Apr 12

The Economics of Happiness

Whenever I tell people that I’m an economics minor, I tend to get the same reaction: ew, why?  There are a lot of misconceptions about economics out there; I’ve been told by various people that the subject is boring, that it’s too hard, that there’s too much math involved, that the professors are too dry, et cetera.  So for all of you out there who might be wary of the subject, it seems that there is a new school of economics that is rapidly growing in popularity: the happiness movement.  Quite a change for the “dismal science!”

I’ve written a little bit about this happiness movement in the past, particularly how the small Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan initiated the focus on happiness and whether or not the government has been able to live up to its promises, but today I would like to focus more on what this movement is and how it affects policy decisions.  I find this topic particularly interesting because it’s gaining momentum now, in a recession, which is certainly not the happiest of times, and also because, as a more classical economist, I still can’t quite decide if I support this new trend.

The main goal of this field of economics is to study what constitutes happiness and make recommendations to governments about how best to increase it.  Economists are busy creating dozens of indicators to assess happiness, from “affective happiness” to “evaluative happiness,” which mean everyday ups and downs and an overall assessment of one’s life, respectively.  Various surveys developed by different groups, including the European Social Survey and the World Values Survey, ask questions about happiness from different vantage points using a variety of measures.

President Obama has even put his support behind these happiness studies, and one of his chief economic advisors is a top researcher in this field.  Several studies are underway in the US to quantify happiness, which proponents believe could have enormous benefits for the nation.  A measure of happiness could help determine the success or failure of a government policy, like a health benefit or education policy.  And of course, the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is right there in the Declaration of Independence, leading some to suggest that it is only natural to want to quantify happiness.

Finding a true measure of happiness is proving to be difficult, however, particularly “experiential well-being,” or .  How can you measure someone’s feelings throughout the day?  Some researchers have tried asking people to record their feelings in diaries, while others have given subjects electronic devices that signal them to report their activities and feelings.  And the measures that have been developed have drawn a lot of criticism from other researchers.  It’s a tricky topic, after all.  For example, it has been shown in the past that richer individuals tend to be happier than poorer ones, but it’s been demonstrated that the US is behind Panama in happiness even though it has a GDP roughly 6 times the size of Panama’s. Others have expressed concern because of the subjective nature of happiness and because of the difficulty of tracing how happiness changes as a result of a government policy.

It doesn’t seem like happiness is going to replace GDP or GNP as a measure of development any time soon.  It’s difficult to measure and highly subjective, and tracking changes as a result of a particular policy is almost impossible at this point.  But what do you think of the idea?  Do you think it’s important to include happiness as a measure of development, or would you prefer to stick with hard data?  Are you less afraid of economics now that you know about this new trend? And finally, if you do support these happiness studies, can you think of a more accurate and reliable measurement?

Share

Apr 12

Turn Out the Lights

This a video in the form of a public service announcement that encourages people to conserve energy by remembering to turn off unnecessary lights, and leave them off for as long as possible. What is your reaction to this video? Do you have other ideas that people could use to conserve energy in their home or office? We would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section.

Share

Apr 11

A Change in Jenna Talackova’s Miss Universe Disqualification

Last month, Jenna Talackova was banned from competing in the Miss Universe competition due to the fact that she is transgender. After finding out about her past, officials promptly took Jenna out of the running, causing uproars along the way. Social media websites devoured the story, news sources kept people constantly updated, and gay rights advocates charged ahead in full force. I recently wrote a post about the conflict and how it deeply infringed upon the rights of a very strong willed contestant.

Over the past few weeks, though, the issue has taken a complete turnaround. In fact, Jenna is now competing once again, and the official rule policy for the contest is in the process of being altered. Talk about a big (and quick) step forward. And who’s behind this change?

GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), a nonprofit organization that acts as a strong voice for the LGBT community, spent time speaking with Miss Universe officials and Donald Trump, a co-owner of the competition. Both entities worked together to allow transgender women to compete in the pageant and to re-qualify Miss Talackova. Both Jenna and Donald Trump were interviewed on various TV shows, including 20/20 and The View. Miss Universe claimed that the issue at hand was a serious one and that they wanted to be quick in taking action to correct it.

