Harmonies and Greenery

How the energy world might be able to learn from publishing

2011-07-12T00:06:00.000-04:00

A beautiful book, combining two seemingly irreconcilable ideas--printing and sustainability.

A few weeks ago, I announced that I would start talking about how the energy world might learn some lessons from the tech startup world.

Well, seeing as I work in publishing, and mainly in the online space--I figure I'll start there. I spend a fair amount of time reading about and evaluating the massive changes in the industry, while also trying to anticipate further changes and making sure (as a 24 year old could possibly) that our publication comes out on top.

A lot of the changes are being addressed by tech startups, trying to hack publishing and save (or do the opposite) to the news industry.

I came across a better than usual post today on gigaom regarding "why the chaos in media might be a good thing," mainly citing a recent blog from Clay Shirky. Shirky went so far as to say that not only is it a good thing, but a necessary one at that. Chaos fuels the right kinds of innovation--and it allows for competition. How else might we be forced to discover new ways to report, spread news, and understand the world in which we live?

I agree with him wholeheartedly. At no point did the insightful NYU professor and theorist say that innovating and sustaining the publishing and specifically news industry would be easy--but he persuasively argued that even what we are doing online is not rapid nor innovative enough. The revolution has started already (as opposed to happening a few years from now). The layoffs are real, the ad dollar shifts are real, and the fact that one of the more popular documentary films out in theaters at the moment is about The New York Times--well, it speaks volumes.

One of Shirky's best arguments was against loyalist, niche audience reporting (that's not really news now, is it) and for crowdsourcing events, facts, images, etc through citizen reporting. Rather than cutting costs by cutting jobs, cutting costs through engaging your readers and citizens who are consuming your publication could be an interesting experiment (and it's already happening--look at all of the hyper local news sites out there, along with sites like Storify that create stories wrapped around social media).

He also wisely says: "None of the models being tried today are universally adoptable; the most we can say is that each of them happens to work somewhere, at least for the moment." This is where the energy analogue finally hit home for me. Having worked on the film FUEL, my biggest takeaway from that experience was that there is no one perfect substitution for oil, that which we've depended on and developed for for over 150 years. Rather, there is a barrel of solutions, changing depending on the location, the need, and the community.

Just like there is no one solution to saving the news and publishing industry, there's no one obvious turnkey (gosh, I hate this word, but I just keep using it--in real life, not just blogosphere life) solution to replacing oil.

Moving on from Shirky--what struck me about the gigaom post was the following bit:

"In general, Shirky’s point seems to be that innovation and experimentation need to happen before anything becomes clear, and he is undoubtedly right on that score. Unfortunately, as I wrote recently, that kind of startup-style impulse is sorely lacking in most mainstream media entities, who are content to incrementally dip their toes into new media tools and projects without really trying too hard. Why do something radical when you can just put out an app and throw up a paywall?"

Aha, Mathew Ingram, you've got my attention! It's mainstream and institutional fear that holds publishing back, just like it holds the energy world back. I've seen it myself.

What if oil companies focused more on innovation and experimentation (indeed they are dependent on a completely non-renewable, limited resource--they should be a little more afraid), and less on lobbying to keep their subsidies and inordinate amounts of power?

I'll admit--I'm a sucker for the Exxon commercials that focus on algae. But even algae is old news.

I read a piece earlier today on the power of harnessing seawater and using nuclear fusion (yes, fusion!!!) to supply the world's energy demands. This is the kind of crazy innovation and experimentation the energy world could use.

Maybe, if we as people viewed our dependency on energy as we do our dependency on consuming the news every day, we would have more people working on revolutionizing the industry, akin to that of publishing.

Now--we just need a Clay Shirky for the energy world. Anyone want to step up to the plate?

~peace

eb

Stealth Mode.

2011-06-02T12:03:00.000-04:00

I’m excited to announce that I’m currently working on a stealth interactive product that we hope will help to engage more people around the process of international development.

We’ve got quite the team together, and will be building this over the next 9 months or so.

If you’re interested, whether from a strategic, technical, or creative standpoint, get in touch.

harmoniesandgreenery@gmail.com

~peace

eb

Pencils of Promise

2011-05-18T14:05:00.000-04:00

Today, I'm donating my blog to one of my favorite social enterprises.

Pencils of Promise—check this great organization out. They build schools and ensure students and kids around the world have the ability to write, and thus learn. They even go one step further and train and empower the socially conscious around the globe to take their own action to improve education standards.

