. Contact us if you'd like to know more about what you see here.
The idea is Kiva, a micro loans portal that allows lenders from developed countries to connect with entrepreneurs from developing ones.
It’s interesting because lenders are private individuals who choose which entrepreneurs receive the loan. Projects originate locally and the web-based system removes the need for resource intensive on-the-ground administration. Lenders can develop a strong personal connection with the entrepreneur, the project and the community while entrepreneurs are given much-needed access to funds without the often prohibitive hurdles associated with securing finance.
Building on the success of micro finance in general, Kiva has ‘cut out the middle men’ while still maintaining strong accountability and lending standards (so far they have a 0.1% default rate on almost $5 million in completed loans). The one-to-one loans model draws on untapped goodwill and donations from private individuals while retaining the important benefits of local ownership and control.
They've tried it anywhere you can access the Internet - Kiva has partners all over the world.
The idea is a Clean Car Feebate, a fee and rebate scheme which promotes energy efficient cars.
It’s interesting because purchasers are either given a rebate, or charged a fee, depending on the emissions of their vehicle. People who buy cars that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide are charged one off registration fees of up to US$2500. Buyers who choose cars with low emissions (e.g. Toyota Prius) are given significant rebates.
Although not a mandate for emission reductions, feebates do encourage consumers to make particular choices that will hopefully lead to more fuel-efficient cars on the road. From an economic perspective, the use of a rebate instead of a subsidy or ‘simple’ tax is an intelligent way to stimulate demand.
They might try it in California where the Clean Car Discount Act is currently being debated in the state legislature. Feebates have also been used in Canada, Finland, France and the EU.
The idea is Bolsa Familia ('Family Fund'), an anti-poverty conditional cash transfer program that provides low-income families with a cash payment on condition that children go to school and get vaccinated.
It’s interesting because of its size (largest in the world), compliance mechanisms and efficient delivery (the idea itself is not very new). In this case, municipal governments ensure compliance while the federal government makes payments. Rechargeable debit cards are issued which makes it easy to distribute funds or suspend payment if the conditions are not met.
The success of Bolsa Familia shows that such policies can have significant practical benefits (e.g. improved school attendance).
They tried it in Brazil, other South American nations and New York.
The idea is Food Miles, a concept that promotes consumer thinking about how much energy been used to get produce from 'paddock to plate'.
It’s interesting because it exposes the often-ignored environmental costs associated with having a large range of non-seasonal and exotic produce available at local stores. The greater the number of Food Miles, the greater the distance the food has had to travel and therefore the more energy it has taken to reach your plate.
While the concept clearly promotes deeper thinking about the environmental costs associated with having a large range of food available year round, it is plagued by the difficulty of making accurate calculations. Variables that might dramatically alter the Food Miles for a particular item include the type of transport, seasonal variations and the scale of production.
They tried it in various studies around the world.
The idea is the Sky Trust, a cap-and-trade carbon emissions reduction scheme where the proceeds from the sale of carbon credits are placed into a trust.
It’s interesting because dividends from the trust are returned to each citizen in equal measure. This system compensates consumers for any price increases as a result of emission restrictions. Because the amount of compensation is equal but individual energy consumption is not, it maintains the incentive to reduce energy use as prices increase - households with low energy use could end up better off, while those which use a lot of energy may have to pay more than they have received in dividends. Because revenue from the sale of carbon credits is redistributed instead of being absorbed in government budgets, the scheme gives citizens a strong incentive to resist pressure to give 'free credits' to major emittors. In addition, the trustees have duties to the beneficiaries of the trust who are both present and future citizens, and if those obligations are not met, beneficiaries could potentially sue the trustees.
Politically, the idea recognises that the planet's carrying capacity, including it's ability to absorb CO2 emissions, is a public asset. By fostering a collective sense of ownership over the environment a Sky Trust may help individuals, organisations and governments fully appreciate the need for intergenerational environmental protection and management.
They're promoting it in the United States, where the idea has generated a fair bit of debate, including an endorsement from Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter
|
|
.