Now, I have somewhat of a hard time believing that officials and Donald Trump came up with this idea on their own. I don’t want to knock them too hard because, after all, they did make the change. Let’s be honest, though, they got some terrible publicity after the incident. Tens of thousands of names went onto petitions and even the Miss Universe website’s Twitter feed was full of protests. The public raised their voice, and a solution was formed. My point in saying this is that we made a change in reference to LGBT rights happen fast. What’s more, we shouldn’t stop here.

In New York City, transgender people can still legally be fired from their jobs simply for being transgender. Laws like this one exist in all places, shapes, and forms. We made one rule change, and Continue reading

Share

Apr 11

Peace Through Youth

When was the first time you really understood war?  Growing up I was in love with historical fiction novels.  From the earliest conflicts with Native Americans, to the Civil War, to World War II, I learned so much about past conflicts from the stories I read, the problem that arose from this type of learning, however, was that I always placed the concept of war and conflict in the past.  I never really understood the reality of current events until 9/11.  Having just turned eleven, this was my first real encounter with the concept of modern war.  Thinking about myself as an eleven year old, I was in no way equipped to understand the multi-cultural, -political, -economic, and –religious perspectives of such a traumatic event.  But my case,  is unique compared to the other children across the world who must deal with the constant threat of war and conflict as it is a part of the daily reality.

The documentary Promises shows how Palestinian and Jewish children face this exact reality from such a young age.  As a Peace Studies student, I’ve spent a lot of my college career studying world conflicts and most importantly, looking for solutions.  Most recently, we looked at a new approach to finding peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The documentary Promises was made by an American Jewish filmmaker in Israel/Palestine.  From 1995-97, he follows the stories of seven children, four Israeli and three Palestinian, between the ages of nine and twelve.  The filmmaker (known as B.Z.) documents the lives and perspectives of children living on either side of the conflict.

I was shocked in this film to see children at age eleven (an age at which I can realistically remember my own world perspectives) understand the intricate history and current realities of the conflict.  It was clear that from birth, these children had been surrounded by the passionate opinions of their older family members and communities.  The indoctrination of values from both sides was so complete that these children never had school with, played with, or even spoke with children from the other side of the conflict.  In my turn of the twenty-first century American childhood, I can’t even imagine living parallel lives with another group of children and never saying one word to them.

The point of the film Promises became clear when B.Z. was able to convince some of the children to meet one another.  This is the important break-through of the film that I want to discuss in a wider context.  When the children were able to meet one another, talk about shared interests, play games, and also eventually talk about the hurt and pain the conflict has caused both side’s families, they were able to see one another no longer as enemies but as friends.

I want to highlight the importance of this movie in and of itself, because of the message it sends, but I also want to take the example set in the film Promises and see how it might be applied on a wider scale.  Is it possible to start looking at children as the way to peace in seemingly unsolvable world issues?  As I’ve stressed in my other posts, I believe education and being informed are truly the most important things as it relates to so many different situations.

Using education for peace is a realistic and exciting new concept.  If we could get each side of the issue to truly be informed about the other side’s perspective, tremendous strides toward resolution could be made.  And if those individuals that were becoming informed were children, the next generation of leaders and policy makers would be coming from an open-minded and sympathetic point of view, making the possibility for peace one hundred times more likely.

In the last two decades, peace through education and exposure has been spreading as a viable option.  The organization Seeds of Peace provides an opportunity for exceptional young people from conflict regions to come face-to-face with their historic enemies in a safe and constructive summer camp in Maine.  The point of this program is to foster an understanding of mutual goals and desires that both sides share. By working with these youth, Seeds of Peace hopes to create the next generation of leaders in Peace.  When your enemy has a name, a face, and a story you can no longer look at the conflict from a single perspective.

Seeds of Peace is an incredibly important program that has spread to establish year-round leadership programs in 27 countries.  Solutions to huge conflicts can absolutely be found through raising awareness through films like Promises and creating an actual action plan like with Seeds of Peace.

It is an incredibly sad reality that children around the world do not have the luxury I had, of believing for so long that conflict was a phenomenon of the past.  We can do our part to support youth living in conflict regions by donating to organizations like Seeds of Peace, but also by making sure that we too are as open-minded to other sides perspectives, whether it be with a co-worker in the office or with another nation in world affairs.  Awareness building and understanding are very important steps to sustainable solutions.

