This post follows my previous post pretty well, but I'll do my best to keep from repeating myself. I spoke with my dad about his use of social media and we discussed the differences and similarities between the way his generation uses it and the way my generation uses it. We agreed that each generation has their own motivations for making use of not only social media, but digital tools in general.
One of the biggest differences between generations is our reasons for connecting with people. Dad reaches out to old friends and acquaintances in attempts to reconnect and re-establish faded relationships. I, on the other hand, look for new professional connections and others with similar social interests to connect with. Don't get me wrong, I make connections with plenty of old friends, but my networks are much more extensive and diverse than Dad's. Dad's connections are pretty much family and close friends, and forget about connections with perfect strangers. I will at least give a stranger a chance to show me why we should connect, but Dad is having none of that.
One thing that surprises me a little is how many ways Dad is plugged in, digitally speaking. Dad has a facebook account, follows me on Twitter, we're in each other's circles on Google+, we're LinkedIn together, he blogs...at least he used to. He seems to have lost interest in blogging. How many of you or your parents can say they USED to blog? Still, though, while I'm looking for future employers and opportunities, he's content in his professional development and is settled into his city to the point where his face-to-face connections are the ones with the most potential to impact his career.
Finally, the thing that occurs to me after observing Dad for a while is how his extra-curricular activities have changed. When I lived at home, he was a member at the local country club, and we'd play golf and socialize for a while, sometimes several days a week. Now, he no longer belongs to a club, but keeps tabs with those guys through the various online interactions. He spends a lot more time working on hobby projects around the house, often utilizing Youtube for how-to videos to assist with his various projects. Meanwhile, I'm making connections and finding happy hours to attend or other social events and making new friends while actually losing touch with many of my older acquaintances.
Social media has had a profound impact on each of our lives for sure. It depends on who you ask whether the impact is good or bad. On one hand, I'd say Dad has lost the desire for face-to-face interaction with long-time friends. On the other hand, I'd say I've lost the ability to maintain relationships with my oldest friends. It's a trade each of us is apparently willing to make. We agree that at least we each had the chance to have real, personal relationships. Younger generations are already plugging in and spending more and more time online. At the rate they are consuming bandwidth, we both fear we may never really get to know our grandkids.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Father Knows Best
Young or old, large or small, Wall Street or hipster, 1% or 99%, social media is for everyone. But it is increasingly obvious that older generations are most prepared to properly integrate social media into their lives.
Think about it - my dad grew up in the world before computers. He remembers the very first computers to be adopted on a wide scale. He has seen the evolution from DOS to Windows, to better Windows, to OSX to iOS to Android. He has used them all and has never been afraid to adopt new technology. He has been there every step of the way, and because of it, he is primed for the social media frenzy that has taken the world by storm. Younger generations may be the early adopters of everything coming down the tech pipeline, but Dad and his cronies still have a thing or two to teach us youngsters.
Generations X and Y have had the luxury of having their every desire literally at their fingertips. Much of the thinking that people used to have to do on their own has been eliminated by the omniscient world wide web and smartphones, and smart tvs, and smart everything else. Baby Boomers had no such luxuries. They had to write research papers in libraries with real books, had to wait for the evening news on tv to know what was going on in the world (they actually cared what was happening outside their personal space), had to go to a brick-and-mortar store to buy something, had to go to a store to rent a physical video, and if the movie they wanted to rent was out, they had to wait until somebody brought it back.
What did they learn from all of that? Patience. And it has paid off. They haven't wasted the countless hours/days/weeks (months?) on multiple network sites only to see facebook eliminate the competition completely. They've been able to sit quietly on the sidelines while we worked out all the kinks. Now they've gone all-in, and they're showing us how it's done. While we were busy trying to figure out how to get more friends or come up with more clever status updates, they were devising corporate strategies and finding ways to market their businesses to the younger crowds so eager to give so much of their time to the internet. What do we have to show for it? Advertisements and professional networking sites like Linked-In popping up left and right. They've infiltrated our digital playground and flipped it on its head.
