Archive for March, 2010

Preventing Green from Going Brown

Monday, March 29th, 2010

I am very excited today to have a guest post on Triple Pundit, one of my favorite web sites. For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, Triple Pundit provides really great editorial coverage and group discussions on sustainable business in the 21st century. Their goal is to cultivate awareness and understanding of the triple bottom line - how people, profit and the planet interact. I firmly believe that if we don’t take into account the impact of our actions on all three of these dimensions, we won’t be successful and this site is one of my daily must-reads.

My guest post focuses on how easily green buildings can go brown if we aren’t vigilant about what happens after the construction process. This is a subject that may not seem very important or glamorous, but about which I am passionate - just ask anyone who’s discussed it with me (whether they wanted to or not!). The Home Depot Foundation made a long-term commitment in 2007 to invest $400 million to build and rehabilitate 100,000 affordable homes, plant three million trees across the country and help cities incorporate sustainability into their policies and operations. In just three short years, the Foundation has made a great deal of progress, having built over 50,000 homes and planted over 600,000 trees in our communities. While it won’t have been wasted, we certainly won’t accomplish our long-term objectives if what we created green isn’t maintained to stay green.

The point of our investment in affordable housing is to provide working families of modest incomes with the true benefits of living in a green home - significant savings on monthly utility bills and long-term operational and maintenance expenses as well as better health. These benefits won’t be realized or will be diluted if the homes and buildings aren’t maintained properly.  This also can have a dramatic impact on the overall data collection as businesses and governments attempt to track the long-term benefits of green building.  If the data being collected isn’t really from a green building…then the information we derive from that data won’t be accurate.

This is an issue that The Home Depot Foundation will continue to emphasize and work with other organizations to develop solutions and suggestions. To see some great examples of sustainable community develop that we’ve supported, please visit our web site.

If you have made any changes to your own home in hopes of reaping the financial and health benefits of green building, I encourage you to double-check your maintenance and usage of the product. For instance, if you install a high-efficiency HVAC system, but either don’t change the filters regularly or don’t use the right ones, the system won’t perform as promised and you won’t see the savings you had hoped when you open your power bills this summer.  Homeowners can visit The Home Depot Eco Options web site for specific tips on how to make their homes more energy efficient.

I hope you’ll read my Triple Pundit guest post and let me know what you think. Any and all ideas you have about how we can maintain the value of green investments are welcome.

Practical Priorities - for Families and Cities

Monday, March 15th, 2010

I’m at the National League of Cities annual meeting in Washington. The President, Mayor Ron Loveridge from Riverside, CA, just announced our new partnership with NLC around sustainability. Together, we will be helping local leaders think about making their cities run more efficiently, and more economically, for the long term.  (To see more of the resources we’re providing cities, see our Sustainable Cities Institute website.)

Attending the conference are about 1,000 city leaders – mayors, aldermen, council members and staff – who have gathered to talk about the issues they are facing. Unfortunately, the list of issues is long and seems to grow every day. And finding solutions is particularly difficult given the budget situations cities are facing now and will continue to face for at least several more years.

Because they have so many problems that need to be addressed, it’s interesting to see what these leaders have picked to be on their focused agenda. Their four primary issues are 1) job creation, 2) strengthening and stabilizing the housing market, 3) investing in transportation infrastructure, and 4) energy efficiency and conservation. Now I know that list covers a lot of complicated ground, but those are the ones the local leaders are talking about. I found this list of particular interest because it aligns so closely with the Foundation’s focus on creating healthy affordable homes as the cornerstone of sustainable communities.  In fact, our stated vision is for all families:

  • to have healthy, efficient homes they can afford over the long-term;
  • to have access to safe, vibrant parks and greenspaces; and
  • to receive the economic, social and environmental benefits of living in a sustainable community.

I guess the similarities could be by coincidence or from lack of creativity or imagination on the part of each of our organizations. I think, and hope, that instead it’s because we each understand that these are long-term issues facing families, neighborhoods and governments across the country that need to be addressed now. And while we urgently need to find solutions, we must also think about whether these solutions will continue to work over time and whether they will cause more or different problems in the future. That is, the solutions need to be sustainable – in the broadest sense of the word. Here’s what I mean:

First and foremost, the issues are economic. We have to return our families to financial stability, which will allow our communities and governments to become stable again as well. Employment (or more accurately, unemployment) and the housing market are inextricably linked: if you don’t have a job, you can’t pay the rent or mortgage; if you don’t have a stable place to live, you aren’t going to be able to hold down a job. If you lose your job or your home, there’s a pretty good chance it’s just a matter of time before you lose the other. And we’ve sadly seen what happens to cities when their property tax and sales tax collections start decreasing as families struggle.

Second, a home has to be affordable not just to move into, but to live in as well. Once you pay the rent or mortgage, you have to have enough money left to pay the utilities as well. At this point, energy efficiency should be a given for all new homes, and everyone should be doing the best he or she can to save energy no matter how efficient or inefficient their home may be – even if that just means turning out the lights when you leave a room. The same is true for cities: they should be making their buildings operate as efficiently as possible. Otherwise, you’re just throwing money out the window or flushing it down the toilet or leaving money on the table or whatever metaphor you want to use.

Finally, place matters: the location of your home and the options you have for getting there determines where you can work and what you can do outside of work. Transportation costs have to be a factor in calculating whether a family is going to be able to live in a home. Putting environmental considerations aside, commutes that eat up a family’s budget and time aren’t smart, and they aren’t sustainable. That’s why we encourage the development of homes that are within walking distance of places where people want to be or close to mass transit and are in areas with safe, green places to relax and play.

I hope that if you look at it like that, the National League of Cities and The Home Depot Foundation don’t share the same priorities because sustainability is the hot topic of the moment or because we just happened upon them. Instead, I hope you agree that we’ve made these issues our priority because they are important and practical and they make sense for today and for the long haul.

If you’d like to learn more about The Home Depot Foundation and our initiatives to support healthy, affordable housing in sustainable communities, please visit our website.)

Confessions of a Focused Philanthropist

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

I have a confession to make:  being a focused grantmaking organization can be no fun at all.  This thought became strikingly clear to me last week when the Foundation hosted a reception for about 60 leaders of some of the most successful Atlanta-area nonprofits.  We gather this group several times a year to provide them a peer-to-peer opportunity to discuss the issues they are facing, the shared challenges, and (perhaps) find new and creative ways to partner and collaborate.

These leaders represent a broad cross-section of charitable organizations: some work in housing (the Foundation’s focus),  others in youth development, the arts,  and education, and still others work to end domestic violence, preserve historic sites  and provide legal assistance to people who couldn’t otherwise afford it.   While we don’t talk about it much,we know that each one of these organizations provides an essential piece to the puzzle that can become a livable, thriving community.  And now more than ever, each one of them is looking for - and truly needs - additional financial resources.  In the past, they were seeking donors to build new buildings or expand their services.  Today, some of them are asking for donations to keep their doors open.

These leaders represent organizations that we respect.  In this relatively small community, they are our friends.  And when your friends are in trouble, you naturally want to help.  (I believe that’s part of what defines human nature.)  Unfortunately, in the real world of limited dollars and cents, we can’t help everyone, and we certainly can’t help everyone to the extent they need.  I believe that these nonprofit organizations know it is a stretch, but it’s their jobs and they ask for additional support.  I see the disappointment when it doesn’t come.

I think that’s where the words “focused” and “disciplined” start rearing their ugly heads.  We have to decide the area in which we are going to support our communities’ organizations so we can have a real impact.  If we are “scatter shot” about our grants, we won’t be able to create a measurable difference; we won’t really help much at all.

This explanation absolutely makes sense from a rational, thoughtful point of view. I fully understand the importance of thinking strategically and ensure that we are leveraging our investments and catalyzing change.  I just can’t help thinking, though, that it would be much more emotionally satisfying  - and a lot easier - if we could stop keeping track of the budget for a while and just tell everyone “yes.”