Share

Apr 09

Using the Index of Women’s Economic Opportunity to Improve the Global Economy

As stated in the 2012 version of the Index of Women’s Economic Opportunity, “women are the key driver of economic growth.” Research has shown that in the United States alone, women have added 2 percentage points per year to the overall economic growth. Similar or even better numbers have been seen in numerous countries all around the world. These studies only account for women in developed countries. However, the same improvements can be seen in developing countries with education and empowerment for every single female.  Tapping into the most prominent unused workforce in the world would have undoubtedly huge, positive impacts on the global economy.

Unfortunately, about half of all women whom are old enough to pursue jobs and careers are not contributing to the world’s economy. At the same time, though, the poorest countries in the world see more female labor than those that are prosperous and productive. So why does poverty persist in so many countries with female workers? The problem is with access to resources. Women and men may both work in agriculture, but while men have the tools and resources necessary to save labor and increase output, women do not. Essentially, women are working harder and longer to produce the same results as men. If female workers had access to resources, education, and various legal necessities, these issues would not remain prevalent.

The Women’s Economic Opportunity Index, or WEO, takes data from numerous international organizations and research to realize the underlying reasons as to why women’s access to economic opportunity varies around the world. Each year since 2010, the WEO has shown its results and evaluations on female economic participation in 128 countries.

At the top of the WEO’s 2012 list for countries with the most economic opportunity for women is Sweden; at the bottom, Sudan. The United States is number 14, falling just behind the United Kingdom. In Sub Saharan Africa, the female labor participation rate is 61%, which seems fairly high. The problem is that most of this work is low value due to the fact that women in this part of the world cannot own land, and their education opportunities are highly limited. The Middle East and North Africa have significant problems as well. The presence of high reproductive rates and hugely restricted access to education keeps women at home with the family instead of at work and contributing to the economy. What’s more, women are not allowed to travel, work, or open a bank account without a male’s permission in many countries in this part of the world. Not surprisingly, the female labor force is extremely low in this region. The Americas see an obvious high rate of women in the labor force, which is a direct result from their open access to education, their political participation, and their laws protecting women. Western Europe sees similar opportunity, if not better. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, women are held back by laws that specify, to an extent, which jobs they can and cannot have. For example, in Moldova, females cannot take part in many jobs that require any significant amount of weight to be lifted, such as brick laying or welding.

Sweden, who holds the number one ranking, should be Continue reading

Share

Apr 09

Unsustainable Consumerism Part 4: Disposal

After three posts on the materials economy we’ve followed the story of our stuff through extraction, production, distribution, and consumption.  What’s left? Well, what do you think happens to our stuff after we’re done with it?  I mentioned in my last post that 99% of the stuff we purchase gets thrown away within 6 months.  Today we’ll look at where that stuff goes and why the disposal stage of this linear economy might be the scariest yet.

Ever since I began this series I have become obsessed with analyzing all the awful things I do as a consumer each and everyday, but it is so hard for us to realize how much we are really disposing of on a year-to-year, day-to-day, and hour-to-hour basis.  But the truth is that the average American throws away 4.5 pounds of waste per day!  I want to start today’s post by proposing two challenges that will force us to be conscientious of our wastefulness.

  1. I challenge you to make a weekly journal of all of the things you throw away.   Just like a food journal, writing down our poor decisions makes us less likely to do them.  After seeing on paper how much waste we generate throughout a week, maybe we’ll be moved to change our wasteful ways.
  2.  I challenge you to carry a 5 pound weight for one day. I know this one is a little more unrealistic (and I have to admit I haven’t actually done it myself), but maybe we could come up with some stealthy way to conceal a weighted fanny pack or wear really heavy shoes?  I feel that its hard for us to remember what a burden our waste is on the planet, so by burdening ourselves with the extra 5 pounds for one day, maybe we’ll realize that our 4.5 pounds of daily waste really is having a significant impact on the health and sustainability of our planet.

This waste we produce either gets disposed in a hole in the ground or it gets incinerated and then buried in a hole in the ground.  With the former, our Earth is literally being filled with piles of garbage.  With the latter, our air is being filled with all those toxins that were manufactured during production.  Our waste is destroying our land, air, water, and climate.

While things like recycling do help to a small extent, the problem really comes from the overall amount of stuff we consume.  For every one trashcan of stuff we throw away, seventy cans of trash were created during the production stage of the materials economy.  It’s totally unsustainable.