You can donate your blog too...get the word out about allowing writing (and eventually typing) for all!

peace

~eb

Why the energy world should learn some lessons from the tech startup world

2011-05-16T10:55:00.001-04:00

(taken from willobrien.wordpress.com--an entrepreneur's blog--and this is perfect for representing the environment fusing with the startup world)

So, it's been awhile since I've posted here. I know, it's bad. But what's not bad is that I've been writing about clean tech and tech startups for The Economist (who by day, employs me to work on new product development and community engagement online).

I'm in a unique position here. Most people on the business side don't work in editorial. And I am most definitely on the business side. But due to some external factors including my hobbies outside of the office and some experience working on business research for the EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit), I've been allowed to do both. Let me make this clear--I in no way allow what I do on the business side to influence who or what I write about editorially.

What is cool is that by covering start ups in the tech space, I've been able to facilitate some pretty exciting conversations and meetings for The Economist online, in partnership with my artistically minded boss.

Clearly, before this role, I spent most of my time trying to cover the energy and environment spaces. I'm still extremely keen on working in and around these areas, and keep up to date on what is working and not working, especially in regards to clean technologies and alternative energy. But more of my time is now taken up by covering start ups.

The evolving shape of my interests and editorial coverage has thus put me in a unique place to juxtapose the energy and tech startup spaces. What I've learned thus far is that energy could use an influx of startup technologists, venture and angel funders, and innovators from Silicon Valley and Alley (i.e. NYC) to help really elevate clean tech to a game changer!

What is it about the tech startup world that works? Why are so many companies launching, raising money, putting out interesting products, and some are even making lasting impacts?

And while there may be a bubble (mind you not as big as the late 90s/early 2000s), energy should look at what the founders and funders of these companies are doing, with a keen eye and an open mind.

This is what I'll be exploring over the next few weeks here on Harmonies and Greenery. And to keep music in the mix, I'll also be using tech startups and what they are doing to disrupt the music industry as an example for energy to look to as well!

peace (and sorry for the break between posts--below my signature, you may find a link to some of my more recent Economist pieces)

~eb

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/eating_algae

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/location-based_services

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/different_type_business_conference

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/infographics

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/05/old_and_new_media

Timely Psychological Update to my Energy and Awkward First Date Post!

2011-02-28T15:07:00.000-05:00

Wow. There's a psychological term for the experience I have had, cited in my post on how the energy conversation is like a long, awkward first date, below. It's called the "hyperpersonal effect" and I read about it in this column today in the Huffington Post.

This author Cristen puts it very well: "To the same extent that online dating allows people to hide certain flaws, it can also foster intimate communication quicker than in-person interactions. Researchers refer to this tendency as the "hyperpersonal effect." But when you suddenly feel a deep connection with someone you've only briefly interacted with online, don't start fantasizing about a blissful future together. The hyperpersonal effect can easily spoil your first in-person date if you've built up an idealized version of a potential partner in your mind."

I personally think we're fantasizing about all of the conversations we are having at energy conferences, and forums (COP ahem), and expecting a whole lot more than we really should. I think the hyperpersonal effect has extended into the energy conversation.

How the heck do we fix this!? I'm going to do some deep psychology reading into this this week.

If you've got any ideas--email me. harmoniesandgreenery@gmail.com

peace

~eb

Erica's obsession with algae and food continues...

2011-02-15T21:29:00.000-05:00

But this time, my post made it to The Economist! Read it here.

peace

~eb

How life (and the energy conversation) are like a long, awkward first date

2011-02-11T17:30:00.003-05:00

Today, a friend of mine sent me a link to an article about finding love--rather specifically, in the Modern Love column of the NY Times, the article entitled "GPS on a Path to the Heart." This friend and I frequently speak about dating, the ups and downs, the frustrations, and the basic lack of self-awareness I have in regards to what I want as an outcome from my gallivanting about New York City. I think we did reach a breakthrough today however (to end that bit on a more positive note).

The thing is--neither of us are looking for a long term relationship at the moment. But this article was talking a bit comedically mind you about modern ways of attracting other mates (i.e. via texting, Twitter, using Craigslist and having people apply to date you). We all know how much I love Twitter--so my attention finally caught on there.

The columnist, Daniel Jones, was talking about "seducing" other people on Twitter, via a mysterious picture (i.e. one where you may not be able to exactly see what a person looks like), but can ascertain that they are A) attractive and B) through their tweets--it's apparent they have a "good" personality (they've got the "wit" in "Twitter").

A back and forth may begin (which I personally like to call "flittering"--my portmanteau for twitter flirting), but then what? The in-person meet cute will be almost ridiculously impossible to live up to after all of the "twitty" banter back and forth online, right?