They've also learned how to communicate and recognize that social media is a very valuable communication tool:
Younger users are becoming less civil, less PC, and less professional, hiding behind semi-anonymous profiles and usernames, paying no attention to the digital world around them. They're destroying the English language with acronyms and type-os that they don't even realize are type-os.
This guy agrees with me:
They're airing their dirty laundry, swearing at everyone and still trying to preach that facebook is for kids. Meanwhile, our parents are showing us how it's done, like they always have.
Think about it - my dad grew up in the world before computers. He remembers the very first computers to be adopted on a wide scale. He has seen the evolution from DOS to Windows, to better Windows, to OSX to iOS to Android. He has used them all and has never been afraid to adopt new technology. He has been there every step of the way, and because of it, he is primed for the social media frenzy that has taken the world by storm. Younger generations may be the early adopters of everything coming down the tech pipeline, but Dad and his cronies still have a thing or two to teach us youngsters.
Generations X and Y have had the luxury of having their every desire literally at their fingertips. Much of the thinking that people used to have to do on their own has been eliminated by the omniscient world wide web and smartphones, and smart tvs, and smart everything else. Baby Boomers had no such luxuries. They had to write research papers in libraries with real books, had to wait for the evening news on tv to know what was going on in the world (they actually cared what was happening outside their personal space), had to go to a brick-and-mortar store to buy something, had to go to a store to rent a physical video, and if the movie they wanted to rent was out, they had to wait until somebody brought it back.
What did they learn from all of that? Patience. And it has paid off. They haven't wasted the countless hours/days/weeks (months?) on multiple network sites only to see facebook eliminate the competition completely. They've been able to sit quietly on the sidelines while we worked out all the kinks. Now they've gone all-in, and they're showing us how it's done. While we were busy trying to figure out how to get more friends or come up with more clever status updates, they were devising corporate strategies and finding ways to market their businesses to the younger crowds so eager to give so much of their time to the internet. What do we have to show for it? Advertisements and professional networking sites like Linked-In popping up left and right. They've infiltrated our digital playground and flipped it on its head.
They've also learned how to communicate and recognize that social media is a very valuable communication tool:
Younger users are becoming less civil, less PC, and less professional, hiding behind semi-anonymous profiles and usernames, paying no attention to the digital world around them. They're destroying the English language with acronyms and type-os that they don't even realize are type-os.
This guy agrees with me:
They're airing their dirty laundry, swearing at everyone and still trying to preach that facebook is for kids. Meanwhile, our parents are showing us how it's done, like they always have.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Got Green?
Got Green Seattle is a non-profit organization concerned with promoting communities of color (and the lower-income communities of Southeast Seattle) and sees the movement for an equitable, green economy as the best way to fight poverty and global warming at the same time. The organization began with the realization that the sustainability movement/green economy is not being communicated in a way that everyone can understand, especially in lower-income neighborhoods. "It's hard to translate carbon footprint into Chinese". Their goal is to translate the green economy, its benefits and challenges, in a way that both interests and stimulates people within these communities. People of color have been left behind.
The organization decided training community members for green jobs was a good start to getting caught up. They applied for, and received, federal stimulus funding to train local workers for green jobs, but they realized after training that the workers they trained were not getting jobs. (Interestingly, they gave some stimulus money back as a result of their inability to place workers in green jobs.) Further, they realized women were still being left out. Women were surveyed and asked to prioritize between access to healthy food, green home (energy efficient/healthy living conditions), green jobs, and public transportation. Women chose access to healthy food as their top priority, so Got Green set out to improve access to (affordable) healthy foods.
Mostly though, the group is active in the lower-income communities to bring jobs to the communities or have construction companies working nearby hire local workers from within the communities where they are building rather than bringing in their own crews.
The majority of our visit with Got Green centered around jobs to the point that it was difficult to identify how "green" plays a role in their organization. Instead, it seems to be a social equity group and seems more like an example of using green to get funding without actually being green. I think their intentions are pure, but I think the name is misleading. They are confusing "green" and "sustainable". Eventually, they don't mean the same thing. Got Green wants jobs for communities of color and wants to keep things local, which is certainly a component of a sustainable community, but it does appear as though they are playing on the "green" movement and the efforts of government to promote green initiatives to disguise and fund their ultimate goal of social equity for Southeast Seattle.
The organization decided training community members for green jobs was a good start to getting caught up. They applied for, and received, federal stimulus funding to train local workers for green jobs, but they realized after training that the workers they trained were not getting jobs. (Interestingly, they gave some stimulus money back as a result of their inability to place workers in green jobs.) Further, they realized women were still being left out. Women were surveyed and asked to prioritize between access to healthy food, green home (energy efficient/healthy living conditions), green jobs, and public transportation. Women chose access to healthy food as their top priority, so Got Green set out to improve access to (affordable) healthy foods.
Mostly though, the group is active in the lower-income communities to bring jobs to the communities or have construction companies working nearby hire local workers from within the communities where they are building rather than bringing in their own crews.
The majority of our visit with Got Green centered around jobs to the point that it was difficult to identify how "green" plays a role in their organization. Instead, it seems to be a social equity group and seems more like an example of using green to get funding without actually being green. I think their intentions are pure, but I think the name is misleading. They are confusing "green" and "sustainable". Eventually, they don't mean the same thing. Got Green wants jobs for communities of color and wants to keep things local, which is certainly a component of a sustainable community, but it does appear as though they are playing on the "green" movement and the efforts of government to promote green initiatives to disguise and fund their ultimate goal of social equity for Southeast Seattle.
City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment
The City of Seattle began conservation and environmental programs approximately 40 years ago, but the Office of Sustainability was only created in the year 2000. They have a lot of interesting programs and initiatives in the works, their main focus being energy and climate protection. Currently, they are updating their Climate Action Plan with a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. They have also proposed energy districts throughout the city, in which districts will produce and consume their own energy rather than relying on city utilities (i.e., hospital district using steam to power their operations). Community Power Works is a federally-funded energy upgrade program designed to improve the energy efficiency of homes and businesses across the city. The Office of Sustainability coordinates with several other city departments to achieve some of their goals. For example, through the Urban Forest Management Plan, they are working with the Urban Forestry Department (which itself consists of approximately 9 smaller departments) to build the tree canopy back to 30% in 30 years from 23% now.
Other programs include electric vehicle infrastructure development, a food action plan, recycling and composting to redirect 70% of waste from landfill by 2022 (from 50% now), building programs, and even deconstruction programs, in which building permits are expedited in exchange for an agreement to deconstruct and reuse portions of existing buildings rather than demolishing and scrapping entire buildings. Portland and Seattle both push recycling and composting and make it easy for citizens to do their part by clearly labeling public waste receptacles for trash/landfill, recycle, and compost. Often "landfill" is actually printed on trash cans to help make the connection that trash isn't actually being thrown "away".
Interestingly, as was common throughout the region, Seattle doesn't focus so much on LEED standards for buildings as they do combinations of other green building standards. A very large number of buildings and tenant spaces are actually LEED certified (various levels), but it is not as noticeable as in Texas because it is not a point of pride so much as it is just the way they build in Seattle. I recall being surprised by several spaces as we exited and I saw an inconspicuous LEED plaque almost hidden from view, while in Texas, LEED plaques are prominently displayed and most often impossible to miss.
 |
| Actually located at McKinstry Innovation Center, but it illustrates the point |
A very ambitious project that was mentioned briefly is the Seattle 2030 District, which would create a high-performance central business district. According to the website:
"Through collaboration among diverse stakeholders, leverage of existing and development of new incentives and financing mechanisms, and development and communication of shared resources, the 2030 District seeks to prove the business case for sustainability. Property owners will not be required to achieve the goals of the District by legislative mandates, or as individuals. Rather, this type of goal achievement requires sharing of resources and ongoing collaboration to make high-performance buildings the most profitable building type in Seattle."It is ambitious to say the least, and I will certainly keep an interested eye on its progress.
Also interesting to note was that they actually appear to be a little behind the City of Austin in requiring reporting by building owners of energy performance to current and prospective commercial tenants. Through the Energy Benchmarking Program, they do require benchmarking and monitoring of energy and water usage through the EPA/Energy Star Portfolio Manager by large commercial owners as well as requiring reporting to the city. Austin currently requires commercial owners to report that information to prospective tenants and is working toward making it mandatory for multi-family owners as well. Uncertain is whether Seattle is behind the curve, or if Austin is forced to "shame" building owners who are not as efficient due to greater reluctance to cooperate in energy-efficiency programs, while Seattle enjoys greater cooperation and does not feel the need to require that kind of reporting.
Futurewise
Futurewise is an environmental non-profit originally created in response to the rapid growth and development across Washington state and the resulting change in landscape. People were afraid they would lose everything they really liked about Washington. The Growth Management Act was enacted to protect the natural legacy of the state while still enabling growth in the right places. The Act acknowledges that growth is happening, while also acknowledging the necessity to control it. Other than citizen appeals, there is no legal enforcement of the law, so 1,000 Friends of Washington was created, eventually spawning Futurewise as protectors/enforcers of the Growth Management Act. Their focus evolved from enforcement of law to protecting the natural landscape while building great cities through public education, technical assistance/policy development, advocacy, and litigation.
One of their greatest current efforts is the Livable Communities Initiative in which they have formed partnerships with other cities in the Puget Sound area to establish a path forward to implement sustainable policies in those cities (i.e., Green Streets in Spokane).
An interesting part of Futurwise's efforts is the time spent lobbying for their causes. According to April Putney, more time is spent lobbying against bad/threatening legislation than in favor of good legislation. An underlying theme of the discussion was the importance of relationships, more so, in fact, than a specific education in many respects, since so much of the job is persuading others to see things your way.
The most interesting thing I took away from the discussion was the way April came to work with Futurewise. Originally, she didn't see how their focus on land use and transportation impacted climate change, but she came to realize that transportation is the best place to start in Washington, where transportation is responsible for nearly 50% of emissions. It illustrates how easy it is to be so focused on a bigger picture that we miss what is literally right in front of our faces.
One of their greatest current efforts is the Livable Communities Initiative in which they have formed partnerships with other cities in the Puget Sound area to establish a path forward to implement sustainable policies in those cities (i.e., Green Streets in Spokane).
An interesting part of Futurwise's efforts is the time spent lobbying for their causes. According to April Putney, more time is spent lobbying against bad/threatening legislation than in favor of good legislation. An underlying theme of the discussion was the importance of relationships, more so, in fact, than a specific education in many respects, since so much of the job is persuading others to see things your way.
The most interesting thing I took away from the discussion was the way April came to work with Futurewise. Originally, she didn't see how their focus on land use and transportation impacted climate change, but she came to realize that transportation is the best place to start in Washington, where transportation is responsible for nearly 50% of emissions. It illustrates how easy it is to be so focused on a bigger picture that we miss what is literally right in front of our faces.
NBIS
NBIS - Network for Business Innovation and Sustainability - is, as the name suggests, a networking portal (nbis.org), connecting businesses and professionals serious about "profitable sustainability" with resources to help them succeed in the green economy. The focus of the portal is to remain business friendly, making a business case for everything they do. Through the portal, members have access to ideas, educational programs, additional networking activities, and other resources to link them with their peers. Members used to participate in greendrinks, events aimed at gathering sustainability-minded businesses and individuals in a social setting to facilitate the kind of connections that NBIS members seek, but that particular forum attracted many young environmentalists, "hundreds in fact", and business people were not comfortable there because the environmentalists sought to change business rather than support them in making changes. So, "eco hour" was born, which successfully filtered the less business-oriented from the events, but also had the unfortunate side-effect of filtering much of the youth from the group.
One regional program that has resulted from the connections made through NBIS is the Byproduct Synergy Network - companies try to turn one another's waste into resources for other companies. Interesting note: similar programs are running in Houston and Arlington among what Carl refers to as "large and dirty companies" (Carl actually asked not to be quoted on that, so pretend you didn't read that!).
A big challenge facing NBIS is funding, since most of their efforts are what is referred to as "systems change", and most grants are granted to specific environmental projects rather than systems oriented efforts. As a result, NBIS is working to build its consultation service for revenue, partnering with software companies that are developing and/or distributing sustainability-oriented software programs to help companies track their triple-bottom-line metrics (i.e., SBP360). Through consulting, they help companies do GRI reports and develop sustainability planning, etc. By staying small, they are able to subcontract most services (virtual consultancy).
Though small, NBIS provides a largely important group of services to businesses and professionals who seek to expand their networks and connect with like-minded businesses and professionals to promote and improve sustainable efforts across the Seattle metro area.
One regional program that has resulted from the connections made through NBIS is the Byproduct Synergy Network - companies try to turn one another's waste into resources for other companies. Interesting note: similar programs are running in Houston and Arlington among what Carl refers to as "large and dirty companies" (Carl actually asked not to be quoted on that, so pretend you didn't read that!).
A big challenge facing NBIS is funding, since most of their efforts are what is referred to as "systems change", and most grants are granted to specific environmental projects rather than systems oriented efforts. As a result, NBIS is working to build its consultation service for revenue, partnering with software companies that are developing and/or distributing sustainability-oriented software programs to help companies track their triple-bottom-line metrics (i.e., SBP360). Through consulting, they help companies do GRI reports and develop sustainability planning, etc. By staying small, they are able to subcontract most services (virtual consultancy).
Though small, NBIS provides a largely important group of services to businesses and professionals who seek to expand their networks and connect with like-minded businesses and professionals to promote and improve sustainable efforts across the Seattle metro area.
Washington Green Schools
Washington Green Schools is a nonprofit dedicated to certification of schools that meet specific criteria for resource conservation and waste reduction in the state of Washington. The program is organized into five levels and five environmental categories: energy, healthy school buildings, transportation, waste and recycling, and water. Schools choose which category they want to target and follow a certification rubric to guide them toward certification for that category over the course of approximately one school year.
The program is open to public and private schools and involves students of all ages working on "Green Teams". Teams typically consist of students and at least one faculty member and often other members of the community. Parents are allowed to participate on teams, but they are not preferred since parents are not likely to continue in the program once their children are out of school. Schools may have more than one team working toward certification in multiple categories, though faculty support is not always so readily available. Upon certification, schools are awarded a flag for their efforts. After certification, schools may advance to the next level, or renew at their current level. To certify at the next level, a school chooses a new category, completes the corresponding assessment, implements a Lasting Change and verifies its impact, and takes action in the four other categories. That is where additional teams are useful.
It was interesting to note that as early as 6th grade some students begin to take active roles on teams and suggest ideas or projects rather than simply being told what to do. The key to the program is involving kids at an early age and rewarding them for their achievements. As they grow, they will remember their excitement at being rewarded and apply the lessons learned from the program to their lives even outside of school. Children are the future of sustainability, and teaching them at such a young age will move sustainability out of the "fad" category, as most people see it today, and simply make it the way things are done. It will be almost instinctual rather than a conscious effort.
The program is open to public and private schools and involves students of all ages working on "Green Teams". Teams typically consist of students and at least one faculty member and often other members of the community. Parents are allowed to participate on teams, but they are not preferred since parents are not likely to continue in the program once their children are out of school. Schools may have more than one team working toward certification in multiple categories, though faculty support is not always so readily available. Upon certification, schools are awarded a flag for their efforts. After certification, schools may advance to the next level, or renew at their current level. To certify at the next level, a school chooses a new category, completes the corresponding assessment, implements a Lasting Change and verifies its impact, and takes action in the four other categories. That is where additional teams are useful.
It was interesting to note that as early as 6th grade some students begin to take active roles on teams and suggest ideas or projects rather than simply being told what to do. The key to the program is involving kids at an early age and rewarding them for their achievements. As they grow, they will remember their excitement at being rewarded and apply the lessons learned from the program to their lives even outside of school. Children are the future of sustainability, and teaching them at such a young age will move sustainability out of the "fad" category, as most people see it today, and simply make it the way things are done. It will be almost instinctual rather than a conscious effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)