But what can we do?  We have to use some stuff some times, right?  Well not necessarily.  One family has created a Zero Waste Home, where they literally throw nothing away.  While this concept might seem out of reach for every American household.  Some of their ideas can definitely be easily transferred into our day-to-day routines.

One way to reduce waste in your home is through your diet and eating habits. Simple things, like not using plastic shopping bags, have actually caught on across the country (in D.C. there’s a five cent tax on plastic bags).  Avoid single packaged items like yogurt, juice boxes, and “snack” packs.  Pack your own food in reusable containers and try to avoid all the paper and plastic waste that accompanies carry-out food.  At my college campus, there are no reusable plates, therefore, every time you eat on campus you are required to put your food, no matter how much, in a large thick plastic container and have the food weighed.  On top of this, there are no recycling bins to even try to curb the effects of our wastefulness!

Another important idea is to avoid upgrading to new items when it’s not absolutely necessary.  Hold on to your electronics, including your smartphone, until they really are unusable, and when you can’t resist the social urge to upgrade to the latest version, be sure to donate your old phone.  There’s no reason our electronics need to take up space in landfills when they are still totally usable.  Check out these places you can donate to.

Zero Waste has huge potential benefits for your individual life or family, including major reduction in costs.  Just imagine how much you would save if you never bought a paper coffee cup or only bought a new winter coat every five years.  It also offers huge benefits for society.  Reducing our consumption in general will positively weigh against every negative that has been presented throughout the materials economy in extraction, production, distribution and consumption, and disposal.

We need to begin changing the values of consumerism.  Instead of having the social norm be more is better, bigger is better, and newer is better, what if we shifted our culture to value savings, restraint, and environmental consciousness.  It’s a huge task to undo sixty-plus years of consumer psychology, but if we were tricked into believing in this system enough to be willing to destroy lives and resources across the globe to support it, can’t we be convinced to do the opposite?

While the overall goal of creating a sustainable consumption model is large, the steps to get there can be small.  Let’s just try to increase our awareness of our own consumption habits and really think about the consequences to our decisions. Try my two challenges this week, and let me know what you think.  We’ll keep the conversation going on becoming better, more responsible consumers.

Check out some other places to join the conversation

Zero Waste International Alliance, My Zero Waste, Zero Waste America

Share

Apr 06

Fukushima y Deepwater Horizon: reacciones políticas

Read this post in English

Abril 2010: Deepwater Horizon, fuga de petróleo en el golfo de México. Durante tres meses, el petróleo fluye sin cesar. Este fue el mayor derrame de petróleo en la historia del oro negro. La explosión mata a 11 hombres. El derrame causó daño ambiental en los hábitats marinos y en la fauna silvestre, así como daños económicos a las industrias locales de pesca y turismo.

Marzo 2011: desastre nuclear de Fukushima. Este es el mayor desastre nuclear desde Chernorbyl en 1986. Como consecuencia de ello: las migraciones de población, la contaminación de la tierra, y radiación nuclear por tiempo indeterminado. Los niveles de radiación son lo suficientemente altos para que el gobierno prohíba la venta de alimentos que se cultivan en la zona. Zonas prohibidas fueron declaradas, y probablemente permanecerán allí durante décadas.

Los dos accidentes tuvieron consecuencias desastrosas e irreversibles. Crearon importantes costos ambientales y sociales como: contaminación, migraciones, y pérdida de la actividad económica. Sin embargo, las reacciones políticas que surgieron como consecuencia de cada uno de estos eventos fue muy diferente.

Desde Fukushima, la energía nuclear se ha convertido un tema central de los debates internacionales y nacionales sobre la energía. En Japón, sólo un reactor de 54 está trabajando. Como consecuencia de la disminución de producción de energía nuclear , el país se ha visto obligado a aumentar sus importaciones de gas y petróleo, además de pedir a los hogares y las empresas privadas que reduzcan significativamente su consumo de energía. En Europa, Alemania ha cerrado de forma permanente cinco de sus reactores y declaró que eliminaría la energía nuclear para el año 2022. Los italianos han votado a favor de mantener a su país sin centrales nucleares. Independientemente de que estas políticas se apliquen o no, el solo hecho de que se hayan propuesto muestra que la energía nuclear está siendo cuestionada. El desastre de Fukushima fue un evento que nos permitió volver a evaluar los beneficios y costos de energía nuclear.