Jones says, "Of course, it’s almost impossible in these circumstances for the encounter to live up to the fantasy. Which is the downside of imagining one’s romantic future based on a smattering of thumbnail images and glib phrases. Which is increasingly how we meet each other these days. Uh-oh."

Yes--uh-oh. The question emerges: How do we better personify our online glib selves into our actual in 3-D person to person interactions (with even more depth and honesty of course)? The first thought that came to mind was along the lines of allowing more silences to pervade our conversations--time to think and filter what we say. But I don't foresee the penetration of the "awkward silence" increasing in the near future.

The reason I'm even talking about this relationship commentary on a blog supposedly about music and the environment, is that I see this pervade both the music industry and the environmental movement (and energy industry too).

Let's focus on energy (for now). If you spend any amount of time reading about energy--regardless of your political leaning--whether it be in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, NY Times, The Economist, Time Magazine, The Guardian, (insert any news source you like here--you get it)--there is not a lack of strong arguments (especially for increasing our clean energy and clean tech). Arguments are well-formed, sometimes bipartisan, sometimes non-partisan, and most have a substantial precedent in talking about that which they address (in that we've been dependent on energy, no matter the form, forever ish). We even know the background to some extent of the people formulating these arguments, and a lot of the time--they should be doing what they are doing.

These articles are glib. What? Didn't I just argue that they are well-formed? Well yes--they are well-formed. They are somewhat persuasive. At a basic level, they make sense. In adding political context and economic and financial context, further understanding may be brought to the table as to why our economy does not in fact have more clean tech. But--they are glib (definition: lacking in intellectual depth) for the previous reason. It's rare that a holistic reference appears in each article (i.e. they assume previous or background knowledge to a point) and most importantly, they aren't as easily brought to 3-D person to person interactions!

In no way am I arguing that all of these articles talking about energy are not incredibly valuable and important and sometimes even policy shifting. What I am saying is that the energy movement still is failing to deeply engage those it needs to engage most. Like the environmental movement for the last 40+ years, we are still disengaging those we need most to make lasting changes.

Is it the job of the journalists to fix this? No. They're already all doing a seriously awesome job covering the issues. But we're missing an integral layer in the human interactions and conversations surrounding energy, and an even thicker set of layers for that surrounding the environment.

We're missing the human layer. The layer that brings online banter and conversations to life, and really begins an invigorating, two-way relationship. Like dating (especially online), the most important moment is the first few minutes of your real 3-D interaction. But, from what I've witnessed, we're missing out on this unbelievably short but valuable time, and jumping straight to the point.

Take this date that I went on the other night for example. We messaged back and forth for around 3 weeks before we met in person. We both cared about international relations, had similar childhoods, loved to travel, liked good indie music (or so I thought), and were excited about where we lived (NYC). But what we failed to do was take a step back, and allow for the seemingly unimportant banter back and forth of the first few minutes of meeting a potential romantic partner. We didn't let anything build up...we'd already said so much in our emails, that we treated our in person interaction as a continuation of the emails.

What's so exciting about first dates is not in fact a deep conversation about issues you care about--but the simple treasures you can find out about another person (hobbies like rock climbing, that they had a really silly broken bone story from college, or that their last date was ridiculously awkward, you get my point). It's the in-between the lines stuff that really builds a relationship that is more comfortable--one where both parties can actually dig deeper eventually, feeling as though there has been some give and take on a lesser layer or plane, what have you.

We're missing this fluffy comfort level in our energy conversation. The environmental movement has a heck of a lot more layers to build--but I think the energy conversation is a lot closer to being understood on both sides. But what we have yet to build is that cushy layer of comfort and trust between all parties.

I don't really know how to step backwards from where we are and reestablish each actor involved as a real person. I think some developmental psychology, and some dating advice could in fact come in hand. Just like romantic relationships, we need to have a strong ground from which to build a longer lasting sustainable human relationship into energy issues.

But many of our movements have started off with strong online conversation, and excruciatingly terrible first dates. How do you build a substantive, fulfilling relationship after your first date didn't meet your expectations?

It's pretty darn hard. And I think that's akin to what we're up against with energy and the environment--a bad first date that's extended for a darn long time.

Has anyone ever had an absolutely wretched first date, and then ended up with the person? I would bet this is the case (and I know of friends who have). This is what gives me hope (both for myself, and for the energy and environmental movements of course).

More on the music industry and dating next time! Happy Valentines Day in advance, and here's to turning what's been a long and unpleasant first date into a sustainable and engaging relationship around energy.

peace

~eb

A new song from one of my favorite band's upcoming third album

2011-01-25T23:05:00.000-05:00

Because this makes me unendingly happy. That's all.