Mycelium to the rescue

On Saturday, I headed down to the convention center to check out Seattle's second annual Green Festival. I went in without any real expectations for the event (a product of only previously attending festivals of this genre in Miami and the Keys), yet I came out with a feeling of incredible enlightenment. This was all thanks to the presentation Paul Stamets made on how mushrooms can save the world.

Wearing a hat made out of a massive dried mushroom, Stamets explained to us how mycelium (more or less the root system of a fungus) is a lifeblood to our species. He then described the methods by which mycelium can be used in bioremediation/ecological restoration, including its application in many common types of toxic spills.

What impressed me the most about his presentation was his constant transparency. Each major claim for the profound ability of mycelium was supported with empirical data observed by Stamets and his fellow mycologists. And the claims were many; ranging from saving his own house from carpenter ants, to reopening bodies of water in the PNW to shellfish harvesting, to creating an ultra-efficient source of renewable fuel. By the end of his 90-minute lesson, Stamets had constructed an almost irrefutable argument as to why mycelium is a natural resource that we must begin to utilize.

The solution is in Borneo

Late last month, my MBA program hosted Amory Lovins, who is the founder and head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a very progressive think tank in Aspen. Amory is also currently serving as a senior advisor to Ford (Motor Company), which he was quite proud to differentiate as the only one of the Big 3 not to receive bailout money. During his visit, he made a presentation about some of his innovative work in energy efficiency (go to www.oilendgame.com/index.html). However, it was his second presentation, for which he comically asked permission to give, that was the pinnacle of the evening.

This second presentation was not really about Amory at all. Rather, it was a narrative about his introduction to the prodigious work of Willie Smits, whom Amory met during his recent travels to Borneo. Willie is a Dutchman who has successfully created and implemented a blueprint for sustainable development on an island that is host to three countries! While his primary mission is quite unique in that he seeks to save the endangered orangutan through reforestation, Willie's operative model for achieving this is one from which we can all learn a great deal.

There are many aspects of Willie's model that are ripe for emulating. However, arguably the most valuable is its ability to restore biodiversity through careful reforestation. It goes without saying that the world's forests are home to many different plant and animal species. Yet, this biome continues to be destroyed at an alarming rate (approximately 13 million hectares annually). In response to this trend (and as a result of carbon neutrality initiatives and Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism), there has been an increased global effort in afforestation and reforestation. However, much of this effort has resulted in "tree plantations" that are mere monoculture replacements of areas previously rich in biodiversity. Ultimately, this allows for less than a fraction of the species that previously inhabited the forested area to return.

In stark contrast, Willie's model relies on more than 1000 species of trees and other plants to reforest areas in Borneo that were originally tropical rainforest. This has allowed for the return of what is by his count 137 birds species and 30 reptile species. Be sure to watch Willie's TED talk...he has quite a story to share.

Is it just me or is SRI being greenwashed?

I am just getting into the latest issue of OnEarth magazine, which has an interesting spread on how high-speed rail is "on its way" to California (by 2020). Our's is supposed to be operable here in Seattle this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Something that is here, and also consistently advertised in OnEarth (to explain my tangent), is socially responsible investing. Over the past few years SRI has really caught on as a viable investment strategy. So much, in fact, that as of 2007, 11% of the professionally managed investments in the U.S. were invested in SRI funds. Maybe I am a bit of an idealist, but to me that should translate to 11% of our professionally managed investments in this country being with companies using a business model that is conscious of its social and environmental impacts.

So, I took a look at three of the more recent additions to this investment arena to see just what they are made of; Goldman Sachs' GS Sustain Portfolio (launched 9/16/08), Northern Funds' Global Sustainability Index Fund (launched 3/5/08), and Wells Fargo's Social Sustainability Fund (launched 9/30/08). Although preliminary, my findings were telling: blatant greenwashing. All 3 funds contain each of the following in their top 10 holdings: a major oil company, Johnson & Johnson, and either Procter & Gamble or Cisco (Northern has both). Not that there is anything wrong with investing in these companies, but I seem to have seen this lineup before, and I believe its called large cap growth. Let me illustrate further. Fidelity's Contrafund, a large cap growth fund (and not a sustainability fund), has its major holdings in P&G, J&J, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Apple, Wells Fargo, etc. On the other hand, Wells Fargo's Social Sustainability Fund has its major holdings in P&G, J&J, Pepsico, Nike, U.S. Bancorp, BP, etc. What am I missing here??

Somehow, I think these SRI fund managers are under the impression that if they throw in an HSBC (the first bank seeking to become carbon neutral) or a Google (founder of google.org) - either of which each of these funds also holds - then they have a fund that is worthy of having sustainability in its name. I'd prefer they call it what it is.

Waste case.

This week's Economist had an interesting article on the lucrative waste business that is, like many industries, being dominated by global conglomerates. Among other things, the article highlighted a slightly disturbing fact in that developing countries are moving towards the privatization of this business. I am fairly confident that we have seen this scenario end in failure before. In fact, there seems to be a striking similarity between the privatization of waste disposal and the privatization of, say, water. Sure, these are two very different "public utilities," but the argument for relying on privatization to create efficiencies in the system is not necessarily a valid one in the context of a developing country. There is a notable difference in this case, which is the absence of the World Bank and the IMF, although their involvement would not surprise me.

That being said, I do find some promise in this model. Specifically, in the potential for proliferating emission reduction/alternative energy technologies. Because we are talking about developing countries, the Kyoto-derived CDM comes into play, which could make for a very attractive investment in these new technologies by the waste management firms (or through partnerships with specialized firms). Perhaps, this round of privatization will allow countries like India and China to, at the very least, capture/negate some of their waste-related emissions and, in doing so, begin to participate in the global effort to address climate change. I hope that is the case anyhow. I imagine only time will tell.

Bill Maher is right...snuggies are the problem.

Whether you like the man or not, you must admit that Bill Maher has great writers. On Friday, he (or maybe they) brought up an excellent point (and one that is long overdue): snuggies are exactly what is wrong with this country. As Maher so aptly put it,

"[China] can't buy anymore treasury bills from [us], [we] are wearing blankets with sleeves."

Nevermind looking ridiculous, we just don't get it. We think our fiat currency will withstand whatever storm we want to put it through. I think we are attempting to prove a hypothesis that need not be tested.

My point here is not to sound like another false patriot. This country already has too many. Rather, it is to emphasize the need for change in our model of behavior. This "spend it all today, we will bill you tomorrow" mentality cannot survive, and, at our current rate of consumption, neither can the environment from which we derive the resources to make these goods (most of us anyway). Their introduction into the market, snuggies 100% included here, does nothing more than satisfy needless wants. And by now, I think we know that we cannot simply consume our way out of this growing economic problem. That's kind of how we got here.