market as well as the public sector—to solving serious problems is here to stay:

"'The problems people are trying to solve are not caused by any single sector so no single sector can solve them.'"

Read the full blog post (and check out other posts and information about the program): Enterprising Ideas and Better Ideas.

And check out Lucy Bernholz's Philanthropy 2173 (You can also find out why it's called what it is...although Woody Allen fans can probably make a good guess.)