Sin embargo, el derrame de petróleo no trajo las mismas consecuencias. Nunca se desarrolló una política creíble para ir más allá del uso de combustibles fósiles. Por supuesto, en los meses que siguieron el evento Obama creó una moratorio para la perforación en aguas profundas. El moratorio se ha acabado (terminó a principios de octubre de 2011) y la perforación en aguas profundas ya se está convirtiendo en un estándar nuevo. A pesar de que el evento mostró que los riesgos asociados con la perforación en aguas profundas son muy serios, los combustibles fósiles de aguas profundas se mantiene como una fuente importante de energía. No hubo una reacción internacional respecto al derrame del petróleo, los políticos lo trataron como un evento nacional, propio de los Estados Unidos. Por ende, tenía que permanecer en la política nacional. Los uso de combustibles fósiles como fuente de energía nunca fue puesta en duda, ni los políticos demostraron un interés real en emprender una discusión seria cuestionando la sostenibilidad de los combustibles fósiles.

Creo que la reacción de Alemania  fue exagerada de algún modo, dadas las circunstancias del accidente. Japón está situado en dos placas tectónicas, la catástrofe nuclear fue consecuencia de un terremoto. Si los Continue reading

Share

Apr 06

El Agua: Ganancias vs Humanidad

Read this post in English

Uno de los temas que me ha interesado cada vez más ha sido la inaccesibilidad del agua y la privatización del agua.  El último par de semanas, he estado siguiendo el Consejo Mundial del Agua y el Foro Mundial del Agua, los cuales se establecieron con el fin de abordar algunas de estas cuestiones. En general, he encontrado que el diálogo de estos problemas es muy importante. Sin embargo, como he mencionado antes, parece que las palabras sobran y no hay suficiente acción.  En mi blog anterior, mencione que una de las iniciativas estructurales que gobiernos necesitan implementar son instituciones  que supervisen directamente a los departamentos de saneamiento en sus regiones locales.  Enfatizo el rol de los gobiernos locales debido a los diversos problemas que se extienden con la escasez y la falta de acceso al agua; cada cuestión distinta perteneciente a cada rincón distinto del mundo.  Pero ahora quiero ir más allá de mi simple énfasis en las instituciones y los gobiernos locales.
En primer lugar, creo que las instituciones sirven como un sistema de gestión adecuado donde las leyes pueden ser supervisadas y ejecutadas, dado el ambiente político adecuado. Sin embargo, no creo que esto signifique la privatización del agua en todo el mundo.  La primera vez que había llegado a conocer este concepto de privatizar un bien público (transformado el agua en una comodidad) fue hace unos pocos años atrás.  Cuando uso el término público, es para demostrar que el agua puede ser un bien no rival y no excluible cuando es proporcionado por los gobiernos, como el aire limpio y la defensa nacional.  Pero esto es precisamente el problema: los gobiernos no están proviniendo esta “comodidad” indispensable al público.  Debido a la ineficiencia de los gobierno en el sector público del agua que ha afectado gravemente a tantas personas, algunos gobiernos han decidido privatizar el agua, haciendo que el agua sea un bien privado: un bien que puede ser excluible y competitivo. Esto significa que las personas podrían ejercer sus derechos de propiedad privada, excluyendo sus beneficios a personas que no puedan pagan por el bien. También se debe enfatizar que los bienes privados existen con el propósito de obtener ganancias.
Ganancias vs Humanidad
¿Es demasiado drástico decir que la gente necesita agua para sobrevivir? ¿Es demasiado drástico decir que las personas deben recibir agua potable de los gobiernos que están obligados a obedecer? Para algunos, es sorprendente que podría ser que sí. La privatización del agua, sin embargo, transforma esta obligación gubernamental de proveer a los ciudadanos con agua potable en un producto conducido por el mercado libre.  No digo que el mercado libre no es un concepto maravilloso que funciona. Pero, ¿funciona para el agua?
Bolivia y Perú son dos casos estudiados para la respuesta de esta pregunta. En 1997 y 1999, dos regiones de Bolivia se sometieron a la privatización del abastecimiento de agua y saneamiento: La Paz / El Alto y Cochabamba. La privatización del agua fue estimulada por el Banco Mundial y el Banco de Desarrollo International como requisito para que el gobierno de Bolivia pueda mantener sus préstamos. Esto también se puede ver en la “Rehabilitación de Lima y Gestión de Proyectos” de Perú, que fue aprobado por el Banco Mundial. Este fue un préstamo de 150 millones de dólares dado a fin de modernizar la empresa SEDAPAL (Servicio de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado), el suministro de agua y saneamiento de Lima y Callao. Los resultados de estas privatizaciones de agua, sin embargo, no han demostrado ser eficaces ni tampoco han reducido los problemas del agua en el mundo. Las tarifas del agua aumentaron con un 200-300 por ciento en Cochabamba después de la privatización del agua de SEMAPA, el sistema de agua de Cochabamba, perjudicando aún más a un pueblo boliviano pobre.  Del mismo modo en el Perú, de 1980 a 1996, el agua residencial aumentó de US $ 0,17 por metro cúbico a 0,41 dólares por metro cúbico, que es más del doble! Estas tarifas también tienen que ser comparado con la cantidad de dinero que los ciudadanos ganan en promedio, que es menos de 2 dólares al día para más de 40% de la población en el Perú.
Desde la perspectiva de las compañías privadas de agua, la privatización del agua es bienvenida por las ganancias que extracta.  Pero al mirar a las personas que permanecen en la pobreza y son incapaces de sostenerse a sí mismos debido a la falta del agua potable, la privatización del agua no ha demostrado ser una solución sostenible para el problema del agua de nuestro mundo.  Poniendo en pesa las dos opciones, nos encontramos con una lucha entre las ganancias y el derecho al agua.  El resultado que gane depende de la situación política de cada país y su agenda. Las instituciones que se establezcan seguirán el resultado entre estas dos opciones. ¿Cómo pueden ustedes como individual promover lo que ustedes piensan es lo correcto y lo que debe ser el resultado final?

Share

Apr 05

Myanmar and the Politics of Tourism

Several months ago I wrote a post on the future of tourism in Myanmar (better known as Burma), which many groups were hoping to capitalize on in the coming years.  Myanmar has been largely untouched by tourists thanks to a combination of government restrictions and sanctions imposed by countries like the US, and now that tensions are starting to ease there has been talk of trying to take advantage of the country’s mystique and unspoiled landscapes by promoting tourism.  Making the burgeoning tourism industry sustainable and responsible is a big concern, as tourism by nature destroys the beautiful landscapes that draw in tourist dollars, and others are concerned mainly with the status of human rights within the country.

Well, in the intervening months between that post and this one, much has happened.  The biggest event: democratic elections held just last Sunday, April 1st, in which outspoken pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi won a seat in the lower house of parliament and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) won 43 out of 45 seats. According to Myanmar’s foreign minister the elections went smoothly, and participation was high. These elections have been hailed as “another significant step for Myanmar in its process of its democratic reform,” as Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD were allowed to campaign freely, foreign observers were not hindered, and there were no serious incidents of intimidation or irregularities.

As a result of these elections several countries, including Cambodia, have suggested that the international community lift some of the sanctions against Myanmar, and the tourism industry has experienced a significant boom.  Now, I often write about how responsible tourism and economic growth are related, and indeed that was largely the focus of my previous post on Myanmar, but this is a clear example of how politics and tourism are related.  In this case the government of Myanmar restricted tourism, international governments restricted tourism, and ethical concerns about Myanmar’s government restricted tourism; now that the government has eased restrictions and made steps towards democratization the international community has responded by lowering sanctions, and tourism is starting to pick up.  And Aung San Suu Kyi’s endorsement of responsible tourism in Myanmar certainly encouraged people to visit.

The Myanmar Travel Board held a “Miss Burma” competition designed to draw tourists, and the winner of the competition was declared a “tourism ambassador.”  Hotels are now booked several months in advance as people clamor to visit, even if it’s just to experience the political situation first-hand and not to experience the culture or sightsee, which has been a little difficult for the country to handle.  The government and others are struggling to find the best solution of how to deal with the steady influx of visitors: allow more foreign hotel chains?  Build more restaurants and airports?  And the biggest question is, of course, whether or not to allow the isolated country to become a major destination like Thailand or to aim for smaller numbers of visitors in order to preserve the environment and cultural sites.  Becoming a major tourist destination would certainly draw a lot of much needed income, both in the form of tourist dollars and foreign investment.  But as I mentioned earlier, tourism often erodes the very environment that attracts people to a destination to begin with.

So, with Myanmar at a crossroads, what are your thoughts?  Would you visit Myanmar now that the country is opening up and becoming more democratic?  Do you think it should become a major tourist hub or try to limit the number of visitors?

Also, if you would like to take a trip to Myanmar—or even if you just like to plan future trips you hope to take, like I do—check out this article from the New York Times.  It has some helpful tips for planning your trip and making the most of it!

Share

Apr 05

Simply Brilliant

Renewable energy is the wave of the future. Eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels and relying solely on renewable energy sources would be a boon for our environment unlike anything we have ever seen. However, even the United States, a very advanced nation, only satisfies 11% of its electricity needs through renewable resources. Simply put, we have a very long way to go until we eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.

In order to increase our renewable energy output, scientists are constantly trying to develop new and improved technology. In the quest to create new green technology, we often produce complex creations. While these creations are great and beneficial, I strongly believe that our simple-solution tank has not yet been tapped.

The inspiration for this article comes from a 13-year-old boy named Aiden Dwyer. Aiden invented a unique arrangement of solar panels that mimicked an oak tree in accordance with the Fibonacci series. Basically, he took already known existing patterns in nature and applied them to solar panels, hoping that this would produce more energy than traditional flat solar panels.

At first, Aiden received national media attention because his findings claimed that his creation was significantly more efficient than traditional flat panels. However, it soon became known that Aiden mistakenly measured the wrong data, and his invention was no better than flat solar panels. In fact, his entire theory of utilizing the Fibonacci series was proven faulty.

While Aiden’s creation, unfortunately, proved to be a bust, his inventive thinking is exactly the kind of vision our world needs. As I learned of Aiden’s story, I began to think of my own ideas on simple ways to improve renewable energy technology. I thought, “Why not make a solar panel that follows the sun’s movement throughout the day, in order to maintain an optimal angle?” After a little research I discovered that this was a great idea. However, it is already commonly deployed, under the well-known name, solar trackers. These devices utilize a motor in order to rotate the panels, and produce up to 40% more energy than traditional non-rotating panels.

As I poked around the Internet, I discovered an invention called the SunSaluter. The SunSaluter is a solar tracker that does not use an electric motor in order to rotate the solar panels. Rather, it works off of a system that uses ambient temperature change to rotate the panel. It is made from recyclable materials and costs only $10 to produce, while traditional tracking motors cost on average $600. When fully installed on a residential home, the SunSaluter will cost a total of $200, 1/6 the price of a traditional tracker. Furthermore, it is simple to construct and can be applied to already existing panels, making it perfect for developing, as well as developed nations. Because of its simple and intuitive design, the SunSaluter requires 75% less maintenance.

Eden Full, a 19-year-old former mechanical engineering student from Princeton University is the inventor of SunSaluter. Like Aiden, Eden utilized a relatively simple concept in order to generate a new and constructive idea. Fortunately for Eden, her invention – unlike Aiden’s – is proving to be a huge success. The SunSaluter has blossomed into a full-blown business called Roseicollis Technologies Inc., and Eden has been the proud recipient of numerous accolades.

My point in highlighting both Eden and Aiden is to show that these two brilliant people are fantastic exemplars of the type of thinking that our world can so greatly benefit from. Regardless of their successes or failures, both of them took imaginative, yet simple, ideas and tried to make them work. The only difference is that unfortunately Aiden’s idea did not pan out the way he had hoped. But, failure is always part of inventive processes, and Aiden’s thought process is incredibly encouraging. Therefore, I believe that both Aiden and Eden should be admired for their creatively entrepreneurial spirit.

Don’t get me wrong, advanced technology is awesome, and proves time and again to be incredibly beneficial to our world’s environment. However, simplistic concepts still hold tremendous value for our environment… as the SunSaluter so aptly highlights. Eden’s invention uses fairly complicated technology in order to make the panels mechanically rotate, but the concept is something even a young child could understand. So while we continue to advance our technology, we should always keep in mind that creations such as the SunSaluter often stem from elementary ideas. People like Aiden should not be rejected because of his failure, but should be celebrated for his creative mind.

Here is a short video of Eden’s presentation as part of the Start-up Challenge at the Social Good Summit in 2011.

Share