APRIL 26, 2007

Okay, so I've sort of fallen behind on this journal, and my project has changed radically since my last entry. While I still think that the only way to make a noticeable and relevant difference in the area of sustainability is to effect systems-level change, I'm not sure that that's within the scope of what can be accomplished in a one-semester, half-credit class. Instead, I've decided to focus on a single issue that matters to me: meat. Most of us who are even slightly socially aware know that the meat industry is cruel to animals and workers, harmful to the environment, and produces meat that is full of antibiotics and hormones that may be damaging to the health of those who consume it. The goal of my project, Happy Meat, is to get more meat-eaters to eat sustainable meat — organic, local, free-range, antibiotic- and hormone-free meat produced on small farms, fed a natural diet, and slaughtered in the most human ways possible. Here's a summary of the project:

HAPPY MEAT

Happy Meat is a a resource that allows sustainable-minded meat-eaters to find local purveyors of sustainable meat. The project consists of a website with a custom google-maps interface that provides an easy, visual reference for users at home, as well as a mobile, sms-based application for users who are not in front of a computer.

I started working on the project with only a vague sense that I wanted to make something that would reconcile carnivorousness with sustainability. My first steps were evaluating supply and demand: finding resources that could provide local, organic, sustainable meat; and determining how many people would eat sustainable meat if it were availably, and how far out of their way they would go to get it. The results of both inquiries were surprising: by conducting an online survey, I found that many carnivores would like to eat sustainable meat but think it is too hard to find; meanwhile, a few internet searches, phone calls and visits to local grocery stores proved that sustainable meat is -- at least in much of the New York City area -- readily accessible. My conclusion was that this was a classic case of information-based market failure: the logical intersection of supply and demand was being thwarted by in information disconnect between meat providers and consumers.

The results of my survey showed that the average sustainable-minded carnivore eats about half of her meals at home. Therefore, I decided to include both restaurants and grocery stores/butchers/etc. in my database. I also realized that I would need to draw from the collective knowledge of my user base in order to have the most complete data set possible, so I included a section that allows users to submit meat sources that they don't see on the map. And, because some of the surveyed carnivores indicated that they would like to eat well, or healthy, but they didn't connect this desire with sustainability, I included a section on the site that explains why sustainable meat is good for the person eating it, the community, and the world in general.

Happy Meat is far from complete. A rough, alpha version of the site is live (http://www.saisriskandarajah.com/happymeat/), with a skeletal user interface and, at this point, only a few database entries. Once the database is sufficiently populated, the mobile application will be launched and the project will move into the beta phase, during which extensive user testing will take place and changes will be made as necessary.

FEBRUARY 14, 2007

PROJECT ABSTRACT:

I started out thinking about two projects. The first was an idea I've had kicking around for a while: to put a turbine in the drain of a toilet, so the unused power of the flush can be harnessed. There are a few problems with this idea. For one thing, it's probably better suited to the Sustainable Energy class than to what we're trying to do here. Also, I'm not very good at building things. And, frankly, it's kind of gross. Who's going to want to troubleshoot it? The second idea was to set up an information resource -- possibly with a mobile component -- to provide information to people who want to live their lives in a more eco-friendly matter but don't always know how. For example, as I mentioned in my description of myself, after I wash my hands in a public bathroom I don't know whether I'm better off using the paper towel dispenser or the air dryer. Is it worse to add the paper towels to the waste stream or to use the power (which means oil) required to power the air dryer? An online repository of answers to these questions could be a valuable resource. However, such a resource would really be about engendering eco-efficiency (both the paper towel dispenser and the air dryer are harmful, and as McDonough and Braungart tell us in Cradle to Cradle, "being less bad is no good") instead of eco-effectiveness.

The problem I find with so many of the ideas that I have is that they involve so many different factors, they run into problems at some step in the process. My overall feeling is that a paradigm shift to eco-effectiveness is a matter of reaching a tipping point where we begin to think of it as the norm, and that reaching that tipping point will involve designing replacements for existing structures/models/products/etc. that are not only eco-effective but also financially/commercially more efficient in the short-to-medium term. Whenever I think of a large-scale project that I'd like to work on for this class, I find that I run into the problem of how to make it effective on a large enough scale to actually effect real change -- or, perhaps more accurately, how to make it appeal to people other than ITP students who are at least vaguely environmentally aware.

I like the idea of making information available, because I have a slightly naive belief that with perfect information comes a perfect market. But the truth is -- as we discussed (tangentially) in the first class -- most people don't want to know about the negative environmental impact of their actions, and they find it all too easy to reject information campaigns as hippie, granola crap that they just want to run over in their Hummers. This is why, as Tom indicated, some companies that are producing eco-effective products (like biodegradable diapers) aren't actually advertising the eco-friendliness of their wares.

So, to the point. Here's what I propose: Let's develop a scalable model of eco-effective design that can be applied in a wide variety of arenas by tackling a very small problem and attempting to address it from all angles. We need to identify those issues that need to be addressed in any eco-effective design process -- preventing harm both to the individual and to the larger ecosystem, short-term financial efficiency, marketability on grounds other than eco-effectiveness, etc. -- and we need to establish a system for identifying the issues that are specific to the project at hand. For example, say we decide to build an eco-effective hand dryer for public restrooms. We need to think about the materials it's made from, the materials it uses, how much power it draws and how much wast it produces. We also need to think about how expensive it is to make (and consequently purchase), and how much it costs to maintain it. We also need to think about whether it's sanitary, and easy to use, and in a general sense whether people will be as happy as or happier with it than they are with existing methods of hand drying; this happiness should derive from sources other than feeling good about contributing to the environment. What I'd like to end up with is something akin to Jesse James Garrett's The Elements of User Experience -- a standard model for approaching any eco-effective design project that is general enough to apply to widely varying projects, but specific and detailed enough to be effective and useful. The process would involve assembling a design team and choosing a VERY small project to work on (smaller than the hand dryer, I think), which we would follow through to completion, while engaged in the meta-project of documenting our process and using it to establish a set of general principles.

I should note that this project might work well in conjuction with someone else's, if that other project involves designing an eco-effective product or process.

JANUARY 31, 2007

Here's what I wrote about myself on the class wiki:

Hi, I'm Sai, and I'm a second year. I'm not really sure what I'm doing in this class, but I'm here because I'm starting to get sick of the speed with which the world is deteriorating and I'm developing the "sense of impending doom" that psychiatrists associate with clinical depression, but evidence suggests that I'm right to feel this way. And I'm sick of the crippling paralysis that comes with a lack of information. Like, when I'm in a public bathroom, I don't know whether I'm supposed to use the paper towel dispenser or the electric hand dryer. Does the damage caused by producing paper waste outweight the energy consumption of the heat-dryer? Should I just wipe my hands on my jeans and be done with it?

I'm not an economist, but in law school I spent a lot of time studying the regulatory system (the underlying policy of legislation; how the regulatory state actually gets people to do what it wants), and I've come to believe that incentive-based systems that take into account the weirdness of human psychology (self-interest, "cognitive dissonance", etc.) are the most effective ways to get people to do what you want/need them to. Carrots, I think, are more effective than sticks.

The book I'll be reviewing is Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage by Heather Rogers.