Changemakers, an initiative of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, focuses on the rapidly growing world of social innovation. It provides solutions and resources needed to help everyone become a changemaker and presents compelling stories that explore the fundamental principles of successful social innovation around the world.
Changemakers has just announced the finalists for its "That Was Easy Competition: Leaders in the Young Changemaker Movement."
55 organizations led by young people all across the country participated in this collaborative competition hosted by Youth Venture and Staples, in collaboration with Changemakers, to celebrate the power of young people and to draw attention to the important and growing movement of young changemakers. Their entries reflect how the creativity and passion within young people are changing the world one community at a time.
Five finalists were selected by the Judges Panel for their outstanding impact, innovation, and potential. As a member of the Changemakers community, you are invited to vote for the Grand Prize Winner from one of the five finalist teams. Prizes include $1,000 grant for the winning venture, a consulting opportunity at Staples Headquarters, and $5,000 Staples shopping spree!
Visit Changemakers: That Was Easy from now until April 9 to cast your vote! The Grand Prize Winner will be announced at an Award Celebration at Staples Headquarters on April 27.
Post your comments, questions, and insights and be part of the change that matters. While visiting the site, create your own profile and start meeting other Changemakers today.
What are you waiting for? This is a vote for the future!
28 March 2007
Clean Tech: CNN reports on "Dirty side to clean energy investing"
Steve Hargreaves writes on CNNMoney.com about the increase in venture capital investments in the Clean Tech sector, which The Green Skeptic reported on last week: Investors. Hargreaves asks whether this is a good thing.
"Venture capital is sexy: The glamour of bringing a new business to market, the promise of big returns, the risk of losing it all," writes Hargreaves. "There's no doubt this fast money plays a big role in building the businesses of tomorrow - especially those in the burgeoning alternative energy sector, which has seen funding triple over the past four years.
"But venture capital investors often bank on a relatively quick payback, and have high expectations for the firms they back. Those expectations have sparked debate among renewable energy financiers: Is too much venture capital money a bad thing?" Hargreaves writes:
"Venture capital is sexy: The glamour of bringing a new business to market, the promise of big returns, the risk of losing it all," writes Hargreaves. "There's no doubt this fast money plays a big role in building the businesses of tomorrow - especially those in the burgeoning alternative energy sector, which has seen funding triple over the past four years.
"But venture capital investors often bank on a relatively quick payback, and have high expectations for the firms they back. Those expectations have sparked debate among renewable energy financiers: Is too much venture capital money a bad thing?" Hargreaves writes:
Venture capital flowing to renewable energy firms has surged to almost $3 billion last year from just over $1 billion in 2002, according to the data tracking firm Cleantech Venture Network.Read the full article here: CNNMoney
"There's just a ton of money trying to invest in companies," said Matt Cheney, head of MMA Renewable Ventures, a San Francisco-based renewable energy finance company.
That's good for startups looking for cash, so long as they can become profitable relatively quickly.
The typical time frame for venture capital firms - which provide cash and provide management expertise usually in exchange for part ownership - is three to five years, according to one venture capitalist.
"Money doesn't have a lot of patience in general," said Cheney. "I'd say eight out of 10 of these operations don't go anywhere. And for those eight, it gets pretty ugly."
26 March 2007
Innovation: "Zero is the New Black," Godin Says
Seth Godin notices when things are changing. Today, he's picking up on the buzz going around New York and "No Impact Man":
"The richest and best-educated people in our economy are shifting, and pretty quickly. They're just as willing to spend money as they always were, but now it's not focused on fancy organic stuff at the Whole Foods Market or giant bulletproof cars from Germany or private jet travel. Instead, the market is trying as hard as it can to spend time and money without leaving much of a trace," Seth writes. "I think this story has legs and is going to be around for a long time. Zero is the new black."
Read Seth's complete post: Seth Godin
Check out No Impact Man's blog
"The richest and best-educated people in our economy are shifting, and pretty quickly. They're just as willing to spend money as they always were, but now it's not focused on fancy organic stuff at the Whole Foods Market or giant bulletproof cars from Germany or private jet travel. Instead, the market is trying as hard as it can to spend time and money without leaving much of a trace," Seth writes. "I think this story has legs and is going to be around for a long time. Zero is the new black."
Read Seth's complete post: Seth Godin
Check out No Impact Man's blog
24 March 2007
Global Climate Change: Gore's Proposal Makes Sense, says Washington Post
The Washington Post's Warren Brown, writing in his column to be published in tomorrow, says that former veep Al Gore's proposal to Congress earlier this week "actually made sense, especially on the matter of fuel economy and its relationship to global warming." And he offers a challenge to Congressional leaders on the issue, include Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
"That's gutsy and smart," Brown writes. "Gore's proposal embraces the reality that energy conservation is a two-part problem involving industries and their consumers. It recognizes that trying to solve the problem by working only one side of the equation, the industrial side, is doomed to ultimate failure."
The challenge, according to Brown, is for Congress to get beyond its usual wishy-washy encouragement of energy conservation and stop pretending that you can put the burden of carbon reduction -- or paying for the right to pollute -- on industry. He observes that Gore, as a "free man" not a candidate, can suggest such things as higher energy taxes, because he's no longer in anybody's pocket. This isn't the case for Boxer and others who, Brown asserts, practice a sort of "voodoo environmentalism."
By turning a blind eye on the consumer responsibility, in other words, Congress neglects to remember what their mothers taught them, that a burden shared is a lighter load.
Read Warren Brown's commentary in the Washington Post.
"Don't single out cars and trucks," Gore said, adding that carbon emissions from motor vehicles constitute "a slice of the problem," and not the biggest slice at that.
He went on to suggest that Congress abandon its habitual blame-shifting, responsibility-dodging approach to energy conservation. He asked his former colleagues to draft legislation that would require contributions from all Americans -- industrialists and retailers, politicians and consumers. Yikes! Gore even called for increased taxes on fuels via taxation of carbon content.
"That's gutsy and smart," Brown writes. "Gore's proposal embraces the reality that energy conservation is a two-part problem involving industries and their consumers. It recognizes that trying to solve the problem by working only one side of the equation, the industrial side, is doomed to ultimate failure."
The challenge, according to Brown, is for Congress to get beyond its usual wishy-washy encouragement of energy conservation and stop pretending that you can put the burden of carbon reduction -- or paying for the right to pollute -- on industry. He observes that Gore, as a "free man" not a candidate, can suggest such things as higher energy taxes, because he's no longer in anybody's pocket. This isn't the case for Boxer and others who, Brown asserts, practice a sort of "voodoo environmentalism."
By turning a blind eye on the consumer responsibility, in other words, Congress neglects to remember what their mothers taught them, that a burden shared is a lighter load.
Read Warren Brown's commentary in the Washington Post.
22 March 2007
Global Climate Change: "Just Call Me Al..."
Okay, I don't take back what I said yesterday morning about the need for Al Gore to pass the torch on the climate change issue -- the coverage about the politicization of the issue in the wake of his Congressional testimony has supported my arguments.
But, damn, if the Woodman hasn't drunk a bit of Bill Clinton-juice or perhaps Letterman and Leno have become his coaches. The guy was downright charming and funny.
Only he missed an opportunity to quote Ronald Reagan's "There you go again..." in response to his detractors!
But, damn, if the Woodman hasn't drunk a bit of Bill Clinton-juice or perhaps Letterman and Leno have become his coaches. The guy was downright charming and funny.
Only he missed an opportunity to quote Ronald Reagan's "There you go again..." in response to his detractors!
21 March 2007
Global Climate Change: Gore on the Hill, Will He Hurt the Cause?
No one has brought more attention to the issue of global climate change than former veep Al Gore. He has been doing so for 15 years. His film garnered the attention of Americans and scooped up an Oscar for best documentary. His efforts even earned him a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. And people have listened.
But on this, the first day of spring, as Mr. Gore prepares to testify before Congress, the skeptic in me is beginning to wonder whether he is the best spokesperson for the issue now, as we hit the tipping point.
Of course, I've said it before: it's hard to separate Gore the climate spokesman from Gore the Democrat. Indeed, I've complained that much of An Inconvenient Truth seemed like a disingenuous bid for a presidential candidacy. (I know he denied it at the Academy Awards, but there are many with a sneaking suspicion he will run again.)
And with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and now once skeptical Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), leading the charge on the issue, it's beginning to take on a troublesome partisan patina. Troublesome, in part, because such partisan posturing could engender a backlash.
A recent National Journal poll found that only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
This is troublesome indeed for those of us who believe that the science is confirmed and who want to turn the debate to solutions, especially economic opportunities that address the potential impacts.
Where is the Republican leadership on this issue? Sure there's the Governator, but I also think of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD). Then there is Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who went to Alaska with McCain a couple of years ago and underwent a Saul/Paul conversion.
Arguably, there are many facets of climate policy that appeal to Republicans, such as increasing security through diversifying our energy supply and realizing the potential impacts of a new economy based around energy technologies.
What we need is for a bipartisan or non-partisan spokesperson to emerge and take the torch from Mr. Gore. Any takers?
But on this, the first day of spring, as Mr. Gore prepares to testify before Congress, the skeptic in me is beginning to wonder whether he is the best spokesperson for the issue now, as we hit the tipping point.
Of course, I've said it before: it's hard to separate Gore the climate spokesman from Gore the Democrat. Indeed, I've complained that much of An Inconvenient Truth seemed like a disingenuous bid for a presidential candidacy. (I know he denied it at the Academy Awards, but there are many with a sneaking suspicion he will run again.)
And with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and now once skeptical Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), leading the charge on the issue, it's beginning to take on a troublesome partisan patina. Troublesome, in part, because such partisan posturing could engender a backlash.
A recent National Journal poll found that only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
This is troublesome indeed for those of us who believe that the science is confirmed and who want to turn the debate to solutions, especially economic opportunities that address the potential impacts.
Where is the Republican leadership on this issue? Sure there's the Governator, but I also think of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD). Then there is Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who went to Alaska with McCain a couple of years ago and underwent a Saul/Paul conversion.
Arguably, there are many facets of climate policy that appeal to Republicans, such as increasing security through diversifying our energy supply and realizing the potential impacts of a new economy based around energy technologies.
What we need is for a bipartisan or non-partisan spokesperson to emerge and take the torch from Mr. Gore